Here's a new sample cover for Prime Time Adventures. If Matt enjoys lawsuits then he will certainly adopt this new cover. Originally posted on Chris Goodwin's journal, where more disappointing playtest info was revealed, and where we came to the conclusion, as we do ANYTIME the subject is brought up, that PTA is pretty much the (un)Official Firefly Game:
1. On 2005-06-29, Chris Goodwin wrote:
If anyone wants in on the original discussion in my LJ, e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org with your LiveJournal username and I'll add you to the list.
With that cover, and if its "officaly" the unoffical, then I would get that. Especially if it has source material and background on the Firefly setting. I can say as a Dealer that most folks that buy setting specific games, look at the quality and depth of the materiual first and the system second. You can always use a differant system.
Chukle. I applaud and approve Andy, but alas most gamers are geeks and source gamers are the worst. Whether thats good or bad I am not sure. I lean towards to the good only for the sheer volume of source books I sell for Buffy/Angel, Shadowrun, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, and even the Authority at a whopping sticker price of $50. The best example though is if you compare the Warhammer 40,000 rule books.(not rpg I know but it does show my point) The hardcover is chocked full of fluff and source material and really very little rules at $50 msrp. Compared to the slimmed down rule book that has all the same rules, no fluff, a bunch on minis, terrain, rules, dice and templates, for $45 msrp. I easily sell 3 to 1 source fluff, to non source fluff. I even have some that buy both.
It brings up an interesting thread about source/setting playabilty.
Scarlet (unintentionally) raises a good point about playtesting.
That is, it comes at a point where the design is a fait accompli. Playtesting of a commercial product is like beta testing software; the most they're going to do is fix reported bugs, like "Ability X is overpowered compared to Ability Y", or "You forgot to include a chart for falling damage".
Feedback like "The source material is better served by a small-press game, one-third the price" isn't useful at that point, whether or not it's true. :)
Design-level feedback is damn useful, but it has to come earlier in the process.
I dunno about the playtesting. I used a whole bunch of twunts, both Forge and not, for my playtesting, and got a ton of good feedback which allowed me to rewrite my system into something that was, you know, effective at doing what I wanted it to do.
Of course, I also asked them questions beyond "did you have fun" and "was there anything you didn't understand." So that might have something to do with it. More when Vincent front-pages.
Under The Bed's playtesting was done with three distinct groups: traditional RPers, Forge twunts, and non-gamers. The non-gamers were amazed that you could play such a game at all, but unanimously enjoyed it. The Forgies gave solid feedback that dramatically changed the game to do what I wanted, and the traditional gamers had a hard time wrapping their head around the fact that you are compelled to make a story about stuff that matters.
I gotta put together some I'm A Forge Twunt T-shirts. I'll let y'all know when they're wearable.
22. On 2005-10-06, Nev (aka Dave.. or is it the other way 'round?) wrote:
I just ran across the cafepress page for these tonight. I definitely would have preferred "twick", I'm not sure I wouldn't get kicked out of my FLGS walking in with "TWUNT" on my chest, heh. That said, I might just have to pick one up anyway.
What was Scarlet's beef, anyway? Aside from having panties one size too small, that is.