Topic: Settings for HARP

[Thom @ ICE]

Option 1 establishes a single setting and expects the fanbase to support it across the board and use it as written.  One setting that gets tons of attention, but may or may not be to your liking.

Option 2 gives enough material to game in the setting and some basic adventure support, but leaves it up to the GM to build their own campaign.  Many settings which increase the chance of hitting something you want, but doesn't try to support a setting beyond a core book and some support products.

Option 3 focuses more on the components of HARP (Races, cultures, professions, training packages, equipment, magic, religions, etc.) and doesn't try to provide a setting at all.

Note: This is just for my own curiosity based upon some recent comments in the Rolemaster section.  Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this poll.

[darb]

I'll chime in with a very strong #1!!!!  I really feel like the majority consumer base is at a point in their life when they need as much of the work done for them as is possible.  Realistically that means focusing on a single setting and and working it.  I know some people are going to chime in here and say that they only run their own stuff or whatever, but that is just not, I believe, the average gamer right now.  Look at Paizo, they work the crud out of their setting and you know what, it seems to work....Their Adventure Path line is is fantastic for the market.  I think that ICE's market skews even older and more time strapped than D20 stuff. 

[GrumpyOldFart]

I'm going to waffle here.

I'd say go with a combination of #2 and #3, until you find out which of your many settings takes off in popularity, at which point you declare that one to be #1. It will probably work better if many, preferably most, of your "Races, cultures, professions, training packages, equipment, magic, religions, etc." can be easily tied to one or more of your "option #2" settings.

[pyrotech]

I went with option 2.  My biggest reason is because I would rather see two or three settings available because I'm not always a fan of the main supported setting (for example Shadow World isn't doesn't really resonate with me, and I really dislike Forgotten Realms but really love Greyhawk).  So having a few moderately supported settings increases the odds of me finding one I like. 

Additionally I am not a big fan of adventures.  I tend to prefer making my own adventures.  What I really need are adventure seeds throughout the setting.  I can expose my players to these seeds and see what they bite on.  From there I can build my own adventures to fit my game and my players.

Thanks for allowing us to express our opinions, I know how annoying getting useful information from polls can be.

-Pyrotech

[PhillipAEllis]

Ideally, I'd like to see a major world garner the widest support, with other worlds also there, but with less breadth of products (ie. the essentials) as well as more generic type products.

[darb]

Multiple settings would be great... but is it really feasible for ICE right now?  I would think that doing one thing really well would be more productive for them.  I mean lets be real, this new company is orders of magnitude more productive than the last, but it is still not able to push much product out the door.  Lets say they can do 500 pages of setting material a year (we can hope!) does it make sense to divide that over 3 or do more for one?

One thing I have not really seen is really good market survey data from gamers about this stuff.  I don't mean necessarily just the folks on a specific website who are interested enough to spend time on a message board, but the mass of gamers that are out there spending money.  I guess it has been done but it would be interesting to hear more about it.  It seems like ICE could have a focus group or survey at a con which would probably be really helpful in planning in order to reinvigorate sales.

[Thom @ ICE]

Magnitude of product stays roughly the same in any one of the 3 models, and note that this is not going to decide what Nicholas and GCP does with ICE, it's really just a curiosity I have.

Think of it as whether ICE should take the risk on a single setting, putting all eggs in one basket and put all product development that will happen for HARP settings into that one world by producing a major region book, 2 city books and a artifacts/treasures and creatures book for that setting

- or would ICE be better off developing 3 core setting products (one for Steampunk, one for Cthulhu Horror, one for Fantasy) to show how HARP works with each, and provide a product filled with adventure seeds and a couple of short stand-alone adventures for the GM to use in developing their campaigns

- or should ICE forget about doing settings at all and focus on pumping out generic books of races.... professions.... cultures/training packages.... and monsters....  and let you build your own setting?

Option 2 does not preclude eventually coming back and adding on to the setting to expand it further with greater detail.  Nor does Option 1 preclude abandoning an unsuccessful setting and beginning again with a new setting or two.

Option 3 could also be used as a base to then create a few settings (option 2) or even focus solely on one setting (option 1).

The question is what is the best place to start.

[Falenthal]

I'd go for adventures. I think right now we all have tons of settings available and have tuned even them to our own likings. Do we need another world where there are northern-icy-barbarians, elves living secretly in the wood, mountain dwarves at their forge, etc?
Adventures can be adapted to any setting and they are what, in my opinion, gives us the example of how the game mechanics can be used for a full adventure experience.

My view is my own, as I don't know lots of player and don't go to cons, but I'm pretty sure I don't need another world to play in, I need adventures that can be played and are fun to. And adventures are the real place where you can see how well (or not) game mechanics work.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Option 2 does not preclude eventually coming back and adding on to the setting to expand it further with greater detail.

Option 3 could also be used as a base to then create a few settings (option 2) or even focus solely on one setting (option 1).

Exactly.

The question is what is the best place to start.

I would start with option 2. To my mind it appears that it would be easier to tweak as necessary, adding and subtracting elements of 1 and 3, as both the product line and its market evolved, from the baseline of option 2 than from anywhere else. Option 1 at least somewhat commits you to that product line long enough for sales history to generate enough data to accurately judge that setting concept as a success or failure. Option 3 doesn't generate that data history for settings concepts at all other than by happenstance. This leads me to think that only option 2 allows you to keep improving the product and making sales while at the same time allowing the customer base that actually wants to spend its money with you to tell you what they really want, not just in words from people on forums, but in terms of what puts money in the company bank account.

If it works the way I'm claiming it does, everybody wins. I won't claim to have the marketing experience to judge whether that line of reasoning works in the real world or not. To be fair, why I favor this option is because I'm too fully aware that at this point, I know precisely zilch-point-nada about how markets work. Of course I'd want data.

Multiple settings would be great... but is it really feasible for ICE right now?

I dunno from feasible, I just know what I think would be good to see. Making the miracle actually happen is the problem of the cast and crew, not the folks in the audience.

 

Adventures can be adapted to any setting and they are what, in my opinion, gives us the example of how the game mechanics can be used for a full adventure experience.

I think a big challenge, but worth it if you can pull it off, is to have things that fill out genre settings supported by ICE, but work easily outside of it as well. I mean, why shouldn't other companies' gamers be deciding they like ICE's adventures ported into their system better than the ones their company writes?

 

[dagorhir]

What I would mostly like to see are adventures. I use my own setting simply because no one setting out there that has ever existed really fitted with me. I have taken the habit of using adventures created for another setting and adapting to mine. It saves me a lot of work since I don't really have to come up with a story.

[RandalThor]

I voted for #1, but really I want 2-3 different settings with all that! (Yeah, I'm greedy, sue me!  )

[ironmaul]

Option 2 does not preclude eventually coming back and adding on to the setting to expand it further with greater detail.

Option 3 could also be used as a base to then create a few settings (option 2) or even focus solely on one setting (option 1).

Exactly.

The question is what is the best place to start.

I would start with option 2. To my mind it appears that it would be easier to tweak as necessary, adding and subtracting elements of 1 and 3, as both the product line and its market evolved, from the baseline of option 2 than from anywhere else. Option 1 at least somewhat commits you to that product line long enough for sales history to generate enough data to accurately judge that setting concept as a success or failure. Option 3 doesn't generate that data history for settings concepts at all other than by happenstance. This leads me to think that only option 2 allows you to keep improving the product and making sales while at the same time allowing the customer base that actually wants to spend its money with you to tell you what they really want, not just in words from people on forums, but in terms of what puts money in the company bank account.

If it works the way I'm claiming it does, everybody wins. I won't claim to have the marketing experience to judge whether that line of reasoning works in the real world or not. To be fair, why I favor this option is because I'm too fully aware that at this point, I know precisely zilch-point-nada about how markets work. Of course I'd want data.

