Posts
ABOUT RICHARD: Richard Iorio II is a designer, publisher and graphic
designer. He operates Wandering Wizard Designs, a graphic design shop that
offers services such as cover, logo design and layout. He is also the owner of
Rogue Games and the creator of Colonial Gothic, a horror RPG set during the
American Revolution:
http://www.rogue-games.net/
http://www.wanderingwizarddesigns.com/
BD: Can you talk a
bit about your gaming experience?
RI: Like everyone, I started with Dungeons & Dragons. In
my case I was living in Idaho, and it was the Holmes version of the game. I was
in the fifth grade, and one of my friend’s older brother had the game. From
there we tried other games. Basically I was hooked. I was lucky in that I lived
in Idaho, and the west coast influences were prevalent in the scene. By this
time games like Runequest, Arduin, and the like were easy to find and these
were things we played.
BD: Why did you
decide to take the plunge and start your own game company?
RI: I had games I wanted to design, and I was tired of
freelancing and making compromises in the design process. I was the Director of
Traditional Games for Zeitgeist Games, and this was a learning experience in
many ways. James Maliszewksi (who was my Blackmoor Line Developer) and I
decided it was time to do our own thing. This led to Rogue Games. It was a
chance for us to design the type of games we liked. In James’ case it was
Thousand Suns, in my case it was Colonial Gothic, and then Shadow, Sword &
Spell.
BD: You have two
rules at Rogue Games. The first is have fun. The Second is “The setting defines
the rules, the rules do not define the setting”. Can you talk about what this
means in practice and what kind of settings and games it produces?
RI: The rules. Ok, this might become long winded, but here
we go. :)
"Have fun." For me this is the most important
thing I keep in mind when I am designing anything. We play and design games.
One of the main byproducts a game produces is fun. It does not matter what type
of game you are playing. It can be Grey Ranks, a LARP, Call of Cthulhu or even
Rolemaster. At the end of the session, you should have had fun. If you did not
have fun, then for me, the game is a failure. So fun should not just be fun in
the playing of the game, it should also be in the designing and creation of the
game.
I know this runs counter to most design advice, but I have
found that if you are not having fun while you design a game, then the finished
product is not going to be fun. So no matter what I work on, be it a rulebook,
sourcebook, adventure, if I am not having fun during the design, the whole game
is not going to be fun when finished.
As for the second rule—The setting defines the rules, the
rules do not define the setting—this is what design comes down to. Often, most
games fail when designers try to take existing rules and mesh it into the
setting the want to design. A setting is anything where the game action takes
place. So it can be a board for a board game, a tabletop for a miniature game,
or a card game. There are many ways to model mechanics, but there are not many
ways to model a setting.
For example, you want to run a horror game based loosely on
the Abbot and Costello Universal Monster Movies. Why would you use the Call of
Cthulhu rules, or create a Fate mash up, when you could simply use Toon, or
come up with your own simple mechanic to emulate the tone you're trying to
achieve? This is what I mean by letting the setting dictate the rules.
BD: You’ve also
designed card games in addition to RPGs. How is RPG design different from card
game design?
RI: I love designing card games. In fact I am currently
working on a couple of new designs as a freelancer with another company and I
am very excited about this.
Card game design is different because there are a lot of
moving parts. You need to balance the game play, the mechanic, the type of
cards, the probability of the card types coming into play. Not only that, you
need to ensure that decks are not under powered or over powered.
I always ask myself the following questions before working
on a card game:
1. How do you win the game? Last player standing? Most
points?
2. How does game play work?
3. What am I trying to emulate?
The answers to these questions will guide me in my design,
and help me create a game that accomplishes what I am setting out to do.
When I designed Geek Wars, I wanted a game that all a player
would need would be a deck of 60 cards. The purpose of the game was to emulate
army of geeks—Role Playing Gamers and Wargamers—who were fighting over control
of the con floor. With that premise, I knew I needed to have troop cards, as
well as effect cards which allowed for the enhancement of troops or trigger
events against the opponent.
The troop cards have a point value which is used to attack
opponent. These troop cards are able to be stacked, so that by sending more
troops against tough opponents, you increase your chance to win.
