Ron Edwards is the one who came up with the term, which he defined as what happens when someone tries to do better than TSR did with D&D. At least that's my reading of his essay. To this day there are those who insist that "Fantasy Heartbreaker" can only review to what Edwards was referring to, and refuse to allow for changes.

That's the thing about languages, they change. Usage changes, and so meaning changes. When you get right down to it, Ron's original usage of "Fantasy Heartbreaker" could just as resonably be applied to games other than Dungeons & Dragons.

That, for example, the RPG Fifth Cycle. Because Fifth Cycle uses many of the mechanics, many of the rules, and a few of the tropes of the RPG Dragonquest. You could say, with a fair amount of justification, that Fifth Cycle is a Dragonquest heartbreaker insofar as Fifth Cycle tries to be a better Dragonquest than Dragonquest

What is an RPG heartbreaker? In this case a heartbreaker can be said to be an RPG that tries to be better at what X does than X does. Very often with no idea of what X is trying to do, or even when a designer understands X, with no real understanding of how to better X. Much of the time the designer of the new game has no real vision for what he wants his game to be. Or if he has a vision, how to share that vision effectively with his readers and players.

Fifth Cycle has a vision, it's about a world where a new world has recently been discovered, and adventuring parties are being hired to go explore, discover, and bring home loot. It even has a mechanism whereby the adventurers can be licensed to go to the new world; giving them official status, backing, and a contact they can deal with. Unfortunately, it's kinda blah.

X heartbreakers are often derivative, imitative. Fifth Cycle imitates Dragonquest, but without the sense of "Hey, this is cool." Often this is a matter of perception, but sometimes it can be directly observed. (As an example take F.A.T.A.L., a DND heartbreaker. I tried to read F.A.T.A.L once and discovered that the writing was about as engaging as the U.S. tax code.)

You get right down to it, all too often a heartbreaker gives you do reason to play it.

Then you have the matter of organization. An RPG is really one place where you really want to organize your thoughts. At least decide on where things logically go. What slot does it fit under? Does it fit better in another slot? If you spend more time flipping pages than you do reading rules, then the author did it wrong. In short, outline.

That's what I've got for now. Responses?

'Heart breaker' is just an insult -- a way to call a game derivative, and uninteresting in a weirdly emotional way (I can't imagine having my heart broken by a game).

My recommendation is that if someone makes a game you don't think is particularly distinguished that you say that, and leave the hyperbole out.

In practice, derivative games are often successful in the marketplace and copying a successful property is likely a better bet than doing something new, so I'd advise game designers not to worry about breaking anyone's heart and just make the game they want to play, even if it's just a lot like D&D.

They should just be careful to call it "old school."

Cheers,
-E.

Whatever you call it, I find a difference in quality between this or that *-derivative game. In the second of the two original heartbreaker essays, Edwards decides that it's the game content more than the mechanics which should be emphasized. On the phrasing of this point, I find myself agreeing, even if he or his partisans would go on to label something a "heartbreaker" which I personally like.

Just recently I came across a game called Crossroads of Eternity. I think this is the web page for the game in its decrepitude. The rules are...whatever; they didn't seem too strongly derivative of D&D mechanics except in the most general sense.

But the implied game world is: humans, dwarves, elves, orcs...and centaurs and catmen and minotaurs...and nosferatu and vampyres. Then there are the "trades", pretty much the standard bunch of D&D classes, including clerics and rangers, plus another smattering of stuff the authors thought was cool.

This stew clearly needs to simmer longer.

The trick is to articulate why CoE didn't grab me in the store, while Palladium Fantasy, Shades of Fantasy, or Dragon Warriors, all of which are more clearly D&D-derived mechanically, do. I don't think it's just the art or the fact that PF and DW are older. It's something to do with vision and inspiration; you might be able to quantify the "cooked-ness" of these latter games by comparing the breadth of classes and races. I'd say, especially, if a game has a "cleric" class (not "priest", but "cleric" with the same overall concept as in D&D), that's a pretty big giveaway, but it's only one point of comparison.

In fact, one thing that might be overlooked is that regardless of what you think of the D&D mechanics, the detail and flavor of the implied game-world (not to mention some settings) have a lot going for them. Of course D&D has clerics and (usually) rangers, but it doesn't just have those things.

Quote from: -E.;607928'Heart breaker' is just an insult -- a way to call a game derivative, and uninteresting in a weirdly emotional way (I can't imagine having my heart broken by a game).
-E.

