Over on TBP, it seems like the thread title represents the only two acceptable options. I do find that the opinions on sites like this one seem to represent more of the types of gamers I've actually met.

Well, I have two games in the works for publication, one that uses cards and dice in a newish way (It's actually true- the closest I've seen is an obscure game that does things a bit differently), and one that uses a seemingly baroque mechanic involving tiles (which you can easily make if you don't want the "official" ones).  It's got the "Whoah- what's that?" factor, I hope. Sort of like a German Board game if it was an RPG. It would probably come in a box with everything included.

The first game's casual, but the other one asks a lot more of the players- like a more traditional RPG, but with a few differences in philosophy.  I don't have an agenda per se, beyond making a good ruleset that can handle the kinds of settings and campaigns I like to do.

I'm not doing these games to be a douche or to be artsy, but because they actually let me make rules that do the things I need them to.  All of this is a longwinded, overtired way of saying I am not a forge-dweller, and these games are not forgelike games. They're meant to be mainstream as far as that goes in this hobby. They do the kinds of fun most gamers I know like, but they do it a bit differently, with some (hopefully) cool new twists.

My wife thinks the second one might appeal beyond that, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm not looking for an ego boost on the basis of a cagey description of two unpublished games, which would be suicidal, yet hilarious. I just had this question:

Is a strange or complicated looking game an automatic reject for you guys? I expect that there's a higher level of expectation to back up weird rules with actual fun, but is there a way to win you over if you're skeptical about "complicated mechanics", or is it a principle thing?

Complex games rock, and rock hard.

Is this true?  Check one of the following.

O Yes.
O Yes.

I promised in another thread that I'd post this and make an ass of myself, so here goes:

I'm honestly too tired to tell if you're having fun with me, or if that was serious. No worries either way, of course.

I guess my first instinct when seeing that was "well, it depends", an answer which could also apply to my OP...which might have been your intent?

If that's the real answer, then I honestly think I'm OK.

Okay, I be serious:

If a game looks fun and cool, then I don't care what the components are, so long as I can get or make them easily (or they come with).

The only worry I run into is if the game is fun partly from the novelty of the little bits.  When that's the case, it stops being fun once the novelty wears away.

The cure for this is...

*Drum Roll*

...Playtesting.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;324982...Playtesting.

Absolutely. I have a publisher who has playtesters lined up, beyond what I've been doing.

I definitely wouldn't try to carry a game on novelty. The novelty was an emergent property of the rules I needed. That's why I'm worried. I don't inherently trust novelty either.

I did run with the novelty to make the "official" design of the pieces for the second game look cool, though.

I guess my real question was not "Hay! Do you gais totally lurve my game?" So much as "What's your limit with regards to x, y, and z?"

My limits depend entirely on how successful the fiddly bits are. If they work, I'm in. I don't have a personal philosophy that requires a certain amount of this kind of thing. If it serves the game, it's gold.

Oh, and this is all totally consistent with the Forge and all it stands for. You are swine for even suggesting that you can have an RPG that's not about rolling dice to see if you cleave your foe in twain. Cards? TILES? next it'll be JENGA and NECK RAPE.

Embrace it. Your game sounds cool.

It doesn't worry me either way. But most gamers I know are too lazy to read the rules, even ten pages, forget about complicated thousand-page shit.

That's why I flogged off my GURPS books. I love it, but no-one will play it, so it's just clutter. Pointless.

Halfjack- I'm recycling one of my first posts here, but I've always wanted to do a game that used pocket lint and your mood for resolution. So if you pulled out blue lint and were feeling "coy", you'd like decapitate a troll or something.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;324994It doesn't worry me either way. But most gamers I know are too lazy to read the rules, even ten pages, forget about complicated thousand-page shit.

That's why I flogged off my GURPS books. I love it, but no-one will play it, so it's just clutter. Pointless.

Cool. The game works on a few basic principles, but it's not a "one rule for everything game" It's not GURPS level either. The complexity comes from the strategic interaction of the other rules, and the intent was that the GM should be able to come up with a good ruling that works, by applying one of the other rules to the right type of situation.

It's almost like a really simple type of alchemy. There are a set number of pieces, with properties, that combine to create effects that cover a large number of situations. You don't need a table to figure it out, but you need to remember what each of the small number of components does. If you forget, you can derive the properties from what's written on the tiles. I think it's got a steep curve, but I hope that it will become second nature, like spell effects and character abilities are. Except you can build abilities with the pieces, and tune in on the exact power you want.

...and it started as an attempt to make a game that lived up to the feelings I got from AD&D 2e.

I probably shouldn't spill much more before talking to the guy who I'm publishing with. Sorry for being a tool.

I am prepared to consider "unusal" mechanics, for instance "Fudge dice". I am not prepared to read/run a game which is very complicated either mechanically or setting-wise.

I like to run games which play fast and are easy to prep and run. All the mechanics need to provide is a quick, consistent way to resolve actions with just enough detail to differentiate one character from another. It doesn't have to be realistic or tactical and using the game's mechanics to its best effect should not be a game in it's own right ("play the character, not the system").

Ultimately the game is about the characters and stuff that happens to them. That is where the GM's attention needs to be. A good system is one that makes this easier.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;324985I guess my real question was not "Hay! Do you gais totally lurve my game?" So much as "What's your limit with regards to x, y, and z?"

I think my limit is rather arbitrary* pub test. If i think I can take your game down the pub and play it with no real hassle, it's within the limits of RPGs I am prepared to play on a regular basis.



*Its arbitrary because I don't often play in pubs, and the last thing I did play in a Pup was the Arkham Horror board game, which clearly fails the test.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;324976Is a strange or complicated looking game an automatic reject for you guys? I expect that there's a higher level of expectation to back up weird rules with actual fun, but is there a way to win you over if you're skeptical about "complicated mechanics", or is it a principle thing?

Yes, it pretty much is. I find such things to be 'gimmicky' and quickly tiresome. I am extremely turned off at the new Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game because it is using bizzarre custom dice.

Games like this can be fun for a one or two shot, but I like long campaigns and I like doing it with regular dice. There's something to be said about actually tossing a die or two that adds to the enjoyment.

There is no backing up weird rules with actual fun. Weird rules aren't fun, they're a temporary gimmick. Maybe your games will be the exeption to the rule, maybe you're gimmicks will be highly entertaining and fulfilling over the long term. History of many other games before yours suggests otherwise.

Not trying to dismiss your efforts, just giving my opinion of offbeat rules and mechanics.

There are two ways to approach this.  From a design perspective, you should absolutely do what is best for achieving the kind of gameplay you are after.  If tiles work better than cards or dice, use tiles.  Questioning traditional assumptions is healthy.  Novelty for its own sake is not - before going down that road make damn sure you can't do it just as well with dice or cards.

From a production and marketing perspective, remember that people incorporate cards and dice for a reason - they are ubiquitous, they are readily understood, they are very good at what they do.  As you've said, using something different means you are obligated to provide the tiles (an added cost) or force your players to make them (a burden on someone you really want to have goodwill toward you).  I publish a game that ships with custom cards and another that ships as just a book, and the difference in handling printing and fulfillment is noteworthy.

I'm with Soylent Green on this. I've no objection to alternatives to dice-rolling in principle, but I dislike very complicated mechanics or lots of rules. Basic D&D will do for me. I'm from a wargaming background, but was introduced through Featherstone's rules and homebrew rulesets, often with an umpire adjudicating, so rule-light is my preferred option.