anyway.
A Penny for Your Thoughts



2010-03-09 : Show of hands
Hey, quick show of hands. I'm curious, you who are here reading this:

1. Have you designed a roleplaying game? If so, have you published it?

2. Are you designing a roleplaying game now?

1. On 2010-03-09, Anna Kreider wrote:


1. If a supplement counts as a roleplaying game, yes. I designed Thou Art But A Warrior

2. I've got two on the go, though I'm really only actively working on one. (My problem is that I'm getting close to needing playtesters...)

Marginalia


2. On 2010-03-09, ekb wrote:


Er... um... yeah.

Marginalia


3. On 2010-03-09, Luke wrote:


1. Yes. Yes.

2. Yes. Moving toward publication of one and eager to continue work on a handful of other designs (because I am a masochist).

Marginalia


4. On 2010-03-09, Tommi Brander wrote:


1. Yes, several. No, not really.

2. Yes.

Marginalia


5. On 2010-03-09, Graham wrote:


Yes. About to publish it.

No.

Marginalia


6. On 2010-03-09, John Mc wrote:


Yes. No. (I haven't designed anything worth publishing, but designed is a low threshold. Technically I designed multiple roleplaying games before I ever heard of roleplaying games.)

No. Not seriously anyways.

Marginalia


7. On 2010-03-09, Colin wrote:


No on both counts. I'm a player first, GM second, designer last.

Marginalia


8. On 2010-03-09, Jay Loomis wrote:


1.)Yes, though never to my complete satisfaction. None published.
2.)Yes, two.

Marginalia


9. On 2010-03-09, Seth Ben-Ezra wrote:


1) Yes. Also, yes.

2) In fitful spurts, but yes.

Marginalia


10. On 2010-03-09, Zero wrote:


No, no.

Yes; a super-duper-lightweight d10-based system for general characters; four attributes, roll and add one, opposed checks. Fun, stupid lethal combat system. Your series of "Things on Character Sheets" posts with all the police and mobsters and such with guns inspired me.

Marginalia


11. On 2010-03-09, Jason L Blair wrote:


Yes on all counts.

Marginalia


12. On 2010-03-09, Meserach wrote:


1) Yes, occasionally but never very successfully. I think all GMs dabble in system design in some sense at least a little. Never published anything.

2) No.

Marginalia


13. On 2010-03-09, Chris wrote:


1. Yes. No.
2. Yes.

Marginalia


14. On 2010-03-09, Ry wrote:


1. Yes, I've designed a few, never published for money.
2. I'm not designing an entire game, but I'm always working away at supplements and game-aids.

Marginalia


15. On 2010-03-09, Matthijs wrote:


1. Yes, several. Yes, several.
2. Yes, several.

Marginalia


16. On 2010-03-09, Joao wrote:


1. No. No
2.No.

Marginalia


17. On 2010-03-09, Mike K. wrote:


1. Nope.
2. Nope.
Just an occasional player.

Marginalia


18. On 2010-03-09, Michael S. Miller wrote:


1. Yes, several. Yes, a few.

2. No, focusing more on finding my joy so I can follow it.

Marginalia


19. On 2010-03-09, Ben Lehman wrote:


yes, yes.

(anna, tabaw totally counts as design.)

yrs--
--Ben

Marginalia


20. On 2010-03-09, Deightine wrote:


1. Yes and no. I have a complete system/structure that occupies about 5 pages with multiple settings designed for it, dice-optional, but I haven't published it because I don't think it would sell. My players love the hell out of it though, so it's worth having at least for me.

2. Yes, several in pieces at the same time. A campaign world for use with the Pathfinder core, and a few different games from the core-up using psychological modeling for character creation.

For questions or remarks, address them to my above handle, [at]abstrusion[dot]org.

Marginalia


21. On 2010-03-09, mjbauer wrote:


1. I designed a very small, very simple game. I haven't published it, but it's available for download.
2. Yes, I'm currently working on another game.

Marginalia


22. On 2010-03-09, tonydowler wrote:


yes, yes, yes!

Marginalia


23. On 2010-03-09, Steve Hickey wrote:


1. I've designed a few games - mostly 24-hour RPGs (first drafts hosted at 1KM1KT). So, 'published' in the 'available on the internet' sense.

2. I am designing a roleplaying game right now. For the first time, I'm going through the move from internal playtesting to external playtesting.

