Fantasy Craft is Behind the 8-Ball

[Portal]

Just to be clear up-front to everyone: I'm not looking for a flamewar or bring grief to Crafty. But as an independent veteran RPGer, I have some comments and feedback to share:

I think Fantasy Craft has missed its marketplace success window to capture fantasy RPGers who want a solid post-3.5 d20-based RPG. I'm not in any way associated with Paizo, but their Pathfinder RPG project is on schedule and on target. And from my hands-on experience with the Beta playtest and IMHO, it's delivering a good ruleset, high compatibility with older 3.5 material, and excellent colour graphics and presentation.

I expect Pathfinder (Final) to hit GenCon '09 on schedule and give the average post-3.5 player what they're looking for. I wish the best for FC, but coming out too little, too late with plain B&W graphics is not looking likely to cut the mustard. I think Crafty would be better off taking its efforts over to 10kB where they have real leadership in the modern RPG space and much less competition.

Sorry, guys, but Fantasy Craft needed to see release in 2008.

[Krensky]

Of course, this ignores the fact that fans of Spycraft have been clamoring for a fantasy version of the game since the SEH.

And that Paizo and Crafty have very different design goals.

And that Pat, Alex, and Scott have very different design philosophies then Jason.

And that Fantasycraft is not supposed to be a replacement for D&D 3.5e.

And that... well, you get the point.

Based on what's been said, and the rankings Crafty maintains on DriveThruRPG (their last release, a small PDF of a few weapons and toys is currently number 13, six of their products are in the top 100,  and the four of the fifteen small press leaders are Crafty products, and five of the top 100 small press titles are their's) I think FatasyCraft will do quite well for them.

[Morgenstern]

I'm hoping the Pathfinder guys do well. I'm a Pathfinder subscriber and love opening up that big envelope every month. But, I also know IN DETAIL what trying to be even vaguely backward compatible with 3.5 means in terms of creative limitations. There are things we can do they can't.

Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder are different games with different strengths. I look forward to the cross-polination between them and for both games proving the enduring potential of SRD-derived systems even when the 800-pound gorilla has moved on to thinly disguised boardgaming .

[Crafty_Alex]

You're welcome to your opinion. I agree with Morg, but you probably expected that The only thing I will call out...

I wish the best for FC, but coming out too little, too late with plain B&W graphics is not looking likely to cut the mustard.

You've not seen the art we've got in this book, or the layout, so I'll just say - calling it "plain" is simply wrong 

[Desertpuma]

I'm with Crafty on this. ... I'll wait for the quality I expect to be there from the Crafty Crew. I have been waiting for a while to get my hands on FC. I'd rather wait the extra time so they can get it right than want it now and have loads of errata like that other "boardgame".

Having seen the cover art for FC, I makes me drool with anticipation and it has the same effect on all those I've shown it to.

[VisualStatic]

a halfling skinned and pinned to a shield......  nuff said....

[Portal]

Some good points for debate and thought. Here are some counter-points as a devil's advocate:

fans of Spycraft have been clamoring for a fantasy version of the game since the SEH.

"Fans of Spycraft" are a much smaller audience than "all 3.5 OGL players who are looking for an improved 3.5-related fantasy RPG". Plus, not every Spycraft fan is interested in fantasy gaming. Some may just be interested in modern settings. Just reading this forum, for example, we discover a number of Crafty fans who wish the product management decision to focus on 10kB first was made.

Fantasycraft is not supposed to be a replacement for D&D 3.5e.

It would be very naive to not consider FC and Pathfinder to be competitors at the end of the day. They are both fantasy tabletop RPGs (already a niche market), both using a baseline of the 3.5 d20 OGL (another sub-market of a niche market). The average RPGer (not hardcore Crafty fan) just wants to play a game that's good. They're not going to run out and support both game lines. And if Pathfinder hits market first with an excellent game, they will corner that larger audience.

