Fantasy Craft is Behind the 8-Ball

[Oleyo]

I find atmosphere, presentation, and aesthetics more inspiring than ultra-well designed rules.

I have always found the most appealing of Crafty's rules to be the ones that inspired gameplay, or removed hindrances to gameplay.  Dramatic conflicts, complex tasks, action tricks and stances, and easy-easy NPC's; these all add flavor and fun to roleplay, rather than just being more mechanically sound. 

I love that my people can lay down cover fire, and taunt opponents in battle, making them more fun and strategic, or have a memorable chase through and exotic city without a shot being fired.

One scene that my players still talk about as one of their favorites of all time involved a full team scuffle in the back of a van using only grapple checks (nice streamlined mechanic in 2.0) they were holding, pinning throwing opponents against the floor and walls (and one out the back doors while driving ) disarming and grabbing for a pistol, grabbing improvised weapons (a pipe...it was a work van), and grabbing the driver.  All of this during and leading into a high speed chase.  *That* is what I love about a Crafty game session

Of course the well balanced nature of the rules is appealing too.  Maybe take a peek at these features and see what you can use in your home game

[Portal]

Ah yes, I remember the dramatic conflict and complex task systems from SC as being very useful and innovative. If FC implements these in a very 3.5 OGL compatible way (i.e. implemented as a simple layer of circumstance modifiers etc.), I'd be interested in a PDF of FC for these rules pages.

Too bad that there's not more clarity of the FC release schedule.

[Crafty_Alex]

Pardon me, but I'm still a little puzzled as to why folks on both sides of this discussion are continuing to pursue it so aggressively. What I'm seeing here is a arguement that an apple vendor should be selling oranges...

What I was looking for in 2008 was a 3.5-compatible fantasy RPG that would clean out the bugs in the 3.5 OGL, up the presentation, graphics, and layout level, let me use the existing stuff I own that I like, and bring a good game to the next tier. Whoever produced such a game under whatever moniker was irrelevant. It just turns out Paizo is working on such a project, and so far, is delivering on their timelines.

As I mentioned earlier, this was never going to be Fantasy Craft. We didn't start with the 3.5 OGL, have never seriously even used the 3.5 OGL "properly" or seriously, and so weren't ever going to accomplish your target goal. A gamer such as yourself would have chosen Pathfinder Thus this discussion is becoming circular.

1) Inspired, creative, organized GM / DM
2) Inspired, engaged players with a solid relationship between each other
3) A game that inspires one to be creative and imaginative
4) A decent rule system behind the game

I find atmosphere, presentation, and aesthetics more inspiring than ultra-well designed rules. Yes, the rules can't be crap. But once you have a decent game engine behind you, it's time to move on to the other 3 things. I could care less which game system makes a 5th-level fighter more mean. YMMV.

...but our game can and will do that, too. Graphics don't make players better or GMs be organized. Inspiration for games as long come from the text and rules of the game... Just a counterpoint

Too bad that there's not more clarity of the FC release schedule.

The consistent criticism you've brought in this thread about us not hitting our deadlines is EXACTLY why we are not annoucing things far ahead of time. It just becomes more ammunition for threads like this. 

[Aragathor]

Sure, glimmerrat, I recognize a full-colour print is more expensive. I'm willing to pay more for it, however. And it seems broader macro-trends support this, as Wizards could have made the choice to go B&W at lower cost and a lower book price point for years now. Obviously, there is data showing it's worthwhile to go colour.

It's true older RPGs have traditionally had B&W interiors. But it's 2009, let's evolve.

You are willing to pay for it? Even if it pushes the price by more than $10 per book or more?
Because the last time I saw the price list of an talented artist, I noticed that full-colour comissions went for about $500 a piece without the rights to them.
Stating that there is a trend towards colour does not mean everyone goes this way.
Recently EOS Press released Unhallowed Metropolis, a victorian zombie horror RPG. The interior is B&W, but it's the only RPG book I own with real ART inside, instead of mere pictures.
Sure, a company can go for cheap colour, like WotC did a few times. But let's face it, colour does not mean better when compared to B&W.
I don't know if the nWoD has any colour inside, but the oWoD was B&W and looked good. Shadowrun is also B&W, as is almost every other RPG I own save for three systems. Star Wars and D&D are both colour, and L5R 3ed uses recycled illustrations from the CCG.

If you want to see what would happen to FC if it was full colour, look at Dark Heresy which has a list price of almost $60. FC would cost even more because DH uses recycled art from Black Library publications or Games Workshop army books. And tell me if you would pay about $100 for an colour version of FC if you could go beneath the $50 line with B&W?