Marginalia


24. On 2010-03-09, Rafu wrote:


1. Yeah, back in the days when "designing an RPG" meant a different thing. I distributed it as a free PDF.

2. Multiple ones, actually.

Marginalia


25. On 2010-03-09, Sydney Freedberg wrote:


Yes-no-no.

I've designed, oh, three systems, of which two were playable as written but pretty standard (and very dependent on me as GM to make it work) and the third postdated me finding the Forge and is consequently much more ambitious and an unplayable wreck. I eventually hope to get back to redesigning and playtesting it, but it's been a couple of years now.

Marginalia


26. On 2010-03-09, Pete wrote:


1. No

2. No.

I am hacking existing games.

Marginalia


27. On 2010-03-09, Piers wrote:


Yes / no / no.

Marginalia


28. On 2010-03-09, Chad Underkoffler wrote:


1. Yes. Yes. (multiple times)
2. Sort of. (half-assedly)

Marginalia


29. On 2010-03-09, Wulfy wrote:


1 yes. no.
2 not at the moment.

Marginalia


30. On 2010-03-09, Sage wrote:


1. Yes, No.

2. Yes.

Marginalia


31. On 2010-03-09, nolandda wrote:


1. No
2. No

Just a GM/Player who loves indie games.

Marginalia


32. On 2010-03-09, Teataine wrote:


1. A couple. No, far from it.

2. Yes, but I need more time!

Marginalia


33. On 2010-03-09, rus wrote:


1. Yes, well a zygote of a game. No.
2. Only subconsciously.

Marginalia


34. On 2010-03-09, Robert Bohl wrote:


1. I've written two roleplaying games, and published one (if ashcans count, which I seem to remember you feel they do).
2. I'm designing on designing a roleplaying game right now. I need to read and I have (legally) downloaded what I need to read.

Marginalia


35. On 2010-03-09, Robert Bohl wrote:


PS: I'm eager to know why you're asking.

Marginalia


36. On 2010-03-09, Matt Wilson wrote:


1. Yeah, yeah.

2. Kinda.

Marginalia


37. On 2010-03-09, Marhault wrote:


1a) yes.
1b) no.
2) always.

Marginalia


38. On 2010-03-09, jessecoombs wrote:


1. Yes, no.
2. Nah.

Marginalia


39. On 2010-03-09, jenskot wrote:


1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes but in the research stage.

Marginalia


40. On 2010-03-09, Jesse Burneko wrote:


1. Yes and it depends on your definition of publish. The current state of my designs are available for public consumption of my website. But no, none of the them are "done" in my opinion.

2. Yes.

Marginalia


41. On 2010-03-09, Brand Robins wrote:


1. Yes. Sure. (Depending on how you mean "published." I've designed and I've published for money, but I try not to do the two together.)

2. Yes. Always. But not for publication. Cause I've decided that sucks.

Marginalia


42. On 2010-03-09, Andrew Smith wrote:


1. No and no.

2. Yes.

Marginalia


43. On 2010-03-10, snej wrote:


1. Just a toy (a sort of Universalis-lite system to play with kids, developed in one day) so let's say 'no'.
2. No.

Marginalia


44. On 2010-03-10, Jono wrote:


1. Designed several to play with my friends, never published any.

2. Now working on one (intermittently) (with my wife!) which is intended to be published someday.

Marginalia


45. On 2010-03-10, Simon C wrote:


1. Yes. Published for free on the internet. For pay, I've done freelance work, and by the end of the year "On Mighty Thews" should be available in print.

2. I'm always working on a few things.

Marginalia


46. On 2010-03-10, Dave Cleaver wrote:


1) yes and no
2) yes

Marginalia


47. On 2010-03-10, Alex Pshenichkin wrote:


Hi! I don't post, but I read along.
1. Formally, no; accidentally, maybe, as a kid. No.
2. No.

I'm happy to read and play and hack a bit as needed.

Marginalia


48. On 2010-03-10, Aaron P. Lehmann wrote:


1) No on both counts.
2) Yes. I playing around with a system that makes it easy to separate your character from his job.

Marginalia


49. On 2010-03-10, Supplanter wrote:


1. No.
2. (Mumble.) Trans: For ADHD values of "designing . . . now."

Marginalia


50. On 2010-03-10, ScottM wrote:


1. Not really. No.

2. No; I leave it to the experts. Well, I do for now...

Marginalia


51. On 2010-03-10, Moreno R. wrote:


1) I never wrote a game from scratch, but I think I wrote literally hundreds of pages of house rules and variant for every system I played until a few years ago, trying to make them "work". Never published, obviously.

