Do authors take a peek at current design-space when creating new games? Should they?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pendragon has mechanics for Joining, Confronting, Discovering, Hiding Conspiracies?

Maybe they added an extra chapter or three to the Brazilian version. Going to need a page cite.
Winter phase, Domain management, Glory, Passions, etc. Are all mechanics or procedures to do exactly what I'm proposing here.

And frankly, I don't know why the annal obsession with the word "mechanics", since I already said it's not necessarily the case, and the same can be pulled out through text form, or tables, procedures, "advice", whatever.
 
Also worth noting that the reception to Pendragon in 1985 was also almost exclusivelly across the board great...y'know, just in case one were to attempt to invent a made-up history to try and prove a point...
And to cover the Delta Green point, while I can think of a couple of people that gripe about the downtime rules, they were widely liked from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
It isn't procedural at all though. There's nothing mechanical. Example, "Stage One" for the Center of Missing Child suggests the PCs can meet an agent ideally with a missing child case. It has wording like "he could be lost in the shuffle" and "contrive a situation... maybe he tails the agents". This is just general advice like you get in any GMing section, not play procedures. The "meta-mini game" CRKrueger CRKrueger references is completely absent here.
It's exactly what a countdown clock from Blades is, only in textual form. But that's not really the point, the "textual advice" on how those factions evolve based on players actions is my point. And the fact there's no advice at all on the corebooks to do something like that.
 
So like Tristram said, this is just another “An RPG designer didn’t fill their game with meta-mechanic bullshit like XxxX does, and I think they should.” whinefest.

well, lol, I didn't put it quite like that, but yeah, I think this is a discussion based on playstyle preferences (and mechanics that grow out from that), so words like "should" should never have entered the conversation.
 
It's exactly what a countdown clock from Blades is, only in textual form. But that's not really the point, the "textual advice" on how those factions evolve based on players actions is my point. And the fact there's no advice at all on the corebooks to do something like that.
I don't really know what that means, but I'm guessing countdown clocks have game mechanics involved. Everything in the Labyrinth I'm reading is just advice and setting material. I could use it for any game.
 
under_score under_score , forget the word "mechanics". If you open The Labyrinth now and notice that textual advice is given for how the factions evolve as a result players actions, that's my point.

That is the kind of thing I would like the corebooks to have. "Advice" (to use your words) for the GM to build factional, actionable, conspiracies for the players to engage with.
 
under_score under_score , forget the word "mechanics". If you open The Labyrinth now and notice that textual advice is given for how the factions evolving as a result players actions, that's my point.
No, not gonna forget that, because it's a defining point that we differ on. But clearly you just want to insist things are the way you want to believe they are to make a point that you can't make without demanding that something is what it isn't to anyone else.

You're a weird dude Lessa silva. You're gonna run out of people to argue with.
 
No, not gonna forget that,
Lol dude, wut? But that's entirely my point! Advice, procedures, whatever the form you prefer. SUPPORT (can we agree with this word?) for the kind of thing that Labyrinth touches on. The corebooks are absent of that. I would be happy to have "textual advice" on conspiracies. I dont' care for the form, as long as it supports the damn thing the game sells on the tin.

Or you just want to disagere with me no matter what? Because that's what I read from your post. LOL :weep:
 
Lol but that's entirely my point. Advice, procedures, whatever the form you prefer. SUPPORT (can we agree with this word?) for the kind of thing that Labyrinth touches on.

The corebooks are absent of that. I would be happy to have "textual advice" on conspiracies. I dont' care for the form, as long as it supports the damn thing the game sells on the tin.
And T Trippy noted that Labyrinth is no different from the Handler's Guide in that regard. It's got a timeline of how we got to this point, descriptions of the Unnatural, portfolios of the Program and the Outlaws, including *gasp!* advice on The Meeting, Intelligence Briefings, and the Cover-Up. Granted, it's all just textual, no procedures... no mechanics... nothing Lessa silva finds useful.
 
@silva makes a cogent point (a rare enough event in and of itself — love you man but you‘ve been on an elfgame overthinking spree) that while some games give you dedicated subsystems for certain activities, others just give you the same basic building blocks as any RPG and you’re on your own.

The fact that DG’s building blocks are top-notch further muddies the issue, but I digress.

An example I constantly run into is domain management. BECMI/RC gives you a whole dedicated system build a stronghold and run a domain at higher levels. AD&D1 is like “so at level 9 you can build a stronghold and attract this many followers” and that’s pretty much it.

(No doubt an artifact of AD&D being conceived as a tournament ruleset, and probably a factor in the extinction of the domain endgame in latter editions.)

When ACKS came out, I remember someone involved with OSRIC (Matt Finch?) decrying it as “Manager Merchant Landlord” for the attention lavished upon domain management subsystems, and @Black Vulmea ’s criticism of (IIRC) the use of morale rolls as an adjudication mechanic for thieves’ guild takeovers. Those struck me as observations from AD&D1 DMs who were used to more leeway and/or less bookkeeping in managing factions, organizations and domains in their games.

I, as someone raised on BECMI/RC (and at a time AD&D2 had given up even on lip service towards the old endgame), welcomed the explicit rules on domains as a coherent mechanism of generating interesting content operating on a smaller degree of GM adjudication. I’m not even much of a spreadsheet guy. I just like having those particular tools in place. I mean, I can screw the temples back on my eyeglasses frame with a socket drive wrench (given a small enough head, of course) just fine, but it comes up often enough that I like having an eyeglass repair kit at home for that.

That being said, I’d love to hear more from the socket driver wrench crowd.
Yes, this. Just notice I'm not even advocating for actual mechanics, in like aritmethic calculations or moves or what not, just "textual advice" describing procedures would already be welcome. Pendragon winter phase is like that, just a list of texts. And it works. :thumbsup:

The Butcher said:
The fact that DG’s building blocks are top-notch further muddies the issue, but I digress.
That's true. What the Delta Green books produces in terms of ambience and scenarios is really top notch. Like, even not being a big fan of mysteries*, it's something I can see and acknowledge.

*you know that. But I'm giving a big, honest chance to the genre. I'm just ending a Cthulhu Dark game that's more or less interesting so far and warming up for Delta Green one. Who knows, maybe I come out loving stuff.
 
Last edited:
That was cheap, Krugs. You're better than that.
 
And to cover the Delta Green point, while I can think of a couple of people that gripe about the downtime rules, they were widely liked from the beginning.
Hell, even I said they were a great way to model and deal with the mental isolation and winnowing of the soul that DG agents go through, even if it’s essentially a “Cthulhu punched me in my marriage“ storytelling mechanic.
 
When he is comparing them to clocks, I just want to point out that clocks are like, at least in the context of tracking faction goals, such barebones mechanics they are barely mechanics.

All it is is a little pie chart with like, 6 sections, and you as the GM go "hey do I think this faction accomplished anything towards its goal during the time since I last looked at this" or "did something my players do change this factions progress" and if you do you fill in a section (or erase one if the PCs set them back). And if you fill in a full circle they finish the goal and maybe the PCs have to deal with that (if they are in the same sphere.

It's just notes shorthands for tracking a factions progress towards a goal. I find it useful in a setting with lots and lots of factions because you don't have to detail exactly WHAT they are doing just if they are making progress or not, and it's a fast visual way to keep track of who is getting close to finishing some goal.

So I can see the point that the stages are pretty much like faction clocks. In fact, they are probably MORE detailed than faction clocks because they actually describe what "stage 2" towards a goal would actually mean.

(Also as a note, I have no opinion specifically on Delta Green or Labyrinth as I've read neither)
 
under_score under_score , forget the word "mechanics". If you open The Labyrinth now and notice that textual advice is given for how the factions evolve as a result players actions, that's my point.

That is the kind of thing I would like the corebooks to have. "Advice" (to use your words) for the GM to build factional, actionable, conspiracies for the players to engage with.
But they do. The only real difference between the groups mentioned in The Labyrinth and the core book is that the factions in the core books are what the PCs are supposedly meant to join. There is advice given for each group about how that might happen, and what might happen when they join. Your distinction isn’t distinct.

It's exactly what a countdown clock from Blades is, only in textual form. But that's not really the point, the "textual advice" on how those factions evolve based on players actions is my point. And the fact there's no advice at all on the corebooks to do something like that.
They aren’t based on players actions - they aren’t triggered by anything the players do necessarily - they are just plot points moving forward, as you’d get in any scenario.
 
Last edited:
If you're looking for a robust set of faction rules that will allow for faction v faction actions with some scope, the ones presented in the REIGN Enchiridion are excellent. It's a fantasy setting, but the framework would work well for modern groups. Barring that, maybe think about lifting something from a good set of Cyberpunk rules, which often have excellent company/faction rules.
 
Last edited:
When he is comparing them to clocks, I just want to point out that clocks are like, at least in the context of tracking faction goals, such barebones mechanics they are barely mechanics.

All it is is a little pie chart with like, 6 sections, and you as the GM go "hey do I think this faction accomplished anything towards its goal during the time since I last looked at this" or "did something my players do change this factions progress" and if you do you fill in a section (or erase one if the PCs set them back). And if you fill in a full circle they finish the goal and maybe the PCs have to deal with that (if they are in the same sphere.

It's just notes shorthands for tracking a factions progress towards a goal. I find it useful in a setting with lots and lots of factions because you don't have to detail exactly WHAT they are doing just if they are making progress or not, and it's a fast visual way to keep track of who is getting close to finishing some goal.

So I can see the point that the stages are pretty much like faction clocks. In fact, they are probably MORE detailed than faction clocks because they actually describe what "stage 2" towards a goal would actually mean.

(Also as a note, I have no opinion specifically on Delta Green or Labyrinth as I've read neither)
In my opinion, Clocks really are like anything “useful or innovative” from XxxX - decent GM advice or tasks over-formalised into a meta-mechanic or minigame that turns what should be coming from the setting organically in response to player choice and action into a universal tool coming from the game mechanics the author uses to make GMs “do things right“.

If these guys spent 1% of the time they put into coming up with all the crutches to prevent GMs from learning into actually teaching new GMs, I’d be handing their books out at my FLGS to new GMs.
 
In my opinion, Clocks really are like anything “useful or innovative” from XxxX - decent GM advice or tasks over-formalