Worried that the gamesystem I'm writing is too niche
JoyWriter:
Notwithstanding Chris's great advice about building for yourself (and probably your friends) before some notional market, I have an idea; make your game system a game component.
Say someone is trying to play a game with robots, and they have a rule set for playing robots that suits their interests: It's really detailed with reams of tables and choices about roboty things like body types and power ratings, but they haven't really thought about morality. So then your game could come along, filling in the gap in their local system, allowing them to fill in the insides of their robot's heads. Not replacing those mechanics they have investment in but layering on top of them. Done!
The same could apply with other systems designed to simulate the physical aspects of other areas (and it's usually the physical stuff that is most easily simulated), the distinctive feature and main focus of your interests could be added to the work they've already done.
On the other hand, even though your primarily focused on the morality subsystem, you might find that you have to have other parts of the game in order to support the morality system, and find that there are certain design criteria that would shape how the other mechanics should work.
But these two approaches go together amazingly; you build a game around the subsystem to show it off, then you include examples of how to move this subsystem into very different games, what it would require to be compatible.
Either way I think it would help to create a seperate little document focusing on those parts of the game that focus on morality:
What parts of the character are there that relate to morality,
(the persuits, passion, hope, sanity etc)what things do each of those represent,
(what do they stand for and how do they change what they stand for as their numerical values/relationships between them etc change)how do they change
(ie what events in the game are supposed to increase/decrease/rewrite/reconnect them, and are there "end of session" style game-world-independent reasons they change)what effects should they have on other stuff
(eg the bonuses to skills, or other stuff you might come up with like the magic stuff)how are players expected to treat them
(ie keep them high, portray them, value them, be annoyed by them etc)
That way you can get a look at how all the bits that you've developed are fitting together as a unit, how your game deals with the general "concern" of morality, and whether they are doing what you want. This'll alo help other people (like me!) to get a similar big picture of how it's supposed to hang together.
dugfromthearth:
Are you advertising for play testers of your system or of your game?
I would not generally want to playtest a system. I play games. Ask people to play superheroes, spies, knights, pirates, etc and you may get volunteers. Ask people to playtest a morality system and no one probably knows what you mean.
Even if you want the system to be generic, you might focus on a setting/game and make that and play it. If the rules work for that then branch out.
tymotzues:
I agree with dugfromtheearth
the problem isn't with your idea it's that you haven't given the audience something to focus on. Your idea is the system, but it is such a strong notion that it probably isn't suited to generic settings.
A great example is http://www.rpgnow.com/product/89003/Nobilis%3A-The-Essentials%2C-Volume-1 Nobilis - at least I think this is the right publication - the Original was much nicer and published by HogsHead
You are dealing with philosophical ideals - you need characters that can 'wear' those ideals, robots and day to day life isn't 'strong' enough on which to base a game that focuses on a beings spinning moral compass creating the truth of the world.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page