[Design] Character Generation: Detail vs Opportunity Cost

[Lev Lafayette]

--- David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 	FWIW among games that I know of the longest running
> by far 
> was a D&D game (only finally really stopped a couple
> of years ago 
> after close to two decades of play (mostly
> semi-regular), but 
> RuneQuest games make up several of the other real
> stayers.

I'd like to confirm these comments. D&D and RQ are the
only two systems that I know that have had games that
have run over ten years. If Michael Pritchard's GURPS
fantasy campaign is still going as well, that will be
well over fifteen years. 

Sure they're all both venerable systems, but they had
staying power whereas Space Opera, Aftermath! and
Tunnells and Trolls didn't.

I think part of the reason is that in both those
systems characters had the opportunity to develop in a
way that was interesting and increasingly influential
on the game world.

Oh, just remembered. Apparently there's a group of
DragonQuest players in New Zealand which have been
going for over *twenty* years. Heck, I didn't think
that DragonQuest was really that scalable.

> 	Absolutely. The best way to get development money
> is to sell 
> games. It is true that marketing and such can
> constrain development, 
> but usually more in time than money. D&D has LOADS
> of resources put 
> into development, but much of it goes into product
> that can get 
> somewhat rushed to market to fit a schedule and may
> be sometimes 
> poorly playtested or padded.

Another excellent point. Resources to engage in
development. Damn that's a problem.

Lev Lafayette
lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au
http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com