Oh, no. I was on the verge of posting the rules of Omnia (pending a decision about what license to use), when I began to have doubts about the combat rules again. I struggle with my perfectionism, and this is a perfect example (ironically?). I believe the prevailing strategy amongst game designers is to put something out there and playtest it extensively, incorporate the notes that were taken, conduct more playtesting, incorporate more notes, repeat the cycle a few more times, then publish it. Then publish errata. Then publish more errata. Then start designing the next edition incorporating the errata and other tweaks. Then playtest that edition extensively, etc.
I know I'm a dreamer, but I would like to avoid most of that process and publish a good solid edition that is truly finished systemwise, not an eternal work in progress that alienates fans from one edition to another. If there is to be expansion, I want it to occur in the form of adventures, settings, genres, practical advice, and inspiration. I want the system rules to be a reliable foundation upon which gamers can build whatever they can imagine because they understand and enjoy how the rules interact with their gameplay. Is that too lofty a goal?
I am not against playtesting. I am a strong advocate of it. I just want to start with the best possible iteration I can, see if it works, and make adjustments as necessary. But the more I think about what I want, how it would work, and what others would enjoy, the more doubt encroaches on my vision and forces me to question everything. What others do externally, I am doing internally—conducting playtests in my mind, taking notes, making changes, conducting more mental playtests, taking notes, making changes, ad infinitum. It is frustrating. I just want to bring the rules to a reasonably presentable state so I can playtest them with others, publish it, and start sharing the stuff I can build upon it.
Thank you for reading.
Wish me luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment