So when should a publisher ditch d20 and develop their own system?

[Jim Hague]

Thats true, BUT with any D20 game, you still have linear advancement of BAB, Saves, etc which do skew the probability curve more to the heroic scale.

Factually incorrect - look at Mutants and Masterminds, for example. Point-based d20 systems make this statement entirely meaningless...and it also doesn't account for Feats, various save and skill variants, etc.

When the bonus is so large that the die roll becomes virtually unimportant, there is a problem to me. Games like WHFRP2 avoid continuous linear increases in character ability, and while still allowing characters to be competent and skilled, they are still mortal and can be in serious trouble from a lucky shot.

While Grim Tales, True 20, and Conan all have this to a limited degree as well, its based on a Fort save, which again increases linearly with level, so its not that dangerous all things considered. So while GT, True20 and Conan CAN do a decent job of modeling lower-powered and gritty games, they don't do it as well as a system designed for it, IMO. I guess it mostly depends on if you and your group are hidebound to sticking to D20 only. I personally like a change of pace and enjoy exploring systems, as does my group.

As long as you acknowledge that it's not to your taste, swell. But you're making sweeping statements here that discount a great number of other factors that make that statement incorrect.

As for when a company should adopt a house system, see Buzz's statements earlier in the thread.

 

[eyebeams]

No, Serenity does not use the Unisystem as it is published by a different company. And Serenity was not gushed over at all.

No, it was very quietly one of the most popular RPG releases of the last few years.

 

[Turjan]

No, it was very quietly one of the most popular RPG releases of the last few years.

And got the "Best Game" fan award at Origins.

 

[buzz]

No, it was very quietly one of the most popular RPG releases of the last few years.

True! But:

a) Browncoats.

2) I've encountered many people (including many designers that I respect, fwiw) who were not impressed by the design, and I tend to agree with them. It ain't bad, mind you, but nothing great.

So, I'd again point to my reason b a few posts back. I really think they could have gone with any underlying system (FATE would have been a cool choice, but d20 would have worked, too) and still sold as much as they have (See "a" above).

 

[guildofblades]

>>I don't think any game company is going to break into Role Playing with the luck and impetus that TSR did. Anything you set up will be a long haul but your customers will really be your customers.

Business sense to me would dictate that for now D20 is a necessary publishing element. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have your own system as well.<<

We've always avoided D20 like the plague. Nothing personally against it, but it was decided early on that publishing D20 or OGL (OGL any system) carried with it certain disadvantages we wanted to avoid. The largest of those was simply that we could not dictate when, where and how the "core rules" were delivered and thus could not map our own market. A lesser restriction but still one worthy of consideration was that pretty much no matter what, even if we became the most successful D20 publisher around, our brand would still only be second in the line behind D&D. In publishing under D20 (ala, D&D) you guarantee you can never eclipse D&D.

But yes, Role Playing is much the same as the trading card game market. While board games and miniatures games can actually exist on smaller, more isolated pockets of gaming groups, and thus can still be made profitable at smaller scales of operations, my feeling is that role playing games operating under that model will always fail. It is only a question of time. A game that sparks an interest as being new and unique will survive for a while. How long that is exactly will depend on just how brightly is shines. But the typical pattern has run between 3 and 7 years.

I feel for a RPG to become totally successful in the long term that it MUST strive to compete heads up with D&D. And by that I don't mean be a D&D clone (only better), I mean whatever system or theme or production format it takes, it must generate enough active players to its system within its first few years of production so as to compete for players with D&D heads up. Basically, it needs as many players as D&D has. Not an easy accomplishment giving the establish entrenchment D&D already has in the market. But if a publisher has no business model to actually achieve that, then they should not be looking to invest into a RPG system long term. They should have a production cycle, well, of 3 to 7 years and then be prepared to let it die and move onto something else.

Just for the record, I'm not being pessimistic on the subject. Just realistic. I do, however, think the a business model to let a new RPG compete heads up with D&D exist. Multiple such business models in fact. But any I have conceived of thus far do require a pretty sizable investment that a small start up studio will not be able to muster on their own.

Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
http://www.guildofblades.com
http://www.1483online.com
http://www.thermopylae-online.com

 

[eyebeams]

True! But:

a) Browncoats.

Sure. That can explain the success of 3e just as easily.

This reminds me of a Wayne Gretzky quote, actually. Gretzky sloppily kicks in one through a scrum by the goalie and afterwards, a reporter says, "Wasn't that a bit of a gimme, Wayne?" Gretzky looked at him and said, "It's not how, it's how many." It doesn't matter if people bought Serenity because they inhaled a fungus that made them really like the sepias and browns of the graphic design.

Ryan Dancey said something about Serenity not being "evergreen," which is self-evidently true given that no game with less than 2 FY of sales under its belt can be considered evergreen. What will determine that game's long-term success is whether a strong player base forms behind it and people play games using the RPG in some capacity. I don't know whether it will and I don't think MWP is counting on it, but see below.

2) I've encountered many people (including many designers that I respect, fwiw) who were not impressed by the design, and I tend to agree with them. It ain't bad, mind you, but nothing great.

I've heard of more Serenity games than nifty-keen fancy schmacy games with cool new mechanics. I have a feeling that the game is seeing more use outside of the traditional tabletop culture and in web a javachat gaming, which is already heavily fanfic oriented.

(It's also an area in which companies and commentators have generally shown and incredible *lack* of insight. Prognostication and punditry that fail to take this thriving community into account are painful to read, actually. Taking it into account doesn't mean, "Build cool interface for tabletop gaming," either. And incidentally, this community is why saying you'll run some kind of narrative game for a any licensed IP is so wrongheaded it ain't funny, 'cause they don't play that way. My God, the wated opportunities here . . . well, that;s a topic for another time.)

The mechanics are serviceable enough. They're nothing special, but the game doesn't really cry out for anything superfancy except maybe for merchant/trade rules.

So, I'd again point to my reason b a few posts back. I really think they could have gone with any underlying system (FATE would have been a cool choice, but d20 would have worked, too) and still sold as much as they have (See "a" above).

FATE would have been a terrible choice. Definng the character by a identity-cum-genre traits is already a done deal for fans, so applying it to a game system gives them *no* help at all, especially since the whole basis for game balance for genre fans is different than for other games. Contrary to popular belief, fan-centered gaming *discourages* strong emulation of canonical characters, and the toolsets it seeks out (when winging it isn't the order of the day) to to *rid* the character cast of people who can argue their way into being just as good as folks like Mal. So providing sufficiently divorced and character-neutral traits along with character stats as a yardstick is pretty good. Nothing wrong with FATE though(and to be honest, I prefer systems with broad, self-defined traits like it).

D20 would work with broad classes, a reworked damage/injury system, spaceship construction rules, and a whole bunch of other things that basically make you wonder why you don't just make your own system. And this is where we get to the fallacy in the "D20 can be anything you want!" business. It certainly can, but in some cases, the degree of alteration is drastic and time-consuming enough that there is no significant difference between using it and writing a new system, except for losing control over parts of your IP (to the OGL). And in Serenity's case, it being Serenity is a much bigger deal than the system. Besides, MWP does DL and Castlemourn too, so I'm sure they know the value of the system and license around those parts.

Oh yeah, and: Stargate SG-1 and Farscape are excellent counterexamples to the idea that a license should default to D20. So are LotR and Trek, given that Decipher's system was not-so-subtly based on easy adoption for the D&D set. And the less said about Modern/Future, the better.

I think Serenity's value will ultimately depend on BSG and one other license enabling an identification of the system with licensed games. If I were them I'd try to snag at least two more licenses and go for similar releases targeted at established fan communities (esp. ones that already freeform).