[Krensky]

If you want pathfinder, you know where to find it.

If you want a system intended to be backwards compatable with 3.5e, they buy and play Pathfinder and stop harping on it here. Fantasycraft was never going to be what you wanted. It's not even based on 3.5e, so how could it be? It's descended from 3.0, not 3.5.

Generally, the market seems to indicate that people like color books and are willing to pay slightly higher prices for them, but for a small publisher like Crafty the difference between color and black and white is insane. We've been over this before, but here we go again.

A good comparison might be the forthcoming War of the Burning Sky hardback from EN Publishing. It's going to be $199 for a 650 to 800 page book. That's roughly $0.31 to $0.25 a page. Fantasycraft is 320 pages. Going with the $0.25 a page amount, that comes to $80.00. This is twice the MSRP of the 4e PHB, or GURPS 4 Characters book, and $20 more then FFG's Anima or Pathfinder. Morrus has also said that at that price point they're not doing much better then breaking even. WotC, SJG, and FFG can all afford large print runs, negotiate/extort low prices, and tollerate razor thin margins due to being very diversified (in the hobby industry) companies with a number of product lines with very high margins. Also, in SJG's case, because Evil Stevie doesn't need to make money from SJG.

Now, you may be willing to pay $80 and see Pat, Alex, and Scott starve, but the rest of the market isn't.

[Portal]

I'll try to avoid the circular arguments. No value there.

Obviously, Paizo has something favourable happening in their production economics as they delivered a nice playtest softcover with colour for $30, and I expect the final hardcover to be in the $50 range. Yes, I'm willing to pay $15-$20 more for colour. No, I'm not willing to spend $50 or more.

Alex,

Graphics don't make players better or GMs be organized. Inspiration for games as long come from the text and rules of the game...

You're welcome to your opinion. In my 20+ years of RPGing, I've never seen a rules system make a better campaign. I've seen good rules form the foundation of a decent game. But inspired GMs and players bring the real meat and potatoes. I find graphics more than text & crunch help me and many other players become inspired. YMMV.

The consistent criticism you've brought in this thread about us not hitting our deadlines is EXACTLY why we are not annoucing things far ahead of time.

The most effective thing to do is meet your project schedules, IMHO.

Everyone,

Thanks for the useful thread. It's inspired me to check out the PDF version of FC when it hits market, to see how the Dramatic Conflict and Complex Task systems can be used in a 3.5 OGL way.

[MilitiaJim]

Now if we're talking tactical wargaming, ultra-well designed rules are essential....

This might be where 4e has the edge, except that the rules are not quite tight enough for what, it seems to me, they want it to be. 

Pathfinder seems to be exactly what you want.  Go for it.  But realize that Paizo and Crafty are different companies with different objectives, manpower, definitions of success, and (partially) different markets.  Yes there is overlap in people who want both and perhaps Crafty is losing a bit to people who can't wait, but that is cheap compared to what they would lose in reputation by turning out a piece of junk.

[Gentry]

But let's face it, colour does not mean better when compared to B&W.

Preach it, brother!

I'm finally picking up some of the 3.5 books that were released toward the end of the design curve (Book of Nine Swords, Complete Mage, etc.), and the art's just garbage.  Yeah it's color, but good it ain't.  It inspires me...not at all, as a matter of fact.  If anything, it's the "make sure your game doesn't look like this" lesson.  And I can get that lesson from the SenZar book, in B&W.

I wonder how a self-respecting art director/line editor allows some of these pieces to go forward into print.  There's better stuff on the DeviantArt or Elfwood forums, for cryin' out loud.  Color's all fine and good, as long as it's actually good.  If I spring the extra dough for a color book, and the presentation blows goats, I feel cheated, and my willingness to buy more stuff in that line lessens, often to nil.

And Portal said...

In my 20+ years of RPGing, I've never seen a rules system make a better campaign. I've seen good rules form the foundation of a decent game. But inspired GMs and players bring the real meat and potatoes.  I find graphics more than text & crunch help me and many other players become inspired.

Your experience makes you about average 'round here.  See http://www.crafty-games.com/forum/index.php?topic=1757.0.  I find it hard to believe that after your first 20 years of gaming had passed and you saw full-color D&D3 books you said to yourself "finally I can get easily inspired!"  Come on, now.

[Morgenstern]

Obviously, Paizo has something favourable happening in their production economics as they delivered a nice playtest softcover with colour for $30, and I expect the final hardcover to be in the $50 range. Yes, I'm willing to pay $15-$20 more for colour. No, I'm not willing to spend $50 or more.

