There is an enormous barrier to critical feedback. There is no serious systematic negative review process. There are lots of positive review processes, but not negative. Especially not between game designers. Back when I played a lot more PC games, there was a bit of a controversy in the strategy game subculture because the LEAD DESIGNER for Paradox Entertainment (Johan Andersson) was asked if the AI in one of his games functioned similarly to Empire Total War in a particular respect. His reply was "I was not aware of there being an AI in Empire Total War." Wow, that is very harsh response. Hard to imagine that happening in our niche.
That really can't happen in the RPG industry because it is so small and turnover between companies is so high that people almost always act nice and sweet. Malcolm Sheppard makes waves a lot because he throws that convention aside frequently, although usually he speaks in general terms and not specifically about someone at a particular company. How many people within the industry are out there with strident criticism of other industry people? Very few in my experience.
People do criticise corporations for poor releases, but then they have to face an army of fanboys defending it. And people are always saying "I don't want to start an edition war" or something similar. Well... I think Edition Wars are a good thing. I consider it a useful element of survival of the fittest. If your edition cant stand up to strong criticism, you have a bigger problem than me. Until we have strong negative feedback, crappy products will continue to get produced.
Designers are stuck in fixed frameworks of creation. For example, you can take virtually any module product and compare it to another module product and it will share a number of common structural features. There is a template for writing modules. There is some minor innovation, but always within that structure. I actually have a module design that is totally unique in this respect, but it is buried beneath a half-dozen other projects. I wish I had the time to develop it right now, but it isn't sparking my passion at the moment so it stays down there.
Furthermore, they have a bias in terms of material design. They want to make books. And because they want to make books, they are at odds with people in the culture as a whole. We are moving into a smartphone and iPad kind of society. People are generally not excited about reading 300 page books unless it is truly spectacular. We need to upgrade our designs to the 21st century.
The leaked e-mails of the Ennies, as revealed by RPG Pundit (hat tip to Sword and Board) show that the people inside the industry have a strong bias against independent web-based production, pat each other on the back a lot, and think of the amateur internet community as something of very low value.
There is very little setting innovation. Most settings are stolen from other media, like the licensing issue that Malcolm raises, but aside from a few narrow exceptions (most of which are the dreams of talented amateurs). ChicagoWiz raised this issue as well, asking where is the OSR's Blackmoor or EPT? There seems to be a lot of rehashing of the same worlds over and over again.
Malcolm links Steve Long's post on The Licensing Trap. I think this is a big contributor to the issue. Rather than work on developing a really cool setting of their own, people are latching onto the work of others.
Conclusion:
Malcolm talks about how these products are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I think that is an important point. Zak of DnD with Pornstars often talks about how it sucks when the Art Director exerts too much control on the artist. I agree with him up to a certain point. Both of these share a common point, that creative people need to be unbridled to a certain degree in order to create really good stuff.
One of the things that I think strengthens me as a designer is that I don't have a desire to be included in "the special club". I don't want Ryan Dancey to swoop down and become my best friend and we can go to CCP events together and I will be the belle of the ball and oh it will be so nice and shiny. No. Hell no. I would love to have a conversation with Ryan Dancey about a great many things. I am already in Atlanta, so it would be really easy. But I am not going to suck up to him for it. I am not going to soften my opinions for him. Unfortunately, I see a ton of people do that every day (in every industry, not just RPGs).
We need more people who just don't give a FUCK about what people in the industry think about them. They are just going their own way. And as I said recently, I am that kind of person. I am on the raggedy edge.
This year, I am going to be doing this along several fronts. In every game, I am trying very hard to do what I think is best, not what I think people will want. If it is good, they will want it. That is my motto going forward.
1. I am going to rework Synapse to adjust for many of the quality criticisms I have received on the design (which I highly value, critique is very important). Synapse is a very unique system in terms of anchoring the character in the world and in encouraging you to really push the envelope in terms of design. Part of character creation is building the culture of your character, and you are drawn towards things like "wouldn't it be cool if I was from a nomadic maternalistic society that lives in the desert?" This kind of on-the-spot world-building is very cool and it brings new life even to old settings (Synapse works with everything). Synapse is very much a new way to play, without falling into the story-game rut of limited utility.
2. I am going to develop module material for Errant. Errant is a classic design, because I like classic designs to some degree (hence my love of RPGs, duh). However, this new material will push the boundaries of traditional medieval fantasy design. For example, with concepts like my scene prototype described here and what I think is better writing that a lot of what is out there.
3. I am going to be writing a LOT of setting material in the Cascade Failure. I think this has the potential to be a powerful unique setting on par with Battletech or Star Wars in scope, while having a Forgotten Realms level of customization by the GM. I have a TON of art donated for this project and I plan to make use of it with page after page of quality setting material. Be prepared for some big things in this project. I am very excited about the potential.
4. I am going to be finalizing Statecraft (as a beta) very very soon. I am abandoning a good portion of the wargaming design, simplifying it, and generally improving the work RIGHT NOW. Like today. And this weekend. And it will be released soon. (All delays in the this process can be blamed on my recent purchase of Fallout New Vegas). Statecraft is a new way of playing an RPG with a well-established and highly detailed setting called Actual History. It is really hard to describe in a few pithy lines, but each player is a historical leader like Henry VIII or Napoleon. You run your country kind of like you manage your magical spells in D&D. It is an extension of your character, but one that transfers forward to your heir as each character dies in succession. Very cool game, I can't wait to finalize it.
5. I have a revolutionary new module design that needs to be finalized. I have already written about 20 pages of it and it stands apart from all my games. This is a setting independent design. I just need to get passionate about it. And as an amateur free worker, I don't work on things I lack passion for.
I want to close by thanking Malcolm Sheppard because I had been distracted this week by Fallout New Vegas and reading someone saying "this stuff sucks, give me better stuff" has been a nice injection of passion into my brain. So thanks, Mal.
No comments:
Post a Comment