No, it isn't. There are some -- OK, *many* -- who misunderstood Ron's essay use the term as an insult. But where people screw up is in thinking that "heartbreaker" refers to the contents of the game. It doesn't. Ron just happened to be talking about D&D and its derivatives because (1) there's a whole lot of D&D around, and (2) Ron hates D&D. But he could have been talking about any other genre.

What makes a game a heartbreaker is the fact that someone worked really hard and spent a lot of money (back when Lulu wasn't an option) to publish their own game, which was then mostly ignored because it's just D&D with a spell-point system and armor that reduces damage. They could have *not* spent that money and just circulated a free set of modified D&D rules, or published just the spell-point system or armor system as a supplement "for any fantasy game", or did a complete, separate game like Tunnels & Trolls, The Fantasy Trip, or Runequest. Other people did these things, and some got recognition; the authors of fantasy heartbreakers wanted recognition, and all they got was debt. And heartbreak.

Waaah, waaah, someone called my favorite game a heartbreaker.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;607948This stew clearly needs to simmer longer.

THIS is how I view Ron's thoughts on Fantasy Heartbreakers. A true heart breaker is different than a crappy RPG. A heart breaker is a game that has a bunch of cool ideas, but falls into the trap of being "D&D+X" instead of developing its own identity. It's an "almost good" game.

Palladium Fantasy is the perfect example of dodging that trap. It is clearly (D&D + RQ)/2 from a mechanical sense, but Kevin Siembieda infused the races, classes and setting with his own sense of Wahoo! Wabango!!! that elevates PF beyond what could have been yet another Fantasy Heartbreaker of the early 80s.

AKA, Babylon 5 and Deep Space 9 are both scifi shows with fantasy fluff that take place on space stations with interstellar wars BUT each show has enough "bits" that allowed fans to gravitate to either (or both) as unique-enough IPs to be enjoyed.

Quote from: talysman;607949No, it isn't. There are some -- OK, *many* -- who misunderstood Ron's essay use the term as an insult. But where people screw up is in thinking that "heartbreaker" refers to the contents of the game. It doesn't. Ron just happened to be talking about D&D and its derivatives because (1) there's a whole lot of D&D around, and (2) Ron hates D&D. But he could have been talking about any other genre.

What makes a game a heartbreaker is the fact that someone worked really hard and spent a lot of money (back when Lulu wasn't an option) to publish their own game, which was then mostly ignored because it's just D&D with a spell-point system and armor that reduces damage. They could have *not* spent that money and just circulated a free set of modified D&D rules, or published just the spell-point system or armor system as a supplement "for any fantasy game", or did a complete, separate game like Tunnels & Trolls, The Fantasy Trip, or Runequest. Other people did these things, and some got recognition; the authors of fantasy heartbreakers wanted recognition, and all they got was debt. And heartbreak.

Yes, it's an insult.

Read the essay again: the game is a "heartbreaker" because it was -- and I quote "doomed from the start."


He's not saying that a game broke his heart because it failed in the marketplace (in which case virtually all RPGs ever published are 'heartbreakers') -- he's saying it's broke his heart because there's no market for derivative games and because derivative games

* Don't demonstrate an appreciation of all the 'advances' in RPGs (uh huh)
* Don't demonstrate an appreciation of something he calls "actual fantasy" (eh?)
* Don't have more original mechanics (so what?)
* Don't demonstrate business acumen (this from the guy who went to Germany to launch Spion, or whatever it was)

This is all laughable.

Firstly, many highly derivative games were *not* doomed from the start, and secondly many games that are original, full of "advances" and so-on fail.

I'm all for calling games derivative, but if someone tells you that the creative efforts of another person broke their heart because the guy didn't know as much about "actual fantasy" as the critic thinks he should, I recommend pointing and laughing.

Cheers,
-E.

Heartbreaker: An RPG derivative of an earlier work that is uninspired and/or incompetent. Usually produced by those who do not understand, or appreciate, the original game; do not understand, or appreciate, RPG design;  do not understand, or appreciate, how to organize an RPG, or even how to format an outline; and either has no comprehension of the language he is writing in, or, indeed, any clue as to how to communicate.

Heartbreakers are often poorly written, poorly organized, include material that distract from learning and running the game, and very often mechanics that are excessively complicated and rules that explain those mechanics poorly.

There are heartbreakers for a number of RPGs, not just Dungeons & Dragons. With very few exceptions they fail on the market.

Quote from: -E.;607956I'm all for calling games derivative, but if someone tells you that the creative efforts of another person broke their heart because the guy didn't know as much about "actual fantasy" as the critic thinks he should, I recommend pointing and laughing.

