Matrix Sorcica
Hero
In other words, another Heartbreaker. It's already been done, btw.
Pathfinder 2E Release Day Second Edition Amazon Sales Rank
- Thread starter Parmandur
- Start date
CapnZapp
Legend
The meaning of "heartbreaker" was originally "seeing this designer reinvent the wheel breaks my heart (as a fellow designer)". Often the issue was how clearly the writers have read no other games than the edition of D&D they're trying to improve upon, completely failing to see how the problem has already been elegantly solved by other games several times over. Even by a later edition of D&D itself in some cases...
Now it's sometimes used to mean something else: a game intending to be the next big thing by fixing perceived flaws with the market leader, but ending up forgotten and nearly unused.
The reasons for this might vary from the mundane (few companies have marketing clout even a fraction of WotC/Hasbro) to the truly heartbreaking: failing to realize what people actually wants.
All too many games have started out to "fix" the current edition of D&D only to end up adding everything and the kitchen sink, which has the effect of making that game no longer be percieved by the gaming public as a recognizable alternative, which then in turn makes it go ignored by the very customers it was intended to woo.
This can be the little things - adding "lion men" to your game when that's not part of D&D. Or integrating a brand new campaign world so tightly in rules text customers can't use it for their regular generic D&D game. (Obviously I can't come up with anything else than subjective examples. Add yours instead of getting riled up by mine!)
My point here is to learn why Paizo managed to avoid having Pathfinder 1 be a heartbreaker. That game genuinely clawed itself the spot as the obvious alternative to D&D for a whole decade.
And the lesson is: ruthlessly eliminate everything that makes your product look like its own game, rather than "D&D just better" (or simpler or whatever you're gunning for). Then focus on a niche WotC has for some reason left unfilled. Don't take the 500 pound gorilla head on.
Are you doing a whole new game or are you doing a D&D replacement game, is the question.
Now it's sometimes used to mean something else: a game intending to be the next big thing by fixing perceived flaws with the market leader, but ending up forgotten and nearly unused.
The reasons for this might vary from the mundane (few companies have marketing clout even a fraction of WotC/Hasbro) to the truly heartbreaking: failing to realize what people actually wants.
All too many games have started out to "fix" the current edition of D&D only to end up adding everything and the kitchen sink, which has the effect of making that game no longer be percieved by the gaming public as a recognizable alternative, which then in turn makes it go ignored by the very customers it was intended to woo.
This can be the little things - adding "lion men" to your game when that's not part of D&D. Or integrating a brand new campaign world so tightly in rules text customers can't use it for their regular generic D&D game. (Obviously I can't come up with anything else than subjective examples. Add yours instead of getting riled up by mine!)
My point here is to learn why Paizo managed to avoid having Pathfinder 1 be a heartbreaker. That game genuinely clawed itself the spot as the obvious alternative to D&D for a whole decade.
And the lesson is: ruthlessly eliminate everything that makes your product look like its own game, rather than "D&D just better" (or simpler or whatever you're gunning for). Then focus on a niche WotC has for some reason left unfilled. Don't take the 500 pound gorilla head on.
Are you doing a whole new game or are you doing a D&D replacement game, is the question.
Last edited:
Aldarc
Legend
If you talk to other people on this forum, you may be surprised to learn that a fair number of people actually like having campaign worlds tied to a rules system.
dave2008
Legend
Maybe, but I'm oldschool. My game habits started without published settings and I have never used one since. I always play in a setting of my own (often with influences from published settings). I find it distracting / annoying when there are constant references in a rule set to a setting I don't use. It is not insurmountable, but it is a grievance of mine with PF2e.
I don't know the PF numbers, but over 50% of D&D players play in a homebrew setting (that % is 5+/- yrs old, so it could have changed), so there could be more than a few you find backed in settings annoying.
Aldarc
Legend
Is it any more annoying than racial weapon proficiencies? Or differences between devils and demons? Or archons and angels? Or even the existence of tieflings, hill dwarves, or rock gnomes? I find these things annoying in D&D, but you don't. So maybe it's because there is some aspects of "setting" material in the rules that you can overlook that nevertheless frustrate me. Rules often come with implied settings, and the rules often say something about the universe.
My purpose here is not to discount that there are those who dislike backed-in-settings, but, rather, to affirm that there are people who do like them and that they do serve a purpose for many games, particularly those that do not have the privilege of being D&D.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
On the integrated setting bit:
I choose RPGs to play like I choose board games to play. I look at my shelf and say anyone want to play Vampire, Exalted, or Apocalypse World. I don't usually start with a specific idea and then go looking for a matching game.
Integrated or default setting helps make a game playable off the shelf.
I choose RPGs to play like I choose board games to play. I look at my shelf and say anyone want to play Vampire, Exalted, or Apocalypse World. I don't usually start with a specific idea and then go looking for a matching game.
Integrated or default setting helps make a game playable off the shelf.
dave2008
Legend
I only DM, so I don't get into the player side of things much, so nothing there really bothers me. The last two campaigns I ran I told my group the could pick any intelligent creture in the monster manual.
Regarding monsters and default lore: Sure, some of that is mildly annoying to, but that is expected in any game I'm going to play. Nothing is going to match my preferences 100%, we have to except some degree of annoyance. My point would be to limit as much as possible. Games with the setting more heavily baked in are more annoying. It is not likely I wouldn't be willing to play in them, but probably not GM in them.
Sure, I wasn't trying to suggest there aren't such people.
CapnZapp
Legend
Absolutely.
But few of them want the same campaign world.
Unless you make it so Forgotten Realms-y there's something for everybody in it. Take Golarion for instance.
But the greater point is that Level Up doesn't need one, since the project is intended to be used with 5th Edition.
Adding too-specific campaign details only increases the "otherness" of the end product. Exactly what I'm arguing LU does not need: the impression this is no longer just a unconditional upgrade to 5E; now you need to accept lion men to use it (to reuse my earlier silly example).
If it is a great success, I'm sure Morrus can whip up a campaign world at a later date.
CapnZapp
Legend
Possibly a question directed at me:
If LU ends up having features because Morrus and the team wants to rather than because 5E needs them. Features that end up turning away the greater customer base because the end product no longer is recognizably 5E.
It's easy to see how that would be heartbreaker-y.
This should not be 6E in disguise. It should be 5E, but upgraded.
Already the playtest document solves issues that maybe didn't need solving. Features that maybe would be better off be kept in the drawer for use elsewhere.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
