Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brumal" data-source="post: 9370114" data-attributes="member: 7032348">I find it hard to quantify RPG success. I agree that it can be defined in different ways. Some ways arePlayer response. Call of Cthulhu and Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition receive incredible numbers of overwhelmingly positive testimonials from players. Influence on other designers. Apocalypse World has been hugely influential. Presenting many innovations that other designers can and do use. Two quick examples: everyone would think of player moves and the trifecta of results, but then there are GM moves which I think are harder for people to get. Passionate responses. Some games aren't liked by many players, but those that do love them. Torchbearer is one, with its cranky grind. Games that matter to RPG aficionados on an artistic or technical level. It could be clunky and not played much, but it's doing something intriguing. There are so many and everyone stumbles onto their own examples. Artefact was one for me. For a game designer, how well they did what they wanted to. I saw others saying that. Do players see and experience what the designer wants them to see and experience? Do they play in the ways designer wants them to play? Paranoia is a great success in this way. It's easy to play the way the designers want you to play, and you can appreciate getting into that.Like many or most here, I don't really care about commercial success, although obviously you can count it as one way to succeed. I wouldn't rule out saying that a game is successful because it reached a lot of people: that's another way to count success. It looks like I have to say what way I'm going to use, and then I can measure on that basis, and someone else might not care about that at all.</blockquote>

Verification