 

[Glyfair]

I've heard of more Serenity games than nifty-keen fancy schmacy games with cool new mechanics.

Honestly, I think the "nifty-keen fancy schmacy with cool new mechanics" factor is overrated as far as most game buyers are concerned. Sure, there is a segment of the market that looks at the mechanics first when getting into a new RPG. However, I think there are dozens of other factors that are more important to the success of the game as long as the mechanics are serviceable.

Serenity players are clearly drawn to it primarily because it is about the Firefly world/crew. Most people buying it aren't looking for revolutionary mechanics. Sure, if it had revolutionary mechanics that fit the system that would be great and probably make it more successful. However, that same mechanic without the license and a generic assumed world wouldn't likely be very successful. The license with a mechanic that went against the assumptions would probably not be as successful as well (imagine a Star Wars game where space battles had the complexity of Star Fleet Battles).

However, that fact argues that if you want to put out a new RPG, using an existing system that fits your license. d20 is probably your first choice, if it fits or can fit your concept. If not, find one that fits either with an OGL type situation (such as Runequest now has) or a system with an easy licensing structure. Only create an entirely new system if the previous options don't exist or aren't feasible.

 

[Psion]

a) Browncoats.

2) I've encountered many people (including many designers that I respect, fwiw) who were not impressed by the design, and I tend to agree with them. It ain't bad, mind you, but nothing great.

That's sort of what I was getting at when I used it as an example of what you don't want. I thought it was implicit. Didn't expect it would have to be explained.

I find the system tepid at best, and tend to believe the browncoats would have bought it no matter what system it had. But I don't hear anyone oohing and ahhhing over it and recommending it for other settings/licenses like I do, say, Unisystem or, well, d20.

 

[Psion]

I've heard of more Serenity games than nifty-keen fancy schmacy games with cool new mechanics.

I've heard of more Serenity games using alternate systems than Serenity games using the installed system.

Oh yeah, and: Stargate SG-1 and Farscape are excellent counterexamples to the idea that a license should default to D20.

I think Farscape is an example of what I speak of in post #47.

But I don't see SG-1 as an implicit counter example you claim it is. As far as I could tell, it was pretty well implemented and received by all but the d20-hatah subset.

As long as we are talking about installed fanbases, I think one needs to take into account the existing fanbase. Rokugan's d20 adaptation, unlike Farcape's, was very good. Despite this, it was a disaster, because it didn't sit well with the existing fan base. To an installed fan-base, system is not secondary.

But when drawing from a fanbase of franchise fans without an installed system (yet), the fans are more system agnostic.

Now apply this to the actual topic at hand. IK's pedigree lies in D20. It started out as a d20 adventure. I think Privateer would do well to take a look at what happened with L5R when they switched systems pursuing a different audience for their RPG.

except for losing control over parts of your IP (to the OGL).

How's that? If you don't use the d20 logo, you only have to make Open Content what started as open content. Mongoose has used this publishing model for a while.

 

[BryonD]

No, it was very quietly one of the most popular RPG releases of the last few years.

And got the "Best Game" fan award at Origins.

How much of this was because of the game itself and how much was because it was Serenity in a rather down year for the overall P&P RPG industry.

Honest question there. I'm not slamming it. I haven't read it and don't have an opinion.
I'm also not claiming there was remotely a need to be ground-breaking or anything. I agree completely with the Gretzky line. The goal of this product was to make money by selling product to people who wanted to play in that setting. Clearly they solidly achieved that goal.

BUT, when you step back and look at the bigger pictue of gaming, what does it really mean?
Is it a largely meaningless expection because it has everything to do with the license and next to nothing to do with game system? (Obviously a total screw-up in system would be an issue, but I think we can set that aside) Or is it completely meaningful in saying that, for now at least, license or some other setting/feel hook is a total trump over any game system considerations? Where in between do things rest right now?