Multiple settings would be great... but is it really feasible for ICE right now?

I dunno from feasible, I just know what I think would be good to see. Making the miracle actually happen is the problem of the cast and crew, not the folks in the audience.

 

Adventures can be adapted to any setting and they are what, in my opinion, gives us the example of how the game mechanics can be used for a full adventure experience.

I think a big challenge, but worth it if you can pull it off, is to have things that fill out genre settings supported by ICE, but work easily outside of it as well. I mean, why shouldn't other companies' gamers be deciding they like ICE's adventures ported into their system better than the ones their company writes?

 

I agree with Grumpy 100%, makes perfect business sense.
Steampunk and Horror are a good introductory setting for ICE but isn't Cyradon HARP's fantasy setting already?
If you were looking for another base fantasy setting I'd go with a darker fairy tale concept...plenty of room for
interpretation there.

[darb]

It makes perfect business sense if that is what most buyers want.  I am not sure.  I also don't have real data, but my feeling from this and other boards, as well as my somewhat middle age (god how did that happen?) gaming circle, is that what people clamor for is for the company to do basically all the work of setting up the session as much as possible.  Then the players and GM can modify as they want.  But what I hear people say is they have very little TIME, so as much background and adventure support as possible is important.  I know more people that take Paizo's adventure path stuff and convert to system of choice because that is way faster than coming up with your own adventures.   I also think there is a definite critical minimum mass for a setting to be successful, and that means it has to have new material appear often enough that it feels "living" at least from a company support perspective.  Ideally it would be great for ICE to do that with a few settings, but I think splitting over several product lines means none of them achieve that critical mass and all somewhat fail.  But that is just an opinion.  It sounds to me that option 2 has several products that are similar to Cyradon (setting, couple of adventures, some ideas, couple articles), which I don't believe set the bank account on fire.  Is there reason to think that doing 3 iterations of Cyradon-style product but in different settings would be more successful?  I honestly don't know.

[jdale]

It makes perfect business sense if that is what most buyers want.  I am not sure.  I also don't have real data, but my feeling from this and other boards, as well as my somewhat middle age (god how did that happen?) gaming circle, is that what people clamor for is for the company to do basically all the work of setting up the session as much as possible.  Then the players and GM can modify as they want.  But what I hear people say is they have very little TIME, so as much background and adventure support as possible is important.

I think there probably is a division between people who want that level of support and people who would rather make their own. For myself, I know I'm in the latter group, world-building is one of the best parts of running a game. But... of the two groups, the former is the group that will buy setting materials and the latter is not (or at least, will buy much less). So the setting has to be pitched at the first group. The second group will mostly buy things they can adapt.

I think Grumpy is probably right about how to determine which setting deserves this level of support....  but that said, a heavily supported setting can only work if there are multiple writers contributing. (Unless, like Shadow World, you spend decades working on it.) So that means right from the beginning the main developer has to be thinking about what they will leave for others to detail, has to be flexible enough to incorporate other people's work, and the setting has to catch the interest of other writers.

This is for fantasy... For SF in my opinion it's harder to catch everyone's interest in a single setting. For example I love really interesting alien races. The SM:Privateers setting had no interest to me whatsoever because of its races. But I'm sure there are other people who were thrilled to play e.g. anthropomorphic wolves. So I think it's more risky here to have a single SF setting. On the other hand, space is big and it can be easier to slot things in and out of your own game.

[RandalThor]

I also don't have real data, but my feeling from this and other boards, as well as my somewhat middle age (god how did that happen?) gaming circle, is that what people clamor for is for the company to do basically all the work of setting up the session as much as possible.  Then the players and GM can modify as they want.  But what I hear people say is they have very little TIME, so as much background and adventure support as possible is important.