That 'something' would be years of established presence in the D&D market and a solid knowledge of how many copies they can expect to sell of a fantasy gaming hardcover book. Which to my reasonably practiced eye is about 8-11 times as many as we can be certain of selling. That lets you amortize fixed costs like an art budget over a LOT more books. Shifting from B&W (a common practice even among what is generally believed to be the second and third largest identifiable games systems and most suporters of the single largest) to color production drives up your fixed up-front costs by a factor of between 5-8 (and art is by FAR the largest cost for a company founded by 3 writers) AND it also drives up the must be paided every single book printing costs by a factor of 12. In other words, Crafty Games could have tried to do a color book in an area you yourself say is not our forte, for the privilege of being deeply in debt for a year (art has to be ordered far in advance) and then be looking at having to sell probably 5 times as many books as we've ever sold just to break even, and be looking to recieve probably 1/3 the return per book after we reach that break even point - and that's assuming adding on the order of $20-$30(!!) dollars to the price the customer sees. Economy of scale is critical to the B&W vs. Color decision and we are nowhere near the breakpoint that makes it possible. Sorry we, a pretty modest third tier publisher, aren't the behemoth Paizo is. We have to play to our strengths and those are in design, not war chest.

You're welcome to your opinion. In my 20+ years of RPGing, I've never seen a rules system make a better campaign. I've seen good rules form the foundation of a decent game. But inspired GMs and players bring the real meat and potatoes. I find graphics more than text & crunch help me and many other players become inspired. YMMV.

Clearly. By that standard I'm not sure I see why you are going on to Pathfinder either. Its just another set of rules that won't make a better campaign. If you want to buy an art book for inspiration I'd think there are better choices out there that have certainly beaten Pathfinder to the shelves. What exactly do you see Pathfinder uniquely offering you other than an opportunity to show your support to your existing library?

Further, by the purchasing metrics you are describing the only thing Fantasy Craft ever had to offer you (being just another set of rules that will never inspire a better campaign and without color art) was being available before Pathfinder - aka it would make a good whim purchase. We like whim purchases, but they can happen any time your primary itches are satisfied and you have the money laying around. There will be gaps in the Pathfinder schedule after it launches, and maybe during one of those a customer like you will check us out. At that point our lower cost point will be a huge boon as we'll seem like a promising candidate for picking up on a whim.

[MugMug]

A beautiful artfully done picture book with very little crunch is not what we want.

In this product anyway. I quite enjoy breaking out my copy of Nobilis, on occasion, to look at all the pretty pictures.

Walter

[Morgenstern]

No, not exactly. What I was looking for in 2008 was a 3.5-compatible fantasy RPG that would clean out the bugs in the 3.5 OGL, up the presentation, graphics, and layout level, let me use the existing stuff I own that I like, and bring a good game to the next tier.

Pathfinder must raise 3.5 to "the next tier" to meet your expectations? Woof. Glad I'm not in their shoes. I adore Wayne Reynolds' art, but damn... If my core market were looking for some sort of quantum improvement while still being seamlessly backward compatible, I'd be one nervous designer. I'd be cautious about raising the pedastal that high before putting a product on it - measure it up for praise after its done and you'll be a lot more satisfied with the fit. Sorry you got the impression that Fantasy Craft was ever a candidate for that criteria. It wasn't, not just because it would be prohibitively expensive, but because frankly I'm uninterested in producing that product. I considered offering to work on Pathfinder a while back as I thought I had some clever solutions to some of the problems they were publically wrestling with. It would have been fun, in the same way that writing for Eberon was fun. However some of the production decision they made convinced me I was better off not getting involved. However, being in competition with myself was NOT one of those factors, as while I see Pathfinder as a competitor to Fantasy Craft in the broader Fantasy RPG category, I don't think of Fantasy Craft as a competitor to Patherfinder in the much smaller 'direct heir to 3.5' category.

Enough chat for me - back to finishing the book!

[Portal]

Gentry,

I won't defend the late releases in the official 3.5 canon. They were stinkers and I didn't buy them. I've also never stated colour is the only way to be baseline decent. It's just that good colour is much better than good B&W, and worth some additional sticker price.

I find it hard to believe that after your first 20 years of gaming had passed and you saw full-color D&D3 books you said to yourself "finally I can get easily inspired!"

Actually, the original PHB/DMG/MM 3.0 run in colour did get me to pay attention and say "It's about darn time they upped the production value of a RPG rulebook and used colour more extensively. This is cool!".

