How do you define "Heartbreaker?"

[Bill Zebub]

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is that "Heartbreaker" should be Kelsey Dionne's next monster-of-the-month for Shadowdark. Just in time for Valentine's Day.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is that "Heartbreaker" should be Kelsey Dionne's next monster-of-the-month for Shadowdark. Just in time for Valentine's Day.

There's a lot of good potential monsters with that name, along with spells, magic items and maybe even a highly specialized character class.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's a lot of good potential monsters with that name, along with spells, magic items and maybe even a highly specialized character class.

I've seen a couple RPG supervillains using that name.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've seen a couple RPG supervillains using that name.

Let me guess: you think they're going to make for an epic boss battle, but instead they die after a few hits and don't have any loot?

 

[aramis erak]

I've seen this term used a lot lately, but I don't have a clear sense of how people define it, and I suspect that this has led to some talking past one another. I'm curious how you personally define this term.

A game, clearly a clone of an existing one as its base ruleset, which makes claims to fix the original's mechanics, and gains almost no foothold nor fanbase. Usually, they're done by relative nobodies
Most are variations on D&D.
Some have been Traveller or BRP based.

I try not to use the term unless it's clear the intent was to "fix" the base game, and the author failed to consider the actual incentivisations in their changes.

 

[CerealDM]

I have released a ttrpg named Fantasy Heartbreaker 5e.

When naming it, I chose the name because it was a derivative of DnD, I suspected it wouldn't beat the original, and I wanted the name to be a bit of a tongue-in-cheek.

Do I think heartbreakers, mine included, are bad? No.

But do I see them as naive attempts at outdoing the original? I guess yes.