How do you win?
By destroying your opponent's army.
That was not all I had to worry about. I had to worr if both
decks were balanced, and that both decks would have an equal chance of winning.
I did not want the wargamer deck to be so powerful, that the opponent did not
have a chance to win.
Even so, I needed to make sure the game carried the tone I
wanted it to have. Geek Wars is humor, it is parody, because of this, the
cards, and game play could not take itself too seriously. At all times during
the design process I had to make sure the game was funny.
BD: When you read an
RPG, what do you look for?
RI: Fun. Seriously. If a game does not look to be fun, I am
not going to play it. I know it sounds simple, but that is what drives me. I
mentioned Grey Ranks before. I love this game, and though you would not equate
"fun" with the subject matter, the game is fun, because it allows you
to explore themes that are not often found in other games. I do not like GURPS,
and that is not due to the design, but due to me not finding the game fun to
play. Is the design a failure? No. It just means that the rules, just do not
offer me a fun enjoyable time.
Still one I get past the fun, the game needs to offer me
something different. Case in point: D&D and retro clones. Why do I need a
clone when I can simply play Basic and Expert D&D? Granted I still have my
red and blue box, if the mood strikes me to play D&D, I am going to go to
the source and avoid the clone.
However, in cases of these games doing something different,
that is what is what grabs me. Arrows of Indra (and this is not a paid for plug
:) ), is a game I really enjoy. Granted I did the layout of it, but this is the
type of game I really like. It sets out to do a specific thing, and does this
perfectly. I wish more game designers would try to create a game that says and
does what it means to do, like this.
RI: Thanks, Colonial Gothic is a labor of love.
Colonial Gothic came about because when I was in the 8th
grade I was tired of fantasy. I was tired of elves, dwarves, and the same old
same old. I wanted something different, and I wanted something that took Legend
of Sleepy Hallow and mixed it with Last of the Mohicans. I wanted colonial
witches and the like, and I could not find anything that did that. So the seed
of the idea finds itself to a lazy late May afternoon, and my sitting outside
thinking about the type of game I wanted that did this.
I explored using Boot Hill's
rules, and later Marvel Superheroes, and as the years went by, the idea
changed, was revised, and it would not be until college, that I took the game
into the area it is now: the supernatural as seen through the eyes of the
colonists.
BD: The Colonial
Gothic line has really grown over the years. The game itself has also been
refined. You have had one revision and a new edition since its release. How has
Colonial Gothic evolved and how has your approach to the line changed (if at
all)?
RI: The game has gotten more focused, more refined, and has
grown up. The first edition was good, but it was a let-down to me, because I
failed in the design. I listened to too many people and did not listen to
myself in designing the game. Revised was me making the game what I wanted it
to be. It was this version which really renewed my desire to work on it, and
grow it. It was also this edition which led to Graeme Davis joining me in the
wiring and growth of the whole line. Graeme has really pushed me, and made me
focus and make this game better.
Second Edition, is it, this is the rules, refined, revised,
and the game in its' final form, if you will. It is the game I always knew it
could be, but I did not know if I had it in me to create.
During all of this, the approach to the game has been the
same. Create a game that I would want to play.
BD: Can you elaborate
on how listening to too many people negatively impacted the design process? How
should designers process feedback and criticism?
For me, too much feedback leads to "paralysis by
analysis." Person A likes this
rule, but Person B hates the same rule. This person feels there is too
much an emphasis on magic (even though the game might be about school age
wizards in training) while another feels
there is not enough. You can go on and on with
this. I've felt that often most designers tend to not listen to
themselves. They ignore their own ideas and opinions, and try to tailor-make
their games to fit
the mythical "perfect" gamer. This is why most
games fail. Maybe not economically, but as a means of fun. Games should be fun.
Period, Fun can be defined in any way
you want, but for me, fun means you want to not only play the game, but finish the game. Designers should
design more for themselves, and less for others. Make the game you want to
make. Let your enthusiasm infect your design. Gamers will, and do, notice that.
