Is a popular non-D&D traditional fantasy RPG possible?

[Ruin Explorer]

The heartbreak part is that of the game designers, not the game players. So unless the "MEGATON of hearts RIGHT HERE" include game designers of 4e, it is not a fantasy heartbreaker. That would require the game designers of 4e to be broken-hearted that their game is not popular, when it is extremely popular, given the sales.

As an aside, how many hearts (given the average size of a gamer's heart) would it take to make a megaton?

3333333333.3 recurring hearts I believe. I've never heard that definition of "fantasy heartbreaker" before, so I don't really agree.

 

[Desdichado]

That's simply not true and I don't know you have a chip on your shoulder about this. I did NOT say what you paraphrased me of saying; specifically, I did not say that 4E sucks. If you really insist that I did, please quote me, but it is NOT what I intended to say nor, scanning over my original post--or any post in this thread or any other--is it something I said.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth or hidden meanings that I did not intend.

That's what I'm saying; that meaning wasn't exactly hidden.

Same thing with your "does anyone actually like dragonborn and tiefling" thread.

You've called 4e's success questionable--based on no evidence that I know of--and implied that it was clearly targetted at a younger crowd. You've given us that "classic" "it's not D&D enough anymore" and clearly said that you think a more "traditional" fantasy RPG could carve a significant chunk out of D&D's market share, because "obviously" so many people are dissatisfied with 4e.

I'm telling you, you can dissemble all you want, but your meaning is pretty clear.

Bah. What am I doing trying to convince you to quit denying the obvious "subtext" in your posts.

You say you don't think 4e sucks and you're not actually claiming that? OK, fine. I'll run with that.

 

[Mercurius]

(Continuing straw man argument)

This is so absurd it is almost funny. Almost. Hobo, where do you get the gall to continue to tell me what I think and meant and worse, to be privy to subtext that I wasn't even aware I was expressing, even after I have clearly said that this is not what I meant? I mean, it isn't even what I actually wrote--your examples don't point to my supposed subtext that 4E sucks, just the overly negative connotation that YOU see in them.

Are you looking for people to fight with about 4E? If so, I'm not the straw man, er, enemy. I don't think 4E sucks, OK? Get it? Unless you are saying that I have feelings about 4E I don't realize I have (thus, "subtext"), which would be just plain rude. I'd advise against correcting someone on what they "actually mean", unless you know them very well, and even then it is usually a bad idea. Among other things it is just plain disrespectful.

And finally, please understand that there is a difference between being critical, or questioning something, and saying it sucks. You seem to allow little or no in-between, greyscale, or ambivalence: either you're with us or against us, either you love or hate 4E. Can't I like it overall but not be crazy about certain elements?

 

[GreatLemur]

IMO, it's un-self-explanatory Forgespeak with no reason for existing except that people think they sound clever by using it.

Wherever it originated, "fantasy heartbreaker" isn't quite Forge jargon. It's used all over RPG.net, for one thing, and I've known it for a long time, despite never hanging out at the Forge. It's a pretty common term, by now.

More importantly, it expresses something important that "unsuccessful fantasy RPG" doesn't: One of the obvious defining characteristics of the fantasy heartbreaker is that it's heartbreaking. It's a game that somebody put a lot of work--and probably some actual good ideas--into, so it's a damn tragedy that the designer has set it for a collision course with the unshakable juggernaut that is D&D.

There's a reason people come up with new terms. You can dismiss them as elitist jargon, but they frequently express a concepts for which there previously were no concise forms.

 

[Particle_Man]

More importantly, it expresses something important that "unsuccessful fantasy RPG" doesn't: One of the obvious defining characteristics of the fantasy heartbreaker is that it's heartbreaking. It's a game that somebody put a lot of work--and probably some actual good ideas--into, so it's a damn tragedy that the designer has set it for a collision course with the unshakable juggernaut that is D&D.

