Avoiding splatbook fatigue.

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Avoiding splatbook fatigue.

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

First of all, any dipshit saying that 'if you want to avoid printing lame filler material, don't print anything' or the equivalent can go fuck themselves and amuse themselves with some kiddy game like Monopoly or Tic-Tac-Toe. Aside from being defeatist and lazy, it's not profitable nor is it good for the long-term health of the game. I agree that you'll hit saturation on books in a finite amount of time, but getting all fraidy-cat and pulling the plug years ahead of time is for idiots.

Now with that out of the way, let's talk about how to avoid splatbook fatigue. I think that it's inevitable but there have been a lot of events that games (D&D especially, which we will use as a case study) that push up the timetable. If you want to make the product last as long as possible, you need to do these things:
  • Avoid putting filler material in actual books. What do I call filler material? Anything that no one can be reasonably expected to use or want but increases word count anyway. Song and Silence and Draconomicon (all editions) are perfect filler books. If you absolutely have to have filler in the game, save that shit for Dragon and Dungeon content. Even when 4E was pumping out material like crazy fans were still starved for content, even crappy content. People feel cheated getting filler all in a block such as in a book, but not doled out to tide them over.
  • For God's sake, if you had something that appeared in a playtest that people complained about, fix it in the goddamn book. Few things frustrate people more than game designers pretending to want input and then discarding it.
  • If you're introducing a new subsystem or a revision to a core system, you have exactly one chance to fix it. If you fuck this up, leave it fucked up. Additional fixes, even if they do fix the problem, only reduce the audiences' faith in you and confuses people.
  • Unless the material is blatantly gamebreaking, don't publish errata for material for stuff that has recently come out in a book. It pisses people off and makes them feel like the rug was pulled from under them and causes them to lose faith in published material. If you issue errata at all, wait for at least two years so that people will be focused on the shiny new stuff and to avoid halting sales of the material in its tracks.
  • In fact you want to avoid errata for as much as possible anyway, but I already made a thread about that. Moving on.
  • Splatbooks should have a little something for everyone or at least most of everyone. Books like Martial Power 2 and Complete Mage are horrible, awful ideas because it limits your audience. Granted you want to have enough material so that people don't just skim and go 'oh, nothing I want' but whenever you publish any book the first question you should ask is 'how do I get Joe Blow newbie to buy this book?'
  • If you release campaign setting books, do it at the beginning of the edition. Campaign settings have a much harder time breaking in the longer you wait because games have settled down by that.
  • The further you go into the edition, the more you'll have to pad the book with artwork and comics. Coming up with good ideas for pictures is easier than good game mechanics and you'll have likely tapped the well long before that.
  • I hate to be this cynical, but you need to plan for an edition revision somehwere in the lifespan of your product. 4E Essentials came too early and changed too much stuff (while simultaneously not shaking up peoples' old positions) but 3.5E was just perfect naked grab for money that it was. Assuming a planned lifespan of 8 years, you should plan for a revision at the four year mark. This will also give you enough time to gather up all of the complaints and fix them.
I have more than that but that should be enough to get this party started.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

Splatbooks should have a little something for everyone or at least most of everyone. Books like Martial Power 2 and Complete Mage are horrible, awful ideas because it limits your audience. Granted you want to have enough material so that people don't just skim and go 'oh, nothing I want' but whenever you publish any book the first question you should ask is 'how do I get Joe Blow newbie to buy this book?'
I dunno about this. Most of the time, you're looking at one copy of a splat book per gaming group.

Having "the big book of magic" or "the big book of whack-bonk" isn't a bad thing... it'll almost be a certainty to sell to a group. Especially if the content is decent.

If your book has two things each that four different players may potentially want, each of those players may pass on the value of the book, even if it ends up being more value to the group.

Besides, you have to theme your splatbooks somewhat. Having "Compendium of Random Shit 6" isn't going to be appealing.

If you really want to sell two copies per gaming group, include tasty plot hooks and tools for the DM. In Warhammer Fantasy, you buy the priest splat book, you get the rules and tools for Nurgle & rot demons. Magic gets you another chaos god ruleset. Same for the martial book. I bought all three, even if the PC stuff may or may not be useful. The DM stuff is *very* useful though.
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

I don't have an issue with divvying splatbooks up along martial / arcane / divine lines - but I still agree with Lago that each book should have something for everyone (or at least all of the core classes). The wizard should be able to grab feats out of the martial book which make it safer for him to cast in melee or allow interesting things with weaponlike spells; there could be things like alternate holy familiars for wizards or wizard specializing in domain-type holy order of Athena spells instead of Abjuration in the divine book. The sword guy should be able to pick up mage slayer or shields of spell turning out of the arcane book and he ought to be able to pick up Fiend slayer feats from the divine book. The paladin ought to be able to benefit from either a few of the sword-centric feats of the martial book or the alternate spellcasting options primarily for wizards in the arcane book.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Re: Avoiding splatbook fatigue.