Indeed; here, here.

Quote from: -E.;607956I'm all for calling games derivative, but if someone tells you that the creative efforts of another person broke their heart because the guy didn't know as much about "actual fantasy" as the critic thinks he should, I recommend pointing and laughing.

If she wants vampires that sparkle, then her vampires sparkle.

It's funny that Edwards was so dismissive of D&D variants, because some of the hippest indie RPGs these days - 13th Age, Dungeon World - are "fantasy heartbreakers". Not to mention games like the Fantasy Craft, the DCC RPG, and Hackmaster. They bring a lot to the table in terms of playing with and highlighting what makes D&D fun. I could do without the narrative mechanics, but there's a lot of useful ideas and love for the genre in these games.

Whether used whole cloth or plundered for a homebrew system, the variety of takes on D&D are a nice resource for DMs. And the funny thing is, most of these variants will still get bought more and played more than Sorceror, or whatever  academic wank Edwards is trying to hawk these days.

Quote from: Haffrung;608126It's funny that Edwards was so dismissive of D&D variants, because some of the hippest indie RPGs these days - 13th Age, Dungeon World - are "fantasy heartbreakers". Not to mention games like the Fantasy Craft, the DCC RPG, and Hackmaster. They bring a lot to the table in terms of playing with and highlighting what makes D&D fun. I could do without the narrative mechanics, but there's a lot of useful ideas and love for the genre in these games.

None of those games are heartbreakers.

The key part of the heartbreaker thing is that a) the designer has some cool ideas and is trying to do something different but b) they are drowned in a sea of unconscious and unthinking D&D-isms due to ignorance of what else is out there (eg, thinking that going classless or having armour absorb damage is an innovation despite Runequest, WFRP, etc).

OSRIC-style games are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to improve and polish the basic D&D chassis. They want to be 'D&D, but with X'.

13th Age and Dungeon World are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to use new sorts of system design to revisit the basic D&D tropes in a different way. They're new takes on an existing genre, not thoughtless retreads of the same old stuff.

Quote from: mythusmage;607958Heartbreaker: An RPG derivative of an earlier work that is uninspired and/or incompetent. Usually produced by those who do not understand, or appreciate, the original game; do not understand, or appreciate, RPG design;  do not understand, or appreciate, how to organize an RPG, or even how to format an outline; and either has no comprehension of the language he is writing in, or, indeed, any clue as to how to communicate.

Heartbreakers are often poorly written, poorly organized, include material that distract from learning and running the game, and very often mechanics that are excessively complicated and rules that explain those mechanics poorly.

There are heartbreakers for a number of RPGs, not just Dungeons & Dragons. With very few exceptions they fail on the market.

Say, have you followed what's been going on with Vampire: Undeath?

Quote from: soviet;608148None of those games are heartbreakers.

The key part of the heartbreaker thing is that a) the designer has some cool ideas and is trying to do something different but b) they are drowned in a sea of unconscious and unthinking D&D-isms due to ignorance of what else is out there (eg, thinking that going classless or having armour absorb damage is an innovation despite Runequest, WFRP, etc).

OSRIC-style games are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to improve and polish the basic D&D chassis. They want to be 'D&D, but with X'.

13th Age and Dungeon World are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to use new sorts of system design to revisit the basic D&D tropes in a different way. They're new takes on an existing genre, not thoughtless retreads of the same old stuff.

Sorry, I don't see the distinction. They're all the author's personal take on the D&D genre. Unconscious or conscious is irrelevant. One man's homage is another man's retread.

Sounds like an entirely subjective judgement that only bad games that mimic D&D are heartbreakers.

Quote from: Haffrung;608206Sorry, I don't see the distinction. They're all the author's personal take on the D&D genre. Unconscious or conscious is irrelevant. One man's homage is another man's retread.

Sounds like an entirely subjective judgement that only bad games that mimic D&D are heartbreakers.

Exactly. You can see that it's just another way of saying "I didn't like this game" by all the contortions and excuses -- derivative games I like aren't heartbreakers, but ones I don't weren't deriving "consciously" (automatic writing?) and their derivation was "unthinking" (meaning approximately nothing)

It's another example of  lingo to try to turn someone's opinion and idiosyncratic preference into some kind of objective value judgement.

Made all the more ridiculous because of the melodrama and the idea that "making a game I don't like" is some kind of objectively bad marketing decision (the analyst is "heartbroken" because of all the wasted effort! Oh, woe! Woe!).

As a criticism, it's not to be taken seriously.

Cheers,
-E.