And since 4e D&D *is* the juggernaut, it by definition cannot possibly ever be a fantasy heartbreaker. It isn't in competition with an 800 lb gorilla. It *is* the 800 lb gorilla.

 

[Mercurius]

Fantasy Heartbreakers

I believe the term did originate at The Forge, coined first by (unsurprisingly) Ron Edwards: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

Here is a relevant quote:

Imagine a role-player who learned of "fantasy" through Dungeons and Dragons. I can be a half-orc, he says. So what's an orc? Think of him having fun breaking doors, confronting the beholder, or running his fingers over the minotaur illustration in the Monster Manual. And sooner or later, he says, I'm tired of these rules or arguing about this or that. Let's do it this way. And sooner or later after that, he and his friends say, this way is way better. Wow, we wrote a game! Maybe we can publish it too, like Gary did.

In the late 70s, this wasn't unreasonable. By the early 90s, though, things were considerably different. This essay is about some 1990s games I'm calling "fantasy heartbreakers," which are truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start. This essay is basically in their favor, in a kind of grief-stricken way.

(Bold-face my emphasis)

So by that definition, which must be considered THE definition in that it is the original, I would say that what I was speculating about is not inherently a Fantasy Heartbreaker, but very well could be. I would discount the specific ideas I presented, as they are just speculation--and I would also add that some of them aren't quite FHs in that they are more than "a single creative step" from the source.

Actually, the term is very useful for this discussion, because it may be that in order for a game to "Survive & Thrive" it must not be a Fantasy Heartbreaker, or not only. In some sense I have been saying that for a game to survive & thrive, and not only thrive but be competitive in the D&D-dominated fantasy market, it might have to be a FH, but be able to accomodate much more (in other words, slight alterations like centaurs as PCs is not enough, and typical of the FH).

Another way to define the FH, btw, would be any relatively canonical D&D campaign world or homebrew game that someone decides to publish. "My take on D&D." In that sense the FH represents an individual's customization of the core D&D mythos (fluff and/or crunch), and is not a bad thing (nor is Edwards saying it is, imo, just that it is a doomed endeavor).

 

[rounser]

Wherever it originated, "fantasy heartbreaker" isn't quite Forge jargon. It's used all over RPG.net, for one thing

All the more reason not to use it on ENWorld, IMO.

 

[Elrohir_of_Kellemar]

What about a company that could have the resources to market as effectively as WOTC, have resources to enable the making of a really quality product like WOTC, and name brand recognition like WOTC.

"Dungeons and Dragons Classic" by WOTC.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What about a company that could have the resources to market as effectively as WOTC, have resources to enable the making of a really quality product like WOTC, and name brand recognition like WOTC.

"Dungeons and Dragons Classic" by WOTC.

WotC might not have been as successful with 3E D&D if it didn't have the brand name of D&D, so another company might need even more resources.

Maybe...

BUt if there was a company like WotC that could create a new game system as big as D&D, it should better be something else then fantasy. I want a good sci-fi game! I've always been more a sci-fi fan then a fantasy fan, and yet I am playing D&D most... Strange me...

 

[Dlsharrock]

Hm. A product that could outstrip D&D is possible, yes. D&D is, at the end of the day, only a product and no product is guaranteed success, especially if it caters to a relatively small audience.

But the contender would need to be innovative (ie, traditional fantasy is not innovative), it would need to have serious financial/marketing wallop and it would need to address an audience beyond the niche while simultaneously attempting to tempt a share of the niche into the new bigger (mainstream I guess) audience.

I think if I personally was going to attempt such an overhaul of the market (that is, if I couldn't think of anything better to spend my personal fortune on), I'd try to reinvent the idea of roleplay, rather than D&D or traditional fantasy, with the geekism surgically removed.

The Wii has pretty much done this with console gaming and WoW's current TV ad campaign is attempting something similar.

So yes, it's doable. Is it likely to happen? No.