Post by fectin »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
  • Avoid putting filler material in actual books. What do I call filler material? Anything that no one can be reasonably expected to use or want but increases word count anyway. Song and Silence and Draconomicon (all editions) are perfect filler books. If you absolutely have to have filler in the game, save that shit for Dragon and Dungeon content. Even when 4E was pumping out material like crazy fans were still starved for content, even crappy content. People feel cheated getting filler all in a block such as in a book, but not doled out to tide them over.
I'm actually fine with filler material, but pretty much only in coffee-table books. If you print something nice enough that it's even borderline worth owning independent of whether you play the game, it can have as much filler as you want.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

Worthless splats should be at least 50% timeless pretty art.
New and old players both love fancy pictures.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Avoiding splatbook fatigue.

Post by hogarth »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Avoid putting filler material in actual books.
Also, Hollywood should stop making bad movies and Israelis and Palestinians should stop fighting each other. That's three problems solved!
User avatar
wotmaniac
Knight-Baron
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:40 am
Location: my house

Post by wotmaniac »

I think that the biggest problem here goes back to the age-old adage of "one man's trash is another man's treasure".
How do you make that distinction?
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban

"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"

TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.

Public Service Announcement
User avatar
Dean
Duke
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 3:14 am

Post by Dean »

Easy. Is it a bunch of using fucking fluff about something you are talking about for literally no reason than to jam a metric asston of words into the last 3rd of a "complete whatever" book? Then it's filler. Because it was conceived as filler, it was produced as filler and it is on every level filler. Look at any DnD supplement and look approximately 30 pages from the back. Every part of your being will be fully aware that that shit is white noise.
Last edited by Dean on Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

The problem is that Hollywood pumping out B-movies and grindhouse cheese doesn't (in the short term anyway) hurt their sales of the good product because their product is really versatile and touches a much larger audience.

TTRPGs pumping out filler books doesn't just guarantee bad sales of the product but also hurts quality product down the line. Gamebook saturation is a continuum and going further down it hurts otherwise profitable books. Hollywood pumping out loads of crap movies doesn't really hurt their bottom line as long as the crap makes a profit, but TTRPG writers pumping out crap product does hurt them in the reasonably short term--even if the crap ends up making a profit.

Magic of Faerun was probably the most damaging book in terms of sales to 3rd Edition D&D because it marked a permanent shift from 'allow pretty much any material that WotC prints out except for some unthematic things' to 'the DM has to line-item veto everything'. Filler product doesn't hurt the gameline quite as much as overpowered product, but the aggregate effect is the same.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

deanruel87 wrote:Easy. Is it a bunch of using fucking fluff about something you are talking about for literally no reason than to jam a metric asston of words into the last 3rd of a "complete whatever" book? Then it's filler.
As I've noted on several occasions, it's one thing to say "I want a book with no fluff" and it's another to say "I want a book where the fluff is replaced by crunch". If you think that a 256-page book of all crunch takes the same amount of time and effort to write as a book with 128 pages of crunch + 128 pages of fluff, you're wrong.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The thing is: putting out a new book that is half fluff or even three quarters fluff is fine, because people actually like that as long as long as the fluff is decently good, it advanced the plot, and the crunch was usable. I mean fucking fuck: people liked the oWoD Clan Books (some of them at least), and they were literally 90% fluff.

People don't like shit like Song & Silence because it is shit. People don't like books like the nWoD Clanbooks because they don't go anywhere: a complete like of overall plot makes the fluff completely pointless to read, which turns all of it into dirty looking white space that fills up the book.

While I was hanging out in California for a bit, I checked out what Magic: the Gathering was up to right now. And you know what? They have this problem totally licked. They leave out fluff teasers that people actually read and the crunch they produce keeps players interested enough that they keep throwing money at it. And they still make outright "coasters" (cards you would not ever put in a deck if you had a choice), but they are few enough in number that the sets are desirable to the customer base.