2) No. I like to say that I "got out of the tunnel" (or, if you prefer, got out of the wagon) of game (re)design, now I am an happy player who is all about play and no work!

Marginalia


52. On 2010-03-10, Kevin Richey wrote:


1) No, and no.
2) Maybe. Someday. Looks like fun. I'm trying to learn from other games.

Marginalia


53. On 2010-03-10, Shane wrote:


Nope. I just play, and run 'em at cons.

Marginalia


54. On 2010-03-10, Charles S wrote:


1. Yes (but only games that I planned to play in). No.
2. Not particularly.

Marginalia


55. On 2010-03-10, AnttiKi wrote:


1) Yes and no. (No, not really even though I've made game design comp games available for public)

2) I have two or three games on the back burner, nothing really active right now.

Marginalia


56. On 2010-03-10, ThoughtBubble wrote:


1) Yes, and no.
2) Yes, constantly and generally unproductively

Marginalia


57. On 2010-03-10, Diogo (RPL) wrote:


1) No;

2) I'm in the early stages of trying to develop a game about the burden of leadership... maybe. That's how clear the concepts are right now hehe.

Marginalia


58. On 2010-03-10, Noah wrote:


1) Yes, and no.
2) No.

Marginalia


59. On 2010-03-10, Mathieu Leocmach wrote:


1) Yes. Yes if you count a murder party in the world of ... as "a game".
2) Yes ! Online.

Marginalia


60. On 2010-03-10, Alex Abate Biral wrote:


1: No. At least, not seriously.

2: Yes, though it is not my first priority right now...

Marginalia


61. On 2010-03-10, Willow wrote:


Yup. Go buy it!

Marginalia


62. On 2010-03-10, Damian wrote:


1. Yeah, sort of... (I designed a couple of ashcans for contests, and I'm working on them in order to publish them in a more complete form in the future.)

2. Yes.

Marginalia


63. On 2010-03-10, Charles Perez wrote:


1) No, not a finished game. Yes to an untested supplement.

2) Yes, several unfinished games.

Marginalia


64. On 2010-03-10, Gregor wrote:


1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

Marginalia


65. On 2010-03-10, Tim Ralphs wrote:


1) Yes. And if posting it on a blog and having strangers play it counts as published, then yes to part b, otherwise No.

2) No.

Marginalia


66. On 2010-03-10, Paul T. wrote:


1. Yes. But I've never published anything for-pay.
2. Yes. (But also not planning to make anything commercial.)

Marginalia


67. On 2010-03-10, tomg wrote:


1. No & no.
2. Yes.

Marginalia


68. On 2010-03-10, Troy_Costisick wrote:


1. Yes and Yes
2. Yes

Marginalia


69. On 2010-03-10, Alex D. wrote:


1: I've designed a ton of games and game-hacks. Nothing really published, though.

2: I've got a ton of things on various side, front, and back burners. Nothing super-serious right now, aside from a Beast Hunters hack that's cooking along.

Marginalia


70. On 2010-03-10, Alex D. wrote:


(PS: And said hack is more scenario / character design than game design.)

Marginalia


71. On 2010-03-10, Ron Edwards wrote:


Yes times 3.

Marginalia


72. On 2010-03-10, Christoph wrote:


More or less designed a few games, but never finished one, nor published. I've one in the ashcan process (so, well on the way to finishedness).

Marginalia


73. On 2010-03-10, Mark W wrote:


1. Yes. But never with an eye toward publication, and mostly in that "I need to rebuild (build) this so I can play it the way I want to" way.

2. I have a supplement in active development and a couple stalled-out projects. Again, none are for conventional publication.

Marginalia


74. On 2010-03-10, Wordman wrote:


1. Yes. No.
2. Yes.

Marginalia


75. On 2010-03-10, Emile wrote:


1. No (only kicked some ideas around)

2. No.

I'm more into designing (and implementing) video games, though I also play roleplaying games.

Marginalia


76. On 2010-03-11, Curly wrote:


1. yes, yes.
2. no.


It murders me that this community still doesn't know the definition of the word publish; still thinking that it somehow doesn't count if it's only online or if it's available for free.