As for processing feedback and criticism, ignore what it is
not important. If combat is an issue
with your game, and the comments and feedback you get all deal with this, that is what you fix. That is
where the breakdown is happening, not with lone comments like: "I hate
elves," "I do not like how this game reads because there is not enough 'fluff'," or
my favorite "you misspelled a word on
page 236 of the Word file."
It all boils down to what I have been saying: design the
game you want.
BD: Can you talk a
bit about the 12 degrees system that you use in both Colonial Gothic and
Shadow, Sword and Spell?
RI: 12 degrees is the type of rule system I like in that, it
is easy to learn, easy to run, and adaptable to any situation I need. I wanted
a rule system that could be easily added to with little difficulty, as well as
a rule system that I could easily transport to other settings.
Originally I wanted to use BESM for my rule system, but when
GoO imploded, I decided to create something that was my own. James, when he was
my business partner, liked it and we worked on the rules together using it for
both Colonial Gothic and Thousand Suns. Every game we worked on we tweaked, and
refined the rules, and this work really has set the rules into what they are
today. Colonial Gothic Second Edition rules is the product of this.
If you like rules light, you will like 12 Degrees.
BD: You call Shadow,
Sword and Spell “Humanistic Fantasy” and point to Robert E. Howard’s Conan
stories as a major source of inspiration (among other pulp fantasy writers).
How does Shadow, Sword and Spell bring this kind of fantasy to the gaming table?
RI: No elves.
Ok, that really is not a good answer.
Shadow, Sword & Spell is fantasy has seen through the
lens of Howard, Smith and Lovecraft. It is a pulp fantasy game where the heroes
start out not a strong, but with the desire to be stronger. I wanted a game
that would show how Kull got to "With this axe I rule." I wanted a
game that was gritty, that was dangerous, and that really felt like you were
playing Howard.
BD: Did you learn
anything from your experience designing Colonial Gothic (as well as releasing
it and supporting it) that you could apply when you began work on Shadow, Sword
and Spell?
RI: I stayed true to what I wanted to design. I did not
listen to others, and created the fantasy game I wanted to play.
BD: How did using an
original system, shape the development of the end product?
RI: It didn't. Once I decided to not used Savage Worlds, or
BESM, and let it be its' own thing, I let it be its' own thing. You could
argue, and do so very effectively, that the influence of a rules light, quick
to learn game, is what carried over to the design.
BD: You have said
“with the exception of fatal, there are no bad games”. Do you think people are
overly critical of RPGs?
RI: Yes. There is too much philosophizing about games and
not enough playing. Period. There is nothing wrong with talking about games,
comparing games and rule choices, but if that is all you do then you are
missing the point about games. Games are meant to be played. They are meant to
be enjoyed with others. I will not understand the fan base who simply read a
game, and never play it. I have a friend who preaches how every game to should
be like Burning Wheel. Every time the topic of games comes up, his reply is
that Burning Wheel would have done it better. Has he played Burning Wheel? No.
Does he play any games? No. He likes to read game, but does not have the time
to play them.
Mind you I have made the offer countless times to have him
join my group, and every time he responds he does not have the time.
This is not a gamer, this is a reader. Sadly there are more
readers, it seems in this hobby, then gamers.
That is not to say that Burning Wheel is a bad game, I
respect it for what it is, but not every game, or rule set is suited to every
style of play.
BD: How do you feel
about the state of the hobby and the state of design today?
RI: That is a hard question to answer, and the reason for
this is the answer changes depending upon who you ask. I might be jaded, but
the more you worry about the state of the hobby the more your enjoyment of the
hobby is impacted. Let's be frank, no sane person should become a publisher.
You will make very little money, you will toil in obscurity, you will be
attacked for decisions you make, or do not make. When you have success, you
will never enjoy it because someone is always looking to criticize you.
That being said, I love games and love designing games.
What I see happening, is the same thing I have seen with
this hobby since I started. We are chasing our own tail: d20 hits, and then we
have a boom bust. Magic the Gathering is released, and then we have a boom
bust. Vampire hits and everyone and their uncle try to do their own take on
this. Retro clones? Boom. Bust. Bust in ideas, bust in creativity.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Now, we have Kickstarter. We are walking down the same path
as we did with everything. The same mistakes are being made with eyes wide
open.