The biggest issue of course is the two year playtesting cycle that they do for Magic sets. It takes a long start up, but playtesting isn't that expensive. Once you have the ball rolling, things can just have a playtesting cycle like that. If D&D was run like Magic, most of the things I complain about D&D books would not be true. Fuck, at this point Magic the Gathering is more D&D than 4e D&D is. They could do a lot worse than just firing all their D&D writers and having the M:tG make a Magic RPG with the D&D logo on it.

-Username17
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

FrankTrollman wrote:The thing is: putting out a new book that is half fluff or even three quarters fluff is fine, because people actually like that as long as long as the fluff is decently good, it advanced the plot, and the crunch was usable.

[..]

The biggest issue of course is the two year playtesting cycle that they do for Magic sets.
Maybe I'm confused, but are you suggesting that writers should playtest fluff? For two years?
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

hogarth wrote: Maybe I'm confused, but are you suggesting that writers should playtest fluff? For two years?
That sounds like you're pretty confused. I'm saying that if the crunch is tighter and things hold together well, that the players are much more accepting of fluff than if they are for sets where the crunch is slapdash. Of course, a long development cycle is a huge advantage for the fluff of course, because it means you can foreshadow things, but that's not why you do it. You do it because if you can get the new subsystems firing on all cylinders when they are first released, people won't feel bad about getting fluff with their crunch.

But foreshadowing is actually quite important. Imagine the difference between how the Book of Nine Swords and Incarnum and Tome of Magic were received and how they would have been received if the various martial adepts and soulborn and truenamers had been mentioned in the fluff text of books released years earlier. Getting people psyched up for future releases is a major job that fluff text has for Magic, but it also did that in OWoD and Shadowrun. If something is in the development pipeline and hasn't been playtestedor edited yet, you can still mention it in fluff text for books coming out now. That gets even gearhead players reading the fluff text and it also eases the introduction of new subsystems and character types by getting people actually asking for them before the book drops.

-Username17
User avatar
shadzar
Prince
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Post by shadzar »

I agree with Kuntz that premade adventures and such should have never been, but i dont include splats in that...

i liked the brown books, as unplaytested as they were, because they gave ideas for DMs and players...IDEAS, not rules.

to pr4event from fatigue is to first make sure that everyone understands, there is not such thing as RAW.

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual

None of these books have the word "rules" in their titles, for a, should be obvious, reason. They arent rules, but general guidelines.

The thing then to do with supplemental material is continue the guidelines with more types of things that dont diverge greatly upon what the foundation is.

Newer versions of the game, with the newest a best example/worst case scenario, rely to heavily on a uniform system for everything. This is well and good to a fault. That fault being that everything gets stuck in that uniformity, and inability to step outside for something else to try.

AD&D may have had separate systems for many things, but since they were separate, they didnt bother each other when you added a new one for something special, or took away an existing one you didnt like, if it wasnt part of the "core".

splats need to be able to give extra material and inspiration, the problem of which it already exists or has been done before...

so they need to try something different.

like the difference between adventures and settings, is the main game and the splats. the splats should enhance, but not detract from the main core of the game, like an adventure should enhance, not detract from the setting,
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

Yeah, you're really shooting your product in the foot whenever you introduce a new fluffy book and essentially say "It's been like this the whole time" with minimal warning. At best it is grating but only affects minor details but at worst it can force you to choose between taking a hacksaw to the new material or retconning your character histories. Shadowrun, for example, ran headlong into that problem with the publishing of Emergence, a book which is essentially about the great technomancer scare of 2070. Now, there's definitely some plothook potential to such an idea, but the problem is that the corebook featured technomancer crunch but failed to mention technomancer fluff about being feared pariahs who should probably feign being normal hackers for their own safety.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Some other caveats to avoid splatbook fatigue:
  • People will enthusiastically playtest your product for free if you give them enough advance notice. Pumping out a playtest version of Bladesinger or whatever the fuck three months before you release it for real is a bad idea, but a year in advance is not. I'm not saying don't have preview material, but FFS don't confuse 'preview' with 'playtest' like 4E repeatedly did. It makes people angry when problems with the playtest aren't corrected and it's pretty much inevitable if you make the deadline too close.
  • If you want to have errata of the non-gamebreaking but still troublesome sort, save it for the revision.
  • If you have your back up against the wall for crunch ideas, one idea that is always popular is boosting underpowered material. The 4E Warlock has received quite a few upgrades over the lifecycle such that if you cheese one out to the maximum extent they're only barely behind a cheesed-out rogue, which is a huge amount of power creep. But this kind of power creep is popular, because 'fixed an underperforming class' is a great talking point.
  • If you want to introduce new 'general' PC races, save it for a new campaign setting. Introducing them at any other time creates race bloat (even if you only have one or two) and makes people feel sad. This includes monster manuals and player handbook sequels. Races are a really strange beast; people can accept magical items, classes, and even countries appearing wholesale out of thin air, but PC races are a hell of a lot harder to swallow.
  • Advance the metaplot for your campaign settings. Seriously. I don't know how much longer the 3E Forgotten Realm splat line would've lasted, but I'm sure it would've lasted a lot longer if they, you know, advanced the plot.
  • You want to have sex appeal for the game but the problem is making it too sexy. The trick I feel is to start at a modest level in the core rulebooks and slowly ramp it up over time. This is just an assumption on my part but children are simply less likely to hop into a massive product library line than a small one (like for boxed sets and core books). This allows you to more safely pander to an insular, 'adult', nerdly audience.
  • As the game enters its twilight years (6-7 years in) you'll want to start releasing compendiums of previously collected 'best hits' stuff. The Spell Compendium was a book of pure genius and I can't imagine why you couldn't apply this to other expansion options; the Monster Manuals require a different approach (this should not be reprints of stuff in other Monster Manuals, but fan-submission, campaign-setting specific, and Dragon/Dungeon stuff) but you can just compress old material into one easy-to-get book and as long as you're far along enough in the edition people will THANK you for it.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The thing to understand is that Role Playing series are confronted with "types" of collectors just as Magic cards are. However, unlike Magic, the inmates running the asylum don't seem to be aware of that and make no real effort to reach out to the different groups. The Magic people have thought about it a lot, and they made the categories of Timmies, Johnnies, Spikes, and Vorthoses. And that's actually a pretty solid way to think about the player base, it's not even especially condescending at this point (the original version was, but Magic has really matured from a design standpoint in the last two decades).

What is probably the most important difference to consider is the fact that with RPGs the people playing your game and the people buying your game are overlapping but distinct sets. And despite how infuriating that must be for the company, you actually have to cater to both. The people who borrow books and learn how to play that way don't make you any money because they aren't buying books. But they are important to have around. They increase the number of gaming tables, which makes buying your books more attractive, and some of them grow into people who do buy your books. But, and this is important, they will only make the jump from people who borrow the books to make characters to people who buy books and own them if they can see a reason to own those books.

The rough equivalents to the Spikes and Johnnies and shit for RPGs are that there are people who buy the books because they want to explore the world you are presenting, people who want to get rules for their characters to use against team monster, and people who want ideas to put into worlds and scenarios you are creating. Many people are motivated by two or three of those. And yes, there are people who will buy your books on literary or collector merit who don't play the game. Those people have comparable motivations to the people who do: some of them are attracted to the idea of the story world you are presenting, others are looking for game mechanical ideas that they can scavenge for their homebrews, and so on.

The takehome message is that you have to design your books so that people who might want to buy a book will actually do so. A good example of how to not do that is a book like Martial Power 2. I honestly don't give a fuck about the story material in it, because the 4e people are up front and explicit about it not mattering in the slightest for anything. Which leaves just the character options. But those options are explicitly geared towards a small number of player characters, and in any case they aren't something you would ever care about having access to at the table or reading in your leisure time. It's actually better in a pdf format because literally all you're going to do with it is to search it for the powers you want and then print out a power or two.
Lago wrote:If you want to introduce new 'general' PC races, save it for a new campaign setting. Introducing them at any other time creates race bloat (even if you only have one or two) and makes people feel sad. This includes monster manuals and player handbook sequels. Races are a really strange beast; people can accept magical items, classes, and even countries appearing wholesale out of thin air, but PC races are a hell of a lot harder to swallow.
This is completely wrong. People loved the Gith. The key is that when you bust out a new piece of material, you have to produce sufficient metaplot to bring it into the game. And for a new magic item or sword technique, the metaplot requirements are essentially nothing. And for a kingdom or race, the metaplot requirements are higher.

-Username17
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

FrankTrollman wrote:This is completely wrong. People loved the Gith. The key is that when you bust out a new piece of material, you have to produce sufficient metaplot to bring it into the game. And for a new magic item or sword technique, the metaplot requirements are essentially nothing. And for a kingdom or race, the metaplot requirements are higher.
People love the gith in large part because of nostalgia, just like the beholder. Those creatures didn't have eleventy jillion other similar creatures to compete with, like the creatures from the 3.5E Monster Manual III. Seriously, I couldn't name you a single creature from Monster Manual III, but I could probably name 50% of the creatures from the AD&D Fiend Folio by heart; that's not because the Fiend Folio creatures are all awesome and the MM3 creatures are all stupid.
Wesley Street
Knight
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Post by Wesley Street »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:People will enthusiastically playtest your product for free if you give them enough advance notice.
No. No they will not. Players will say that they want to play test because it feels like it gives them an "in" with the process. But when it comes to documenting actual bugs in the system, it's a real pain in the ass. It's work. And they fall through.

Play-testing is best done by a paid pool of players with something resembling an interest in math. Otherwise the feedback you receive falls along the lines of "process X wasn't fun" which you should only be receiving during core game production, not splatbook development. By the time splatbook creation comes along, the fun-ness factor should have already been accounted for.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:You want to have sex appeal for the game but the problem is making it too sexy.
I don't need big honking titties in the books I want to take to after-school games club. D&D's current art level is adequately interesting and visually appealing without being scandal-inducing.
Last edited by Wesley Street on Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
Knight
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am

Post by Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp »

Complete Mage was actually one of the better 3.5 supplements, releasing a lot of content that people actually used and building on the concept off buff spells that could be dismissed to launch attacks.
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:You want to have sex appeal for the game but the problem is making it too sexy.
Tasteful sexiness is completely doable. It's not even hard at all.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:Complete Mage was actually one of the better 3.5 supplements, releasing a lot of content that people actually used and building on the concept off buff spells that could be dismissed to launch attacks.
He didn't say it's an awful book because it had poor content, he said it's an awful idea for a book because some people rarely play mages and hence won't buy it.

I'm ambivalent on the issue. There have been some multi-topic books that I've quite liked (3.5 Unearthed Arcana, Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide) and some that have left me somewhat cold (3.5 PHB 2).
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Wesley Street wrote: Play-testing is best done by a paid pool of players with something resembling an interest in math. Otherwise the feedback you receive falls along the lines of "process X wasn't fun" which you should only be receiving during core game production, not splatbook development. By the time splatbook creation comes along, the fun-ness factor should have already been accounted for.
Eh, depends on the size of the game. On the 4E Character Optimization boards, back before the game started to dwindle, people used to run round-by-round playtests of heavily optimized characters and compare them to the 'average'. In fact I think there is still an ongoing project to playtest them. That kind of feedback is valuable--of course since in both cases they're playtesting stuff that was out for over a year (or more) you probably need to give some incentive to steer them in the right direction. But that shouldn't be too hard, people like to stamp their name onto products.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
the_taken
Knight-Baron
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lost in the Sea of Awesome

Post by the_taken »

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:You want to have sex appeal for the game but the problem is making it too sexy.
Tasteful sexiness is completely doable. It's not even hard at all.
For females, stick to the 40% Rule. I don't know what the equivalent is for men, but I think well kept facial hair and a modest combination of fat, muscle, and bling are important.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... lemma.html

http://classnfab.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-40-rule/
I had a signature here once but I've since lost it.

My current project: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56456
Wesley Street
Knight
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Post by Wesley Street »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:On the 4E Character Optimization boards, back before the game started to dwindle, people used to run round-by-round playtests of heavily optimized characters and compare them to the 'average'. In fact I think there is still an ongoing project to playtest them. That kind of feedback is valuable--of course since in both cases they're playtesting stuff that was out for over a year (or more) you probably need to give some incentive to steer them in the right direction. But that shouldn't be too hard, people like to stamp their name onto products.
If the incentive isn't cash and a contract with penalty clauses it's hard to keep the average nerd engaged in the process, even if they get their name in the colophon. Your example shows an interesting method for gathering data but it's also an example of a group of people playing casual mathematician in their free time. Throw a deadline into the mix and people are suddenly too busy or the dog gets sick. Keeping a group of volunteers on task is a pain; keeping a group of nerd volunteers, who have a natural predilection to doing things their own way, is almost impossible. I speak from experience.

I like to make maps and discuss fantasy architecture and cartography but there's no way I'm investing significant amounts of time into creating a battle map without some sort of compensation. I might do a couple for free but if I don't have regular compensation the project will get back-burnered by life (something more fun).
Post Reply