What is heart's of oak Neil?

Good question. I think there is always the expectation that if you have designed one game you will design another, that is just how the community looks at it. Now whether or not you subscribe to that view is up to you.

I think this perception also depends on how well your first game does. If for instance you design the next 'burning wheel' then there would be an expectation that you would follow it up as it was so well received. If you create something that does ok but doesn't have a lot of community penetration, which is where Mob Justice stands at the moment, then there is less interest in what you are doing next.

I will continue to design games because I enjoy it. I will continue to put them out there as long as I can break even at the very least because I want to share my games with people. When that impetus leaves me I will stop. Simple as that. If you find that motivation leaves you after one project then fair enough.

In the end, as a designer, you are answerable only to yourself and you should do whatever you feel is right. Yeah fans might feel upset, betrayed whatever but in my opinion you should only design games if you want to. There has to be passion behind a game for it to see the light of day.

Cheers

Iain
Mob Justice now available!

'The Giant Brain':Small games, big ideas.

Thats very much in line with my thoughts as well. Do it while its fun and breaking even.

Hearts of Oak, as you were so nice to ask, is the naval side of Duty & Honour. So if D&H is Sharpe, HoO is Hornblower and Master & Commander.

The plan is to publish it as a wholly compatible, but stand alone, game, so you can play soldiers, sailors or a totally awesome campaign that mixes the two.

So, for example, in the Hornblower TV episode 'Frogs and Lobsters', Horatio is involved in sea and land adventures including at least a couple of full-on-skirmishes. Being able to simulate that episode is the end result.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I really think putting out a load of games really rapidly without committing to any of them can be a bad idea.

Joe Prince is the most prolific on here but Joe also supports his releases actively after he puts them out. If you have an idea that gets you excited then you should certainly consider publishing it: a cool collaboration, a hot idea you always had, great. But don't look at it as a "must do".

I think of Troy Costisick's attempts at releasing a game every quarter, and it fell flat for me. The books looked poor and not only did I get the impression they were being punted out there, I also got the impression he'd moved on from them too. Which is death to your game.

A game like, in my case, Best Friends is something that I like playing, so I support it for for that reason by playing it at cons. But it's also a commercial decision too. I feel a bit of loyalty to keeping it supported and out there, but also a sense of standing by a book that I actually got around to publishing with a price tag on it.

For me, I'm designing a load of games because I like doing it. I do it very slowly (unfortunately), but it's also important to let you know about the one that is out there right now. I actively like all the games I work on.

Oh, and if a game is good and fun then it's good or fun no matter when it was originally released. Look at the long-tail games we have here.

Being pulled into a cycle of releasing a game every X months because you have to is a bad plan for those games yet to be written, and for the ones you've already published. It is no different from the meaningless splatbooks for cash syndrome. The treadmill of buy-me-for-kudos. It's a mug's game.

For me it's not a treadmill, I design because I enjoy it. The act of creating and perfecting the game, then seeing others gain enjoyment from it is what makes it pleasurable for me. However (and isn't there always a however), there are certain treadmilly aspects at times. The realisation that a|state had been set up with the expectation of lots of supplements killed the game for me for a long time. But now, I'm back in the place of being appreciative of what a|state is and what it does.

Hot War is, like a|state and Cold City before it, an extension of things that I find fascinating. Yes, there are common themes running through all of these games, even down to the commonality of the urban setting (because, more than any other part of the manufactured environment, the cities fascinate me). But, importantly, all of these games stand on their own. I'm proud of all of them.

And here's a thing: this is why I don't enter many design contests (not just because I'm rubbish at them), it's the fact that inspiration doesn't really come to me from that kind of thing. Stuff just appears or gradually coalesces into inspiration. For me, games contests can drive people to create or work on games because of expectation or desire for recognition. Not in all cases. probably not even in the majority of cases. They have their pros and cons. But that is totally off topic.

I'm keen to support a|state, which is five years old, keen to support Cold City, which is two years old and keen to support any other games that I might produce at some point in the future.

I certainly don't feel pressure to produce my next game. I produce at my own rate. Everlasting Empire has been set aside many times, but it'll arrive eventually. Maybe in a few years, maybe in a decade, who knows? But there's no pressure on me to rush something out just because.

In the midst of all that rambling, there is probably a kernel of a point.

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios

Here's what I am taking from this so far:

1. A game which you are passionate about and believe in and provide support for on an ongoing basis will perpetuate itself without the need for shiny newness.

2. Forced publication can be a detrimental thing to the quality of the product (well, duh!)

3. Shiny newness for the sake of shiny newness is not a Good Thing.

4. However, if you have a second or third game that you are passionate about, go for it!

Thats all pretty much what I was thinking would be the case but its nice to ask the question. One of the upshots of this has been me thinking about time, commitment, the future and strangely web presence - and indeed, what happens after D&H and how I handle that period when the game leaps into the wild. I like the idea of ongoing support for a game. I like the idea of people being able to interact as a community around a game. I like the idea of supplementary materials etc. as and when I can do them. I can also see how wanting to do that can be scuppered by a forced or distracted focus.

Good stuff. Got me thinking on a tangent, but an informed tangent. Thanks for the feedback

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/