Let me emphasis this point (that I agree with, btw): I have way more time* than the majority of gamers anywhere near my age -and by near, I mean within 15-18 years (I am 47, do the math) - and I want as much of the work done so I only have to do some modifications. Plus, I am not a professional game maker, and the only aspect of that I could claim to have any talent for is characterization, plotting, and some flavor writing. I am not a cartographer, editor, flow-chart master, or any one of the other thousand aspects it takes to create a game and setting. (Yes, I do get it, which is why I am happy to buy all the game-stuff out there I am even remotely interested in, I understand it is not an easy job.) So, I leave that stuff to the professionals, and eagerly buy up what they make. (So get to making, already.  )



*Not married, no kids, etc...

[Luxferre]

- or would ICE be better off developing 3 core setting products (one for Steampunk, one for Cthulhu Horror, one for Fantasy) to show how HARP works with each, and provide a product filled with adventure seeds and a couple of short stand-alone adventures for the GM to use in developing their campaigns

this !

[Thom @ ICE]

isn't Cyradon HARP's fantasy setting already?

it was a quick, off the cuff example.... Don't read anything into it.... nothing was intended

[PhillipAEllis]

Although my gaming experience, of the ICE products, has mainly been RM, then MERP, I do have experience with horror, as player & GM of Call of Cthulhu, player of various World of Darkness titles, poet, critic & scholar (one of my current projects is a concordance of Lovecraft's poetry for example). So I have some experience there, and getting experience as a game designer. So there are some of us out there willing to take on the process of setting &/or adventure design.

How can we, then, as gamers and designers, enable the GMs and players among us to take that step and develop the skills we need to be the writers and designers that the three options need? As I have said, elsewhere: we won't get the material we need if we don't write it ourselves (the context, well, was with the study of William Hope Hodgson ).

[Turbs]

TL;DR version at bottom...


The problem with #1 is that I often feel like changing my setting on a campaign by campaign basis..

sometimes i like a good high fantasy romp, with time travel, different planes of existance, elemental realms Gobling kingdoms, Lizardman Blacksmiths in highly populated cities..you know..the whole nine yards..

Other times i like a good dark and gritty humanity based campaign (as I am playing now) where other races (i.e. dwarves elves halflings) are extremely rare mythical creatures. Where magic is low and playing a Mage is to be considered something special and dangerous for the PC..

other times i like a nice bland mix..

That Disclaimer aside. I think that HARP does need a fully supported setting.. I really like Cyradon as a concept... personally It doesnt fit with how I want to run my game at the moment so Im not using it..  but i has a lot of potential,  the main thing that turns me off Cyradon is the whole refugee background.. Either you are going to like it or you wont. but once you go down a very distinct background like that you are dividing your player base..

Now what I would recommend would be to add a whole lot of source books about "the Old World" of Cyradon and allow campaigns and adventures to take place there too,  with such a stark difference in culture and technology (and ..well..everything. .) to the current setting it gives the flexibilty of option #2 all under the banner of Option #1 though leave nicely undefined areas with minimal details for Creative GM's to plop down thier own knigdoms.  Leave whole continents undeveloped precisly for this reason... If I know I have a core source book that I can just chuck my own created world into and not mess up the entire system then I will buy the book..

TL;DR

• Option #1 but leave enough room and undeveloped regions / whole continents where creative GM's can simply drop in thier own cities/countries/worlds and not affect the rest of the setting.
  
• Focusing on developing three (or more as time/resources permit) seperate conitnents culturally that vary significantly to give customers the greatest opportunity to find something to thier taste.
  a good example would be to really flsh out the "old World" of Cyradon

.

[ironmaul]

isn't Cyradon HARP's fantasy setting already?

it was a quick, off the cuff example.... Don't read anything into it.... nothing was intended

OK, no worries.
I think the ideal dream for ICE fans is to have other settings/genres besides the few current ones, but really how would this be possible anyway? Nicholas/GCP can only do so much.
Although I don't play anymore, not for wanting, my interested would be in illustrating covers for steampunk or dark faerie genres...not so much into horror but I could do it.
Anyways, I hope your curiosity has been satisfied