Holy smoke, Term 2 has just flown by. Okay, so here’s that new post I promised oh so long ago.
A thing that always bothered me about Warhammer 40K when I first played it was the need to put people in units. It was really the first big-scale wargame I’d played before, and I just didn’t understand why you would want 10 men to stand within arms length of each other in a world of explosives and machine guns. It has come to make sense, however I always kind of thought that there should be the option of scattering your troops.
So, I decided when I started designing Escape from Illeria that if characters were going to work in a unit, it needed to be a tactical choice, done purposefully by the player for a perceived benefit. And thus arose group actions. Basically, in this game you only had a limited number of orders your general could give. If a group of characters were arranged closely together, and you wanted them all to do the same thing, you could consolidate your orders (i.e. “You three, go kill that ogre!”). This had the advantage that no one was permanently grouped together, but just acted together when it was convenient.
I think the rule has given me trouble from the beginning, although it has always seemed worth it. During my first playtest, well, I realized that if everyone in a group could use Teleport, they could rush a single character, and she’d be a goner, then do it again and again. So, I had to make modifications, and only allow certain abilities to be used as group actions. The list kept getting smaller. I don’t know, I think it was the last game I played where I realized that having shoot as a possible group action seemed too powerful. I think if I took that one out, it would leave move, retreat, and the rare special ability. I started to wonder if maybe the best solution was just to get rid of them altogether. I don’t know, I’ll see. It will certainly change the dynamics of the game (amongst other things, it seemed like that was a good reason to try to specialize, although it became less and less as it could be applied to fewer and fewer things). I’ll see if I like it better that way.
The one thing that does worry me about this change is that it will make rushing an optimal strategy. The nice thing about group actions in the past is that, if you played it right, you could make all of your characters act. Now, you won’t be able to (or, hypothetically I could give you so many more orders that you could, but that would take a lot of the strategy out of it). So, because of this, I’ll need to be careful to stop rushing from being the optimal strategy. I think my solution is just to limit the number of actions you can make per world each turn.
*sigh* I wish there were more gamers out here. Oh well, take care!
Simon
(and in honor of the somewhat recently deceased...)
“I am an outsider by choice, but not truly. It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out. I’d rather be in in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from, from being forced to choose to stay outside.” – George Carlin
“If no one knows when they are going to die, how can we say that anyone died before their time?” – George Carlin
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
It's been too long...
Hello World,
Wow, it's been a long time since I've updated this. I guess sparse internet access will do that. So, my job with WorldTeach started, so I've been back teaching high school in a village in Africa. I won't say “loving every minute of it,” (and I dare you to find me a teacher in the world who would describe their job that way), but very much glad to be back. I don't know, it's actually kind of easier the second time around.
Anyways, term 1 ended about a month ago, and I had 3 weeks off for the winter holiday, and started thinking about Illeria again. I started considering old problems that I had been having, and wanted to share a few of them.
The big one I wanted to talk about was magic. During the last game I playtested, my roommate started saying that the magic system seemed to be broken, and that making one of each character's doppelgangers (remember, in this game each character is linked to a being in another world, a “doppelganger” is the term I use to refer to that other being), but not both, a spellcaster seemed to be the optimal strategy. I guess I should step back and explain my magic system first. As I think I already described, each character gets 2 abilities in each world. For 1 ability point, a character could become a spellcaster, and gain access to 1 group of spells (for 2 points, they could further improve their magic-using abilities). A spell group gives you access to 5 different spells, and there are 7 groups. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, spells are not cast automatically (the way they are in, say, D&D), but rather they have a failure chance. The harder the spell, the higher the failure chance. Also, each time a character casts a spell, she gains something called Residual Magic (RM), which increases her failure chance for all future spells. Thus, if I throw a fireball on turn 1, I have a 50% chance of casting it correctly. If I throw another one, I have a 25% chance, and so on. I have it arranged so that your first spell is nearly an automatic success (unless it is something like a big summon or a fireball), but after that it starts getting harder. Also, whenever you fail to cast a spell, something bad might happen (from taking damage, to having your target redirected, to summoning an evil monster). I keep toying between something bad happening 33% or 44% of the time, though am heavily leaning towards the later (unless it really is way too much).
So, my roommate complained that this was too good, because for 1 ability point, you effectively got 5 abilities. As he put it, if you wanted someone with a bow and a the ability to summon wolves, that costs 2 points. If you chose Metal Magic, you got that, plus a curse-type spell, and it only cost you 1 point. Also, because RM is shared between both doppelgangers, it is too much of a deterrent for a player to make both a spellcaster. I think he had a good point, so here is what I've thought about.
The changes I'm proposing thus far are this: If you only spend 1 ability point on being a spellcaster, you can casts spells, but are rather crappy. To gain the ability to cast spells at any decent level, you'll need to spend both points. However, spellcasting ability is cumulative, so if you spend 1 point in each world, it's the same as spending 2 in one world. Thus, if you want to either be a very good spellcaster, or else to gain any other type of magic ability, you'll need to be a spellcaster in both worlds. Along with that, I'm thinking of making it that you have some ability to share spells between worlds, and to make it easier to cast spells which you can use in both, which I hope should offset the fact that you share your RM with both doppelgangers.
I'm debating whether I want to do more than that. I've considered increasing the difficult of all spells slightly, although I'm not sure if I want to go that far. The way I feel is that if you get Fire Magic, sure you have access to 5 different abilities, however every time you use them you risk blowing yourself up, so perhaps that balances things out. I don't know, that's the one annoying thing about this continent, all of my gaming buddies are an ocean away, so mostly I am just stuck with theory.
Anyways though, thanks for listening. I need to stop taking a break and get back to grading homework. Next time I'll mention group actions, and a few other small-ish changes.
Simon
Wow, it's been a long time since I've updated this. I guess sparse internet access will do that. So, my job with WorldTeach started, so I've been back teaching high school in a village in Africa. I won't say “loving every minute of it,” (and I dare you to find me a teacher in the world who would describe their job that way), but very much glad to be back. I don't know, it's actually kind of easier the second time around.
Anyways, term 1 ended about a month ago, and I had 3 weeks off for the winter holiday, and started thinking about Illeria again. I started considering old problems that I had been having, and wanted to share a few of them.
The big one I wanted to talk about was magic. During the last game I playtested, my roommate started saying that the magic system seemed to be broken, and that making one of each character's doppelgangers (remember, in this game each character is linked to a being in another world, a “doppelganger” is the term I use to refer to that other being), but not both, a spellcaster seemed to be the optimal strategy. I guess I should step back and explain my magic system first. As I think I already described, each character gets 2 abilities in each world. For 1 ability point, a character could become a spellcaster, and gain access to 1 group of spells (for 2 points, they could further improve their magic-using abilities). A spell group gives you access to 5 different spells, and there are 7 groups. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, spells are not cast automatically (the way they are in, say, D&D), but rather they have a failure chance. The harder the spell, the higher the failure chance. Also, each time a character casts a spell, she gains something called Residual Magic (RM), which increases her failure chance for all future spells. Thus, if I throw a fireball on turn 1, I have a 50% chance of casting it correctly. If I throw another one, I have a 25% chance, and so on. I have it arranged so that your first spell is nearly an automatic success (unless it is something like a big summon or a fireball), but after that it starts getting harder. Also, whenever you fail to cast a spell, something bad might happen (from taking damage, to having your target redirected, to summoning an evil monster). I keep toying between something bad happening 33% or 44% of the time, though am heavily leaning towards the later (unless it really is way too much).
So, my roommate complained that this was too good, because for 1 ability point, you effectively got 5 abilities. As he put it, if you wanted someone with a bow and a the ability to summon wolves, that costs 2 points. If you chose Metal Magic, you got that, plus a curse-type spell, and it only cost you 1 point. Also, because RM is shared between both doppelgangers, it is too much of a deterrent for a player to make both a spellcaster. I think he had a good point, so here is what I've thought about.
The changes I'm proposing thus far are this: If you only spend 1 ability point on being a spellcaster, you can casts spells, but are rather crappy. To gain the ability to cast spells at any decent level, you'll need to spend both points. However, spellcasting ability is cumulative, so if you spend 1 point in each world, it's the same as spending 2 in one world. Thus, if you want to either be a very good spellcaster, or else to gain any other type of magic ability, you'll need to be a spellcaster in both worlds. Along with that, I'm thinking of making it that you have some ability to share spells between worlds, and to make it easier to cast spells which you can use in both, which I hope should offset the fact that you share your RM with both doppelgangers.
I'm debating whether I want to do more than that. I've considered increasing the difficult of all spells slightly, although I'm not sure if I want to go that far. The way I feel is that if you get Fire Magic, sure you have access to 5 different abilities, however every time you use them you risk blowing yourself up, so perhaps that balances things out. I don't know, that's the one annoying thing about this continent, all of my gaming buddies are an ocean away, so mostly I am just stuck with theory.
Anyways though, thanks for listening. I need to stop taking a break and get back to grading homework. Next time I'll mention group actions, and a few other small-ish changes.
Simon
Monday, December 10, 2007
in LAX...
In LAX, getting ready to take off. The journey is already sort of beginning. At this point, I have:
a) all of the artwork I need (I think)
b) working ruleset (at least one I can play without problems, though more testing will be needed)
c) a small amount of buzz going (again, I think)
d) desire to finish this
I still need to fix up my backgrounds, test the game (or get others to), contact Lulu and Key20, and edit everything with a fine-toothed comb. But, this is doable. I'm not too worried. It will definitely give me something to do when I'm bored in the village (and hey, I'll actually have electricity now!).
Simon
a) all of the artwork I need (I think)
b) working ruleset (at least one I can play without problems, though more testing will be needed)
c) a small amount of buzz going (again, I think)
d) desire to finish this
I still need to fix up my backgrounds, test the game (or get others to), contact Lulu and Key20, and edit everything with a fine-toothed comb. But, this is doable. I'm not too worried. It will definitely give me something to do when I'm bored in the village (and hey, I'll actually have electricity now!).
Simon
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Spell Hazards and rare events
First off, I leave for Africa next Monday. Yikes! I'm almost ready to go though, which is good.
So, now on to the gaming stuff. I've noticed that as my game has evolved, rare events have become more common, and simpler. The spell hazard is probably the best example of this. Basically, in the world of Illeria, magic is still somewhat not understood, and not fully controllable. Because of this, whenever a wizard fails to cast a spell, there is a small chance that something bad happens to them. In my original game, every time you fail to cast a spell, there is a 1 in 10 chance of spell hazards, and there are 10 possible things that can happen. Later I changed it to 1 in 10 and 6 types of hazards. Then it became 1 in 6, and now I'm thinking of making it 1 in 3 (and the beauty of the most recent one is that there is only one dice roll, rather than two).
I think I might know what's been causing this transition, and that's a shift in my view on what flavor rules like this are for. Originally, they were mostly just for that, flavor. I know that in Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition (my first real wargame), there was a 1 in 100 chance that a Terminator squad would be lost in the warp when tele-porting, and a 1 in 216 chance that an assault cannon would explode when fired. AD&D used to have a 1 in 400 chance of an insta-kill whenever an attack is made (I think, I can't quite remember how the rules worked out, but I think it was something like that, or maybe less). There are also magic items which are randomly generated <.01% of the time. I've never once seen any of these things happen, but the idea is that they could. It gives you an interesting look into the game universe, and *maybe* once in your gaming career affects the outcome of a battle.
The more I think about it though, I feel like if I'm going to put all the effort into making a special rule, if the gamer is going to need to learn it, and *especially* if the gamer is going to have to roll extra dice for it, then really there should be a chance that it really happens. It always seemed a little silly that my DM's Guide had two pages devoted to intelligent magic items, given that it was basically impossible to find them randomly. What's more, I kind of like the idea that in some ways it will effect strategy. In my game with my roommate, he said that he never really worried about spell hazards, since failing a spell check was so uncommon (especially the way he played), that a 1 in 6 chance on top of that was really not something to be concerned with. It was a fluke, not a calculated risk. On the other hand, now it's a 1 in 3 chance, and that might discourage risky spell casting. And this has seemed like it would be a way to counteract a built-in advantage of spells: that they give you options. (I know he complained about, "Why would I get 'Call Animals' when I could get a spell group that would allow me to cast both 'Summon Elementals' and 'Fireball'?")
And I guess the thing about skirmish games is that you need high probabilities, otherwise they're never going to happen. I mean, I remember this analysis once, where someone said, "If you make a rule that says there is a 1 in 5000 chance that a person will decapitate themself in melee, and you have 10,000 soldiers, each making 10 attacks, then you will get 20 self-inflicted decapitations in a battle." However, if you have 10 soldiers making 5 attacks, then a self-decapitation will only occur once per 100 games (and thus falls into the random fluke category).
Simon
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." – General Lee
So, now on to the gaming stuff. I've noticed that as my game has evolved, rare events have become more common, and simpler. The spell hazard is probably the best example of this. Basically, in the world of Illeria, magic is still somewhat not understood, and not fully controllable. Because of this, whenever a wizard fails to cast a spell, there is a small chance that something bad happens to them. In my original game, every time you fail to cast a spell, there is a 1 in 10 chance of spell hazards, and there are 10 possible things that can happen. Later I changed it to 1 in 10 and 6 types of hazards. Then it became 1 in 6, and now I'm thinking of making it 1 in 3 (and the beauty of the most recent one is that there is only one dice roll, rather than two).
I think I might know what's been causing this transition, and that's a shift in my view on what flavor rules like this are for. Originally, they were mostly just for that, flavor. I know that in Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition (my first real wargame), there was a 1 in 100 chance that a Terminator squad would be lost in the warp when tele-porting, and a 1 in 216 chance that an assault cannon would explode when fired. AD&D used to have a 1 in 400 chance of an insta-kill whenever an attack is made (I think, I can't quite remember how the rules worked out, but I think it was something like that, or maybe less). There are also magic items which are randomly generated <.01% of the time. I've never once seen any of these things happen, but the idea is that they could. It gives you an interesting look into the game universe, and *maybe* once in your gaming career affects the outcome of a battle.
The more I think about it though, I feel like if I'm going to put all the effort into making a special rule, if the gamer is going to need to learn it, and *especially* if the gamer is going to have to roll extra dice for it, then really there should be a chance that it really happens. It always seemed a little silly that my DM's Guide had two pages devoted to intelligent magic items, given that it was basically impossible to find them randomly. What's more, I kind of like the idea that in some ways it will effect strategy. In my game with my roommate, he said that he never really worried about spell hazards, since failing a spell check was so uncommon (especially the way he played), that a 1 in 6 chance on top of that was really not something to be concerned with. It was a fluke, not a calculated risk. On the other hand, now it's a 1 in 3 chance, and that might discourage risky spell casting. And this has seemed like it would be a way to counteract a built-in advantage of spells: that they give you options. (I know he complained about, "Why would I get 'Call Animals' when I could get a spell group that would allow me to cast both 'Summon Elementals' and 'Fireball'?")
And I guess the thing about skirmish games is that you need high probabilities, otherwise they're never going to happen. I mean, I remember this analysis once, where someone said, "If you make a rule that says there is a 1 in 5000 chance that a person will decapitate themself in melee, and you have 10,000 soldiers, each making 10 attacks, then you will get 20 self-inflicted decapitations in a battle." However, if you have 10 soldiers making 5 attacks, then a self-decapitation will only occur once per 100 games (and thus falls into the random fluke category).
Simon
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." – General Lee
Friday, November 30, 2007
Last Night's Playtest
So, last night I playtested the game with my roommate. We didn't have time to finish before he had to stop, but we did get like the first three turns in. For the first time we used the full-blown character creation system. What really struck me about this game is that basically, it worked, and we hardly had any real problems. Not only that, but we both picked themed parties of our own accord. I mean, we've now tested only a handful of abilities, but still, it's nice to see that the system works.
I've been pondering a lot about group actions. So, in my game, each turn both players are limited to a certain number of actions (usually 5), when the must control 10 people. However this can be somewhat circumvented by using "group orders." In a group order, a player tells a certain group of characters in close proximity to do the same thing. For example, "Hey you three over there, run forward!" In some ways this encourages specialization, and I had hoped it would give players additional choices when planning. However, I worry that it might be unbalanced. Here are my concerns:
-Group orders can only be given on move actions, shooting, and a few special abilities. It cannot be given to things such as casting a spell. My main worry is that this overpowers archers, who I have already been seriously thinking are too strong. I also worry that it will take something out of more specialized parties, since they will basically need to ignore one board in order to act.
-When I designed a game with only a limited number of actions per turn, my goal was to create a need for strong planning. Basically, when you have 10 things you want to do, but can only do 6 of them, it really puts you in a pinch, and you need to rank how important each action is. I worry that with group actions, it takes something out of that (since rarely do I not have enough orders to do everything I want).
-A major reason I don't have certain orders available for big groups is how specific they need to be. For example, to program a construct, you need to name a character, her constructs, and what order they'll be given. In some ways, this doesn't work for groups, since they couldn't all target the same construct. I have considered making the game less rigid, so that you don't need to declare a target when making an order, and this would solve that problem. However, I worry that that takes a lot of the planning out of the game.
The best way to figure this out is just to playtest a game without group orders, and see how it changes (and whether players revolt). However, I've had a few thoughts on how to improve them:
-Make more things available as group actions. For example, multiple characters can throw the same spell. (I mean, I guess this is reversing an initial problem: The first time I played the game, one player gave everyone Teleport, and just overwhelmed his opponent with group orders. The solution seemed to be limiting it, so that if you really wanted to do something special with a lot of people, it would cost you several orders. Maybe I went a little too far...)
-Alternatively, I could consider making shoot no longer a group action (however, that means I basically have "move" and "retreat", which seems kind of crappy).
-Lastly, I could make it easier to move with summoned creatures. In my last game, each of my vessel characters had a pack of summoned creatures they were ordering around. Because of that, to move an entire party, it meant that I needed to use 5 actions (each using a command summoned creatures ability). Maybe it would be better to do that differently, where moving with your summoned creatures counts as a move action. My worry though is that it would somewhat overpower summoned creatures (because now you can group them up), which are already fairly powerful to begin with. Maybe not though.
A final thought: I was talking to the roommate a few days ago, and I brought up removing group actions. He said I should leave them in, since it's very much in the theme of my game. Orders represent the head prisoner barking commands at her lackies, so why shouldn't she be able to say, "Hey you three, kill that!" It made me wonder, is a game mechanic worth leaving in, just because it fits so well with the theme?
Simon
“‘Where to we go from here?’ ‘Who says were’re here?’” – George Carlin
I've been pondering a lot about group actions. So, in my game, each turn both players are limited to a certain number of actions (usually 5), when the must control 10 people. However this can be somewhat circumvented by using "group orders." In a group order, a player tells a certain group of characters in close proximity to do the same thing. For example, "Hey you three over there, run forward!" In some ways this encourages specialization, and I had hoped it would give players additional choices when planning. However, I worry that it might be unbalanced. Here are my concerns:
-Group orders can only be given on move actions, shooting, and a few special abilities. It cannot be given to things such as casting a spell. My main worry is that this overpowers archers, who I have already been seriously thinking are too strong. I also worry that it will take something out of more specialized parties, since they will basically need to ignore one board in order to act.
-When I designed a game with only a limited number of actions per turn, my goal was to create a need for strong planning. Basically, when you have 10 things you want to do, but can only do 6 of them, it really puts you in a pinch, and you need to rank how important each action is. I worry that with group actions, it takes something out of that (since rarely do I not have enough orders to do everything I want).
-A major reason I don't have certain orders available for big groups is how specific they need to be. For example, to program a construct, you need to name a character, her constructs, and what order they'll be given. In some ways, this doesn't work for groups, since they couldn't all target the same construct. I have considered making the game less rigid, so that you don't need to declare a target when making an order, and this would solve that problem. However, I worry that that takes a lot of the planning out of the game.
The best way to figure this out is just to playtest a game without group orders, and see how it changes (and whether players revolt). However, I've had a few thoughts on how to improve them:
-Make more things available as group actions. For example, multiple characters can throw the same spell. (I mean, I guess this is reversing an initial problem: The first time I played the game, one player gave everyone Teleport, and just overwhelmed his opponent with group orders. The solution seemed to be limiting it, so that if you really wanted to do something special with a lot of people, it would cost you several orders. Maybe I went a little too far...)
-Alternatively, I could consider making shoot no longer a group action (however, that means I basically have "move" and "retreat", which seems kind of crappy).