I have no doubt the serious, long-term Crafty fans will check out this product. But the opportunity for broader market success will have been lost, especially if Pathfinder (Final) hits market before the FC core rulebook.

Alex,

Sorry, but the best B&W fantasy art in the world is not as good as quality colour.

[Krensky]

Fantasycraft is not supposed to be a replacement for D&D 3.5e.

It would be very naive to not consider FC and Pathfinder to be competitors at the end of the day. They are both fantasy tabletop RPGs (already a niche market), both using a baseline of the 3.5 d20 OGL (another sub-market of a niche market). The average RPGer (not hardcore Crafty fan) just wants to play a game that's good. They're not going to run out and support both game lines. And if Pathfinder hits market first with an excellent game, they will corner that larger audience.

I have no doubt the serious, long-term Crafty fans will check out this product. But the opportunity for broader market success will have been lost, especially if Pathfinder (Final) hits market before the FC core rulebook.

How is it naive? When two products in a market have completely different goals and targets, they are generally not competitors. A Jeep Wrangler and a Dodge Charger are both automobiles available in the US market, but since they are completely different vehicle types with different market targeting, they are only competitors in the most technical and broad of senses.

Pathfinder is the result of a decision on Piazo's part to finda way of keeping a rule book to support their adventure paths in print since they do not want to use 4e and subject Golarion to the GSL.

Fantasycraft is the result of fulfilling an expressed desire for a fantasy version of Spycraft. Fantasycraft is not a 3.5 descendant, though. Mastercraft is a descendant of Spycraft 2.0, which is a descendant of Stargate SG-1, which is a descendant of Spycraft 1.0, which is the love child of D&D 3e, Star Wars d20, and (if I remember right) Mutants & Masterminds 1e.

Lastly, if Crafty considers Fantasycraft a success even if Pathfinder outsells it ten fold, it's a success. Especially since Paizo is a much larger company with much higher revenues (assumedly) and costs. I have both the Pathfinder Core and the Beastiary on pre-order at the moment. They came to about a hundred dollars with my subscriber discount. It may be too early for a definite cost, but I'll be surprised if Fantasycraft is more then $50. As far as the color versus black and white issue, that horse was beaten a while ago.

[glimmerrat]

I know i'm biased but i can't help but look at Pathfinder as wanting to be D&D. Even the art looks samey.

I don't like the whole 'you can use any 3.5 book with pathfinder' thing. I don't really like 3.5. Mastercraft is so different as to barely be the same system, so comparing the two is like comparing Conan with Earthdawn. They're both fantasy but they both feel utterly different. Have you looked through a copy of Spycraft 2.0? Have you played using it?

You've also stated that you don't have the patience to wait for a book, even if it is well-presented, carefully and painstakingly produced at a high quality. You'd much rather go and buy whatever is available, simply because it's out now. I'd rather wait and compare the two to make an objective decision, rather than completely writing something off, off-handedly, because it doesn't meet my expectations for release dates.

Pardon me if that comes off as brusque - it isn't intended that way.

[Aragathor]

When two products in a market have completely different goals and targets, they are generally not competitors.

I agree, but FC and Pathfinder do have the same target, namely, the fantasy gamers.
All arguments aside, the target stays the same. And let's ignore the misshapen monstrosity called 4ed.
In a certain way both games will compete with each other. And on a broader front they will compete with other systems.

So it's not as clear cut as with the automobile market.

Now pathfinder is not an open system and I don't think we will see the same amount of tweaking done with it as with SC/MC/FC. This is CGs strong suite, everything they create can be easily modified if one wants to, I know it because I reverse engineered gun creation on a windy afternoon while drinking unsugared Earl Grey tea (yes, it's that simple).

Portal you say FC missed the train, but FC is not aimed at the post-4ed group. Maybe it was at the beggining but now it's more akin to a D20 gurps-like system for everything pre-19th century and/or magic.
The train FC is waiting for runs every hour for many years now, and that won't change with pathfinder (which is BTW pigeonholed into the heroic fantasy niche).

Aaand since I don't want to be an optimist -> FC will not have 50% of what I'm looking for (like specialities) but at least I'll be able to create it myself, at least I hope to.

[Psion]

Well, I have to agree that if FC wanted to strike while the iron was hot, that chance has passed.

But to me, if the choice was between delivering a product at GC 08 that was not ready for prime time and delivering a product in early 09 that is, I'm happy to take the latter. I don't think Crafty would have been well served rushing FC out. It could have been delivered with mistakes and half thunk-through design decisions, and be quickly bypassed and forgotten like Eldritch. Or they can deliver a product with staying power.

[Portal]

I'm having a hunch FC is turning into a product I'm not really interested in. Conceptually, I like the 3.5 OGL and was looking for a product that was going to clean up some loose ends and let me play better 3.5. I'm not looking for a "medieval d20 GURPS".

glimmerrat,

If Mastercraft will be required to have WotC's d20 OGL license text inside the RB, it's not that different a system. Especially when it considers itself a fantasy RPG.

You've also stated that you don't have the patience to wait for a book, even if it is well-presented, carefully and painstakingly produced at a high quality.

I'm more than willing to do this. But I'm not willing to do this for a late product when another product is available that delivers to these same specifications. I think Pathfinder is well-presented, high quality, and carefully produced. It's also in an open, public playtest  (very innovative approach) with a really nice colour print playtest book that looks better than a large majority of final published RPGs out there.

[Desertpuma]

The problem, Portal, is you have yet to see the whole of the FC book. Crafty has teased us with elements of it but never put forth the whole enchilada.

FC was never meant to be the clean up game to 3.5 but instead to bring the Crafty system to fantasy gaming. Did they use the SRD for spells and then convert (and currently converting) them? Yes. ... However, the monsters, and by extension monster generator, are Crafty's. Instead of presenting only Forgotten Realms or whatever Pathfinder's world is, there are going to be 6 worlds to choose from and rules on how to create your own other than just Campaign Qualities.

Medieval D20 GURPS, eh? Or Palladium? ... The point is FC will be part of Mastercraft so you can seamlessly grab Origins, Feats, Campaign Qualitites, Dramatic Conflicts, Classes, and maybe even Gear from any one Crafty product and put it in your game without having to re-engineer it extensively or even at all.

While 3.5 had its moments, Pathfinder will be just as limited in a really breadth of domain sense. The only similarities really those that have been there since 2.0 came out: stats, skills, and feats are combined to make your character. The differences though are: Origins, a shortened more correct and easier to use Skill list, Feats clearly stated without need for additional clarification, Dramatic Conflicts, Action Dice (which were "stolen" for Eberron and 4thEd), Campaign Qualities, a NPC system that fluctuates to fill the holes based on party strength so encounters are always challenging, and a combat system where all the information is easily collated including different damage types, conditions, and having only free, half, or full actions. There is none of that swift/interrupted/if I only thought about it actions in FC.

Now, do I wish FC was already out? Yes, but I'm willing to wait for it to arrive. Do I wish 10KB was out? Yes, but nowhere near as much as Alex.

Krensky has a point. FC is not a really a descendent of 3.5. Fantasy tabletop RPGs are the largest niche in tabletop gaming. If anything, Spycraft is the only one filling the espionage niche right now. FC is one of the most anticipated fantasy RPGs out there. I think you'd be surprised how much traffic is appearing on this site under the moniker of "Guest". There have been articles and interviews in many gaming magazines about FC including what is different about it and how it came about. Trust me, the gaming industry is waiting with baited breath to see what it looks like. I even heard a potential rumor of another gaming company that may leave the 3.5 system to be under the FC/MC system because they trust the guys at Crafty for their quality, their license, and how different they are from Wanters Of The Cash.

[Oleyo]

I like the 3.5 OGL and was looking for a product that was going to clean up some loose ends and let me play better 3.5.

Not me.  I am looking for innovative rules and mechanics, and a toolset which lets me craft my own story on a robust framework.  Spycraft delivered in spades on that front and I am confident FantasyCraft will do the same. 

I can see why you dont see FantasyCraft scratching your particular itch, but I also know there are many others with my particular itch.  Personally, I love a market rich in choice.

Of course, I am sure it was a very hard decision for Crafty to essentially delay FC and 10KB by putting them under the MasterCraft umbrella, but I think it will turn out to have been the right decision for both the company and the end-users.

Alot of the work on the FantasyCraft seems to have been work on the MasterCraft framework as well.  Personally, I am willing to wait for this framework, which will presumably make other MasterCraft releases easier/faster.

[Crafty_Alex]

I'm having a hunch FC is turning into a product I'm not really interested in. Conceptually, I like the 3.5 OGL and was looking for a product that was going to clean up some loose ends and let me play better 3.5. I'm not looking for a "medieval d20 GURPS".

Funny, I don't think anyone from Crafty has said that. Krensky's got it though - Mastercraft is a descendant of Spycraft 2.0 more than 3.5 - if you've tried to use 3.5 books with Spycraft 2.0, you'll know they were similar at the core, but not really "compatible" in the way you seem to be seeking.

As you state, you like the 3.5 OGL and are looking for a product to clean it up. Pathfinder is that product, because they started with 3.5 and are looking to keep as much of it in there as possible. Our audience didn't start there, and though we'd love to pick up disaffected 3.5/4e players, that was never Fantasy Craft's intent - ours was to serve up a different d20 OGL game that provides a new approach and baseline to fantasy play, with the core principles of our designs (flexibility, balance, tons of options, ability to build and tweak your world) laid on top. People seeking a good game over a compatible game if you will.

People chose Spycraft 2.0 over games like d20 Modern because they wanted a different game with the same guts. Those that wanted something as close as possible to 3.5 chose d20 Modern went that direction for a reason. You can have a truck with a v6 and a sports car with a v6, and find them both to be completely different driving experiences, even though the engine is the same at the center. I expect there is a segment of people out there - 3.5. 4e, non-d20 and Spycraft fans alike - that are looking for a fantasy game that's good and adheres to the type of principles we bring to our books. They may like the v6, they may want a sports car, they may want the Crafty brand - all these things bring them to the Crafty v6 Sports Car of Fantasy Craft equally.

glimmerrat,

If Mastercraft will be required to have WotC's d20 OGL license text inside the RB, it's not that different a system. Especially when it considers itself a fantasy RPG.

Only in that it's the v6 we're referring to. I will point out that Mutants and Masterminds and True20 also use the OGL, even though only the most basic principles of their game (ability names, d20 based, save names, feats and some skills) are anything remotely resembling 3.5 d20. You must use the OGL if you use ANY of those. True20 and Blue Rose (proto-True20) are both fantasy games. So it can be VERY different.

You've also stated that you don't have the patience to wait for a book, even if it is well-presented, carefully and painstakingly produced at a high quality.

I'm more than willing to do this. But I'm not willing to do this for a late product when another product is available that delivers to these same specifications. I think Pathfinder is well-presented, high quality, and carefully produced. It's also in an open, public playtest  (very innovative approach) with a really nice colour print playtest book that looks better than a large majority of final published RPGs out there.

You have to decide based on your principles. It sounds like you want maximum 3.5 compatibility and full color, which are two things they deliver we can't. Our book will be "well-presented, high quality, and carefully produced" - absolutely no question there. The open playtest is neat, but nothing we could have ever done to accomplish that with our resources.  So we can guarantee you a good, innovative, fun book with good production values and a good value in the long run.

But you as the consumer have to make up your mind what your priorities are and act accordingly. We'd love to have you - of course! - but it's your money and time in the end of the day. We'll be here whatever you decide.