I might be the wrong one to ask, or I might be bitter. I
want more Stars Without Number, and less rehashes like Delving Deeper.
BD: What are some of
the challenges of designing for a historical setting?
RI: Knowing when to stop with layering of the historical
accuracy. Sometimes you need to not bog down the game with trying to be
accurate. Truth be told, if I treated Colonial Gothic like a real historical
simulation, there would be huge limits placed on the type of characters allowed
into play. There would be no mobility, social or physical. You would not have
mixing of social classes, let alone mixes with genders. You would have rampant
intolerance. This would not be fun.
BD: How much does
your academic background shape your work on a game like Colonial Gothic?
RI: To be honest, it helps me with research, knowing the
difference between a good primary source and a bad source. My academic
background gave me the desire to use what I know in order to design a game that
I love.
BD: Are there
particular things you look for when trying to identify good sources? Can you
elaborate and talk about the pitfalls of bad source material? Particularly in
the age of the internet, the abundance of historical information can be
overwhelming for people.
It all goes back Old School. The days before ubiquitous web
access and instant reading for any
information you may want, or don't want. The way I learned was the way most my
age learned, using paper sources. So let's break it down into two parts: scholarly articles and
primary/secondary sources.
For articles I focus only on scholarly ones. Even then I pay
attention if an article is from a peer reviewed journal or refereed journal.
What's the difference? Peer review articles have to pass reviewers
who are experts in the field or on the
research topic found in the article. Typically these reviewers do not know who
the author of the article is. Conversely, refereed journals must be reviewed by scholars or experts in the
research topic of the article who are
not members of the board or editorial staff of the journal. When I am doing research I stick to either type of article,
but avoid at all cost general interest magazine articles. These tend to be
sparse with research and long on long winded popular topics.
What is more important is if the source is primary of
secondary. A primary source is a document, speech, or other type of evidence
created during the time period under
study. More importantly they reflect the viewpoint of the participant or
observer and offer the researcher an inside view of a particular event. For
Colonial Gothic what I consider a primary source is simple, an original
document and typically takes the form of:
- Diaries
- Journals
- Speeches
- Letters
- Memos
- Manuscripts
- Newspaper articles
- Orders of battle
A secondary source is basically one providing interpretation
and analysis of historical events or
phenomenon. They one step or more removed from the event and are generally
written by someone other than the individual who experienced the event. Types of these sources are what
you expect: books and the like.
Now in this age of ubiquitous electronic reference sources,
the above is still true, and even more important. All of this is internal, and
is something that is just ingrained in me.
BD: Is there any particular
school of thought or even just a single idea in history you find useful to game
design?
RI: This is going to confuse many people, but the largest
influence on me is Walter Gropius and his Bauhaus. He wrote:
“Architects, painters, sculptors, we must all return to
crafts! For there is no such thing as “professional art”. There is no essential
difference between the artist and the craftsman. The artist is an exalted
craftsman. By the grace of Heaven and in rare moments of inspiration which
transcend the will, art may unconsciously blossom from the labour of his hand,
but a base in handicrafts is essential to every artist. It is there that the
original source of creativity lies. Let us therefore create a new guild of
craftsmen without the class-distinctions that raise an arrogant barrier between
craftsmen and artists! Let us desire, conceive, and create the new building of
the future together. It will combine architecture, sculpture, and painting in a
single form, and will one day rise towards the heavens from the hands of a
million workers as the crystalline symbol of a new and coming faith.”
Ok, not something you would expect from a game designer. I
am someone who enjoys modernism. I do not like overly fussy things, and this is
applied to the games I design, the graphic design I do, and my outlook.
When I design a game, I always think about the whole thing.
What is the page going to look like? Font choices and the paper the book is
printed on, is going to impact the transmissions of the ideas. What material is
going to be used to build the cover, and how is my lighting of this going to
affect the look of the cover?
Hell, everything I design starts out as a longhand draft,
written with pen onto paper. I always think about how the design is not going
to be fussy or over worked.
No comments:
Post a Comment