-Lastly, I could make it easier to move with summoned creatures. In my last game, each of my vessel characters had a pack of summoned creatures they were ordering around. Because of that, to move an entire party, it meant that I needed to use 5 actions (each using a command summoned creatures ability). Maybe it would be better to do that differently, where moving with your summoned creatures counts as a move action. My worry though is that it would somewhat overpower summoned creatures (because now you can group them up), which are already fairly powerful to begin with. Maybe not though.
A final thought: I was talking to the roommate a few days ago, and I brought up removing group actions. He said I should leave them in, since it's very much in the theme of my game. Orders represent the head prisoner barking commands at her lackies, so why shouldn't she be able to say, "Hey you three, kill that!" It made me wonder, is a game mechanic worth leaving in, just because it fits so well with the theme?
Simon
“‘Where to we go from here?’ ‘Who says were’re here?’” – George Carlin
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sad-ish realization
I'm starting to realize that I probably don't have what it takes to get this game out the door before I leave. I could whip something together real fast, but I don't really want to. I worry that it will just be crap that won't sell (and really, this game could use a bit more playtesting and developing before I get it out the door). So, the plan is to just bring it with me to Africa, and keep working there. I probably won't be able to playtest from that far away, but maybe will be able to talk my friends into trying it. If nothing else it will be a good time to work on really developing the world.
Oh, yeah, so I'm not sure if I went into detail on this, I guess not, but I ended up signing up with a group called WorldTeach, who do the same basic thing as Peace Corps, and will be going back to Namibia in less than 2 weeks. So, yay!
Simon
“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.” – Winston Churchill
Oh, yeah, so I'm not sure if I went into detail on this, I guess not, but I ended up signing up with a group called WorldTeach, who do the same basic thing as Peace Corps, and will be going back to Namibia in less than 2 weeks. So, yay!
Simon
“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.” – Winston Churchill
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Economics
I'm starting to ponder, well, the economics of this all. As my background, I should explain that I was a math/biology major in college, who never took a business class, and though I understand little of the field, my mom was an accountant (and I think at least a little has rubbed off).
I'm trying to figure out, if my goal is to at least break even, what costs I have, and how much I can charge. I mean, at least the theory in accounting is you take (up front cost + desired profit)/(expected sales) = (profit per unit), I think anyways. However, what gets me is this: what are the expected sales, how will each cost (mainly artwork) affect sales, and how will price affect sales? I mean, as I've said, if I can sell only 1 of my games for $500, then I'll be in the black, but that probably won't happen.
I guess what I need to ask for each cost is "Will it pay for itself, or is it needed?" I mean, if I spend $100 on artwork, will that generate at least 13 extra sales? What if I buy a cover art piece, will that generate the 15 sales to cover it's cost? What if I doubled my art budget, would I realistically be able to sell 60 copies? And if my art budget doubled, would I be able to sell my game for $17 or $20 instead of $15?
I've posted to The Forge about this, and am waiting for a response. Most of the previous things I've read have been very qualitative (things like, "You need to make a strong visual statement") but little in terms of actual numbers. I mean, maybe I'm expecting the economics of indie RPGs to be a science (the way economics kind of is), when it's not. Or, maybe I just didn't see the right posts, and actually all of my questions have been answered already but are hidden from me.
Simon
I'm trying to figure out, if my goal is to at least break even, what costs I have, and how much I can charge. I mean, at least the theory in accounting is you take (up front cost + desired profit)/(expected sales) = (profit per unit), I think anyways. However, what gets me is this: what are the expected sales, how will each cost (mainly artwork) affect sales, and how will price affect sales? I mean, as I've said, if I can sell only 1 of my games for $500, then I'll be in the black, but that probably won't happen.
I guess what I need to ask for each cost is "Will it pay for itself, or is it needed?" I mean, if I spend $100 on artwork, will that generate at least 13 extra sales? What if I buy a cover art piece, will that generate the 15 sales to cover it's cost? What if I doubled my art budget, would I realistically be able to sell 60 copies? And if my art budget doubled, would I be able to sell my game for $17 or $20 instead of $15?
I've posted to The Forge about this, and am waiting for a response. Most of the previous things I've read have been very qualitative (things like, "You need to make a strong visual statement") but little in terms of actual numbers. I mean, maybe I'm expecting the economics of indie RPGs to be a science (the way economics kind of is), when it's not. Or, maybe I just didn't see the right posts, and actually all of my questions have been answered already but are hidden from me.
Simon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)