"Fantasy Heartbreakers" by Ron Edwards: A Retrospective
As it seems to be "reevaluate old Forge articles" season, I had another look at "Fantasy Heartbreakers" by Ron Edwards.
The Fantasy Heartbreakers Essay
The first really big thing to note is that he is not using the term "fantasy heartbreakers" in the way it later (de)volved. It's not a pejorative, even if it's not entirely positive. He's writing about these games with affection and even love. He's interested in what makes them good and what fun ideas he can find within, not putting them down. I believe he talks on the Forge about actual play of the games.
So the later claim that "fantasy heartbreaker" is synonymous with "bad" isn't what the article is about. He talks in some detail about how one of the "heartbreaking" features of these games is one of marketing, something still apposite today in terms of discoverability. They might not fit all the elements described, but in 2024 there are still plenty of passion projects on Drivethru that sadly have only sold 6 copies.
He tries, I think, to be as objective in his evaluation as possible. Perhaps understandably, this isn't always something he manages to achieve.
His 'proof' that "not one of them demonstrates a shred of critical perspective regarding role-playing techniques" is that they don't have metagame mechanics. An equally likely possibility in my view is that Edwards likes metagame mechanics and the designers don't.
Another example of this is that one of his "painful" elements is Dawnfire's list of polearms. Now, it's very easy to make fun of Gygax's polearm obsession and we've all done it. And it's possible this is a straight port of that. It's also possible it's a conscious design decision for one reason or another. It feels like because Edwards can't see or even understand a reason someone would make that decision, he jumps straight to an assumption that it must be unthinking. Because I can think of good reasons why extensive weapons lists exist, from a design perspective.
In Vampire the Masquerade, I would agree they're at best pointless and at worst counterproductive to what the game is supposed to be about.
In Cyberpunk 2020 however, I would argue they are a vital part of the game for the same reason that Mr Stud implants and bodysculpting yourself to look like a lizard are in the game. Whether your pistol is Arasaka or Militech is far more important than if it has similar damage stats to another pistol. Cyberpunk is a game about combat, yes, but more importantly it's a game about aesthetics and corporate branding.
In Tales of the Floating Vagabond the various gun categories (really big gun, oh my god that's a big gun!) are equally important, because they're there to parody the likes of Cyberpunk 2020.
I think Edwards could have done with being more critical and unpacking his own assumptions on "good design" here.
At times, this issue leads to assumptions I'm pretty sure are just wrong in an objective sense.
That's a mere detail, however, compared with the other evidence that AD&D, vintage Numero Uno, provided not only the model, but the only model for these games' design - to the extent of defining the very act of role-playing.
I cannot speak for most of these games. I am pretty sure, from the evidence, that this is not and can not be the case for Legendary Lives. Because we are talking about the same designer who created Lost Souls (a game set in the afterlife where you collect karma to move onto to a better reincarnation) and Khaotic (where all the PCs share a single host body). Those do not feel like games created by a designer who has AD&D as their only reference point. Instead, I suggest a simple application of Occam's Razor here. Legendary Lives is a dungeon crawling D&D influenced game because that's what the designer wanted to achieve with it.
Which leads us to the elephant in the room. Between now and the writing of the article, the OSR happened. Edwards certainly can't be expected to have taken into account a design movement that was to come. But it does mean that statements like:
they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start.
and
even if they get to end-users, their aggressively retro mode of play and presentation cannot compete with those games which defined that mode of play and command the loyalty of those who value it.
feel very dated indeed.
It might be a bit mean to ask how Edwards reckons the relative sales difference between Sorcerer and Shadowdark is. But I shall do so regardless.
I would assume that if Edwards was to revisit the subject (and I think he's moved onto pastures new) this is something he'd tackle.
Overall though, it's an interesting article, much better than its detractors would have you believe. There's some painful unexamined assumptions and arguments that have been treated unkindly by history. But there's some gems in there about the games themselves and what they want they represent.
We should give it some love as a "Theory Heartbreaker".