This is going to be a fairly long and in depth entry, if you have the fortitude to read the whole thing then I deeply appreciate any feedback you would be willing to offer.
So then, I have recently run into a bit of trouble in the design stage of a product. What I have encountered has become deeply troubling as it has essentially "stonewalled" me from continuing on what was previously a very exciting design. This stagnation and failure to progress further is what I find troubling and the real root of this post.
The Design Goal.
The original design goal was to create a hybrid product that was advanced enough to evolve over time but still mundane enough to ensure a "fast and fun" approach to game play. Please allow me to explain. Below are the products highlights as I feel these fundamentals best explain the product and elude to the problem.
• A core "system" on the order of D20 products or Palladium products. While my core system is markedly smaller the concept here is still solid.
• The core system would allow for adaptation of future products because of its "malleable" core. By ensure that the "engine" or "core" of the game is adaptable and fairly open ended I ensure that the product can be re-applied to other formats of play.
• Through expansions and clean core design the issue of "context" which gives RPG products such high replay ability can be addressed and resolved. Context: The ability of an RPG or similar product to change the game by changing its "context". I.E.: Run through a dungeon today and a haunted forest tomorrow.
• The use of common gaming products such as cards, pawns, playmatts, and game boards facilitates a new kind of game play that ensures a more visceral feel. This kind of game play is uncommon and valuable, it sets this product apart from its predecessors that used similar CORE concepts (such as hero quest). Proper use of gaming materials also serves to enhance immersion and ensure players are tied to the game through ownership.
• Ownership: In games such as 40k, MTG, or even D&D the player is tied to the game by "owning" a piece of it. I.E.: In 40k the player makes a substantial financial investment to play. This is similarly done in MTG. In D&D the player instead feels invested because of ownership of virtual goods or accomplishments, as represented by the information on a character sheet.
It should be clear that the overall concept here is to create a hybrid product that can attract and maintain, through well designed mechanics and "ownership" a long-term audience. In addition to this other obvious benefits would include a fan base to market future products to, high replay ability through ownership/immersion, and of course marketing opportunities as the setting can become a franchise in and of itself.
The headache.
When answering this please try to ask yourself the same kinds of questions that have been muddling up my brain as of late, as, most obviously, I would find these answers incredibly useful.
• Will players adapt to a new format of game?
• Are players willing to track things outside game play ("character" information)? Take into account that this game is played in a very "board game" format. This certainly changed how my play testers saw things.
• How often would player be willing to participate in expansion material (if it is competitively priced)? I got truly mixed reviews when chatting up local gamers on this.
• What kind of game length is acceptable(25 minutes?, 6 hours?)? This is a titanic question, assume game play is fast paced (no turn takes over 2 minutes). Try to think of things I have considered such as players gaming for so long they simply get "burned out", or perhaps, games are too short and fail to "draw in" the player.
• What kind of market (amongst publishers) would there be for a product that tries to innovate on this level? After all were not talking about a simple design here.
You can assume that most hurtles have been conquered. It plays quickly, its involved and tactically challenging, its priced in a median area for hobbyists (35.00) etc. By making these assumptions I should think the questions above will be simpler to answer.
AGAIN, I thank anyone willing to participate in this discussion. Your time and energy are valuable to me and solving this problem has become a real priority (I'm driving my wife nuts wandering around the house mumbling about pros and cons).
Share, please, thank you!
E
First, thanks for the input. I Agree with your set of caveats' pertaining to play time and experience/character use.
At the moment play time looks like it would be on the outside of 60 minutes at the absolute maximum. That would be a game including many players (6 or more).
As far as complexity that is kind of relative but I will give some examples of games that are similarly difficult to master. Mordhiem, Necromunda (less so) and old school Battletech all come to mind. The player is essentially making a group of choices to create a "pawn" that will contend against the foes pawn. I would qualify this by saying that the rules take up a mere 20 pages and are being refined further as time allows.
The play tests of the first adaptation of the rules generated "buzz" in the local game community. I would say I had 10? ardent followers who still ask (every time they see me) what I ever did with the game. In response to WHY I didn't do anything with it, there was a book, finishing that edition of the game (3.2), and starting college all immediately following the height of play test. So I know that, in the prior incarnation at least, that the game could go straight into play tests and, if I am lucky, continue to succeed. Even my wife brings the game up from time to time.
As for keeping the players involved with the core product I should think 6 months is fair. However, I may simply be a poor judge. Last time the game was being actively played I had play tests every Friday night for a little over a year. As I mentioned above, my loyal gamers were far from done with the product when I stopped working on it. With new additions and a streamlining of the material I could perhaps extend replay ability but I simply wouldn't know until the material is un use.
So there it is, an adaptation of an existing product that worked well but needed to work better. Now the core of the issue, move forward with implementing the new product in the hopes it succeeds or redirect my energy into something different.
Thanks for the input.
E