Marginalia


77. On 2010-03-11, Tim C Koppang wrote:


1. Yes
2. Yes

Marginalia


78. On 2010-03-11, James_Nostack wrote:


1. Haven't designed a game
2. Not designing one now.

Marginalia


79. On 2010-03-11, gbsteve wrote:


1. Yes, several. No.
2. Always.

Marginalia


80. On 2010-03-11, Simon Rogers wrote:


1. Yes, No.
2. No.

Marginalia


81. On 2010-03-11, Christian Griffen wrote:


1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

Marginalia


82. On 2010-03-11, Josh W wrote:


Yes, no.
Yes, super-slowly.

Marginalia


83. On 2010-03-11, Matthijs wrote:


What are you going to do with all the hands, Vincent? Or rather, what's the data for?

Marginalia


84. On 2010-03-11, StefanDL wrote:


Yes (and no, unless posting it on the Forge counts)

Yes... two actually, but they (hopefully) share components.

Marginalia


85. On 2010-03-11, Vincent wrote:


This is A LOT of people designing games! It's exciting.

I always get in trouble when I talk about what my blog here is for, but since a few of you ask, the short form: for a while now I've been talking, to my mind, second-game rpg theory. I've been curious how many of you are, in fact, second-time (or beyond) rpg designers. Answer: not all of you, but for sure a bunch of you.

So that's good.

Marginalia


86. On 2010-03-11, Simon C wrote:


That's interesting Vincent.

I wrote a lot of games before On Mighty Thews, games that thankfully will never see the light of day. One of the things that I get from reading your blog is understanding why On Mighty Thews works when so many other games I worked on didn't. I think I didn't have the skill at the time to intentionally design towards the effect I wanted, and instead just stumbled on it by accident. That process, revising and improving On Mighty Thews, and the work I'm doing on new games has definitely given me the tools to understand what you're saying a lot more now.

I look back at things I read two or three years ago, and realise that I really didn't understand them the first time I read them. I think I finally get it now, but who knows? In two more years I might read them again and see something totally different.

Marginalia


87. On 2010-03-12, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:


1) Yes.

2) Yes. I'm working on #s 3 (Shock:Human Contact), 4 (Shock:2.0), and 5 (Top secret! And I wish it wasn't!), in fact.

Marginalia


88. On 2010-03-12, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:


... but you'll notice that I'm not a regular enough reader of your blog.

Marginalia


89. On 2010-03-12, Vincent wrote:


Ha ha! Yeah, I figured out ... eventually ... that TITYBB meant IDWTHIB.

Marginalia


90. On 2010-03-12, way wrote:


No. No, just tweaks on existing games.

Marginalia


91. On 2010-03-12, Leodegrance wrote:


Yes and No (still developing my publish skills)
Yes.

Marginalia


92. On 2010-03-12, Josh W wrote:


I'd like to hear what you'd call "first game" theory, even if in sketch. I'm guessing the first game is just to get a working game for your standard group by hacking something mercylessly, whereas the second game and onwards is about doing something specific.

That doesn't match me, mind!

Marginalia


93. On 2010-03-12, Vincent wrote:


Oh, the opposite. I think that first games are usually more solidly-grounded and insightful than second games. But I'll make a front-page post about it.

Marginalia


94. On 2010-03-12, Joshroby wrote:


Yes! Yes! Yes!

?now I feel dirty.

Marginalia


95. On 2010-03-14, Julia wrote:


1. Yes and yes.

2. Yes.

Marginalia


96. On 2010-03-15, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:


IDWTHIB

I Don't Want To Have Ironically Blogged?

Marginalia


97. On 2010-03-15, marknau wrote:


1: Yes. Yes.
2: Always.

Marginalia


98. On 2010-03-15, Thadrine wrote:


1. Yes. Yes, but only electronically, and it was really just an extensive reworking of a game.

2. Yes, this is game of my own design, and will be done very soon!

Marginalia


99. On 2010-03-16, Raven Daegmorgan wrote:


Yes. Yes. Yes.

Marginalia


100. On 2010-03-16, Emily wrote:


Looks like you have plenty of data points, but: yup, yup and yup.

Marginalia


101. On 2010-03-16, Adam Dray wrote:


Yes, sorta (internet), yes.

Marginalia


102. On 2010-03-17, Simon Rogers wrote:


I am regular reading, but not a regular contributor.

Marginalia


103. On 2010-03-18, Nathan Russell wrote:


1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

2nd game rpg-theory?
My experiences mirror those of Simon C. My "success" with Space Rat was more accidental than by design. Since then I have come to better understand what I was doing (let alone what others were doing!). I think it has made it harder to design subsequent games, but am not yet able to articulate why...

Marginalia


104. On 2010-03-18, Marshall wrote:


No, no.

And yes! But no idea whether I will published once it's finished.

I only recently got into rpgs, and decided to try out this guideline for players thinking of designing their own game. So of course I jumped right in despite my inexperience, although maybe that will be better in the long run. I like the idea of starting with my own ideas first, then altering and refining the system as I learn more, instead of being entirely influenced by other systems from the get-go.

Marginalia


105. On 2010-03-21, ara wrote:


1) Yes

2) Yes


Marginalia


106. On 2010-03-22, Jason Bostwick wrote:


1- No
2- No


Marginalia


107. On 2010-03-23, jaywalt wrote:


1. Debatable (I said "No" recently and John made fun of me)
2. Yes

I think your theory makes sense if people's first game is really some manifesto-style statement about roleplaying games, what they are and aren't, what they're capable of, etc.

I'm not sure I've written my "first game" in that sense, yet. And I'm not working on it now. Maybe some day.

Marginalia


108. On 2010-03-23, kaare berg wrote:


1. yes
2. yes

Marginalia


109. On 2010-03-27, Andre C. wrote:


Haven't been here in a while, but I've been known to lurk from time to time...

1) Yes--I've designed functional games before but none of them were fit to publish.

2) Yes--I'm working on two (or possibly three) games at the moment-- the first is the latest re-design of the system (a relatively rules-light but fairly traditional generic cyberpunk system) mentioned in #1, and the other is a smaller, much more focused game dealing with gang violence.

Marginalia


110. On 2010-03-29, Hans Otterson wrote:


1. No
2. Yes

Marginalia


111. On 2010-03-29, dither wrote:


1. Yes, I haven't published any of them yet.
2. Yes, I'm focusing on one at the moment.

Marginalia


112. On 2010-03-29, RichD wrote:


1. No. No.

2. No.


Marginalia


113. On 2010-04-02, Larry L wrote:


1) Not on purpose.
2) Kinda sorta, but nothing with heat.

Marginalia


114. On 2010-04-02, Joel wrote:


I was way too busy pre-Gamestorm to answer this. And now post-Gamestorm, you actually know the answers to these. But still:

1) Yes, and yes--in person book sales, online pdf sales, and a single mail-order sale.

2) yes.

Marginalia


115. On 2010-04-06, Matt Snyder wrote:


Yes, hat trick style.

Marginalia


116. On 2010-04-09, Jeff Russell wrote:


1. Sort of. Nothing more coherent than 'play as we go' as a young 'un and twiddling with existing rules extensively (I've designed a wargame or two, though)

2. Yes! That's why I'm here now. This'll be my first real go. . .

Marginalia


117. On 2010-04-13, Frank T wrote:


1. Yes, and yes.
2. Not really.

Marginalia


118. On 2010-04-30, Zebediah wrote:


Yes, although I find it difficult to stop revising things.

No, unless just to some friends counts.

Yes, sadly, four all competing for my attention (ref: four plots, some waiting): a game about virtue, faith, and culture clash set in the land of Nod to the east of Eden, the same game slated to have cultures as characters rather than individuals, a victorian game about propriety, eccentricity, favors, and masterminds, and a high fantasy game about emulating and creating legends as a form of self-identification and source of magical power.

I need to narrow down that list. Given aforementioned problem of not knowing when to stop revising, this means I'm not getting very far :'[

Marginalia


119. On 2010-05-11, Guy Shalev wrote:


1. Have I designed? Yes. Have I designed an RPG? Questionable. Have I designed a completed RPG? Hmmm.
Published? PDF, for the playtest document. That's publishing.

2. Depends, usually inside my head, depending on time. Right now I'm giving it some thought again.

Marginalia


120. On 2010-06-04, Frank T wrote:


Actually, make that

2. Yes

:-D

Marginalia


121. On 2010-06-04, Vincent wrote:


Congratulations, Frank!

Marginalia



This comment thread has an RSS feed:
link http://www.lumpley.com/anyway_comments_rss.php?entry=504

anyway.