Morgenstein,

By that standard I'm not sure I see why you are going on to Pathfinder either. Its just another set of rules that won't make a better campaign.

We have a fundamental variance of opinion here. The Pathfinder Beta is making changes of significance to the 3.5 OGL, IMHO, and creating a better rules system as a result. It's also going to open, public playtest, which I think is a superior model than closed to-the-chest, conventional private playtesting. Sure, Paizo will receive a lot more noise from resulting playtest sessions. But they will also receive some more golden nuggets too.

What exactly do you see Pathfinder uniquely offering you other than an opportunity to show your support to your existing library?

Cleaning up niggling holes in the 3.5 OGL and upping the maturity level in presentation of a high fantasy RPG (I believe FC will do the latter as well, but Pathfinder is on track to hit market first). Releasing material in a timely way to their project schedules. That's what I primarily want.

Further, by the purchasing metrics you are describing the only thing Fantasy Craft ever had to offer you (being just another set of rules that will never inspire a better campaign and without color art) was being available before Pathfinder - aka it would make a good whim purchase.

This is a silly comment and excessively condescending, as I've patiently waited to give FC a fair chance as a primary rules engine since 2006 or so and the initial announcements that this game was going to time and compete (at least indirectly) with the release of D&D 4.0. I had some clear specs I wanted from my post 3.5 fantasy RPG experience, which I discussed earlier in the thread. I wanted an improved 3.5 OGL compatible game with excellent aesthetics from a publisher who I trust to manage its production schedules effectively. It looks like Pathfinder is on track to meet my closely considered expectations.

[Krensky]

So, basically, the whole point of this was to tell Crafty that you're not buying Fantasycraft because it's not  pretty enough, it's not similar enough to it's great, great, uncle, and because three guys with day jobs can't maintain the release schedule a company with full time developers, writers, editors, and enough money to hire however many freelancers they want can?

Gotcha.

As for Pathfinder, I've followed the development. It's no more different from 3.5 then Arcana Unearthed was from 3e. It's actually less different. There are improvements, but none of them are really of significance. If they were, the game wouldn't be backwards compatible. As for their public, open playtest, Jason is taking a few things, but form what I've seen no more, and possibly less then Scott's taken from us. It's largely theater. Not quite a marketing stunt, but close. Pathfinder will fix some holes, polish some rough spots, leave others alone, and add a few of it's own. It's the nature of the beast. As for upping the level of maturity, that depends on how you define maturity.

Golarion is, in many ways, a throw back to the early days, look at the Campaign Setting book. This part is like Ravenloft, over here's the Barrier Peaks, here's your al-quadim-alike, etc. I happen to like this, but considering that and that the latest AP was based off something the writer did when he was twelve. not to mention the holiday card, how are you defining maturity?

[Portal]

Krensky,

I wanted to open a discussion about FC, its intent, its approach, and its timelines. This has been very enlightening in that respect, as I had thought FC was originally heading down a different path I was more interested in. This clarity has proven very helpful.

As for their public, open playtest, Jason is taking a few things, but form what I've seen no more, and possibly less then Scott's taken from us. It's largely theater. Not quite a marketing stunt, but close.

What tangible evidence do you have of this? This reads like disgruntled speculation. Lots of playtesters end up turning in bunk playtest reports and their results are duely ignored. It happens.

Golarion is, in many ways, a throw back to the early days, look at the Campaign Setting book.

I've only been paying attention to the PF ruleset. I have plenty of 3.5 setting material as it is, so I haven't paid heed to Golarion.

[Krensky]

What tangible evidence do you have of this? This reads like disgruntled speculation. Lots of playtesters end up turning in bunk playtest reports and their results are duely ignored. It happens.

Mostly the schedule and way the playtest is organized. If it was a real open playtest they would have had multiple rounds of it, or some indication of what the changes being made are. That's how actual playtests work.

"Hey, this is wonky or broken"

"Hmm... Yeah...Try this and let me know how it works."

You do this over and over again until no one finds any more problems.

Pathfinder looks like this:

"Here's our draft (Alpha) in a few different parts."

"Here's some issues."

"Here's the Beta, which is 99% unchanged from the Alpha."

"Those issues are still there, and here's some more."

"This isn't the two week window to address that."

Time passes.

"Now that it's time, here's those issues I mentioned before."

No response, or occasionally a comment that they aren't issues or that Jason will look at them without any follow up or new changes to play test.

There are some exceptions, but that's the pattern.