I wish all publishers would go systemless.

[Ry]

I like systemless. I wish there was systemless fluff that was OGC/CC, though; that would let other publishers publish stats / revisions / expansions for it.

 

[Maggan]

I'd love to know how Freeport is doing saleswise after going systemless.

Did it avoid the 80% drop that EN Publishing experienced after the 4e announcement? Did it sell as much as hoped? What was the printing? What was the target sales?

I'm not expecting to be told, but I'd sure would like to know! A bold move, nonetheless.

/M

 

[Ry]

I thought Pirate's Guide to Freeport wasn't out yet. Is it going to be Open Game Content?

 

[Valiant]

Has any publisher attempted a system where multiple game systems are supported for their FRPG modules?
Say pick the 5 most popular games and supply HPs and basic stats for each. So in your example: the group encounters an ancient red dragon (see page 61 appendix B). The GM goes to the appendix and sees Room 11: Red Dragon 1E 64 HPs followed by HD and AC, then do the same for 3E followed by a few other popular systems.
Supply just enough so the GM can get by without having to look and role everything up, but still can flesh it out if they have the time.


BTW I am strongly in favor of systemless modules, always have been.

 

[Desdichado]

I thought Pirate's Guide to Freeport wasn't out yet. Is it going to be Open Game Content?

I picked it up at GenCon. I don't know if it's for sale generally or not, though. But I've had it for months.

Not open. No mechanics---why would you open a fluff only book?

 

[Piratecat]

Those books are actually a line of Flying Buffalo, Inc (i.e., Catalyst isn't a publisher but a game line). Most of them are still in print, too (and dirt cheap).

Just so we're clear, there is ALSO a company named Catalyst. They were born out of the remains of FanPro, and publish Battletech and Shadowrun 4e. Cool guys, excellent products.

 

[DragonLancer]

A while back I thought about writing setting generic material and making it available as PDF. I dropped the idea because everyone I mentioned it to, were not interested in generic material because it meant they had to (*shock horror*) do some work with it.

 

[Terraism]

Has any publisher attempted a system where multiple game systems are supported for their FRPG modules?

AEG did this for a while with their Swashbuckling Adventures line. From what I understand, it didn't do all that well, and they eventually stopped.

For my part, while I found the effort interesting, I also found that their understanding of multiple systems seemed to be a bit lacking, which made the d20 crunch, at least, mostly useless to me for anything beyond inspiration. (Which, in all fairness, it was great for - the 7th Sea stuff does ooze flavor.)

 

[bento]

Freeport hasn't gone entirely systemless as Green Ronin also released a True20 rules version.

Systemless books are weak in that they don't provide the crunch that supports the fluff. For example, taint and honor rules that support the notion of a society where corruption and honor are important factors. Just saying "honor is important in society X" isn't as strong as introducing rules where players receive direct benefit (or penalized) by playing honorable.

Another problem I see with systemless books is understanding the power scale for foes. How do I know which monsters are stronger in this setting and how do I translate this into meaningful stats? I need a measure of degrees to create appropriate encounters for my players.

I think both True20 and D&D 3.5 have done great in this regards. As long as I have the core books, its very easy for me to pick up any new setting book and run with it. In my current desert adventure, its the core + Sandstorm. Systemless books are interesting for ideas, but I don't think I'd every pay the same price as buying a setting book for the rules I'm running.

 

[Ry]

I picked it up at GenCon. I don't know if it's for sale generally or not, though. But I've had it for months.

Not open. No mechanics---why would you open a fluff only book?

To try to encourage third-party development. But maybe it's too much of a leap of faith for some. I could write an essay on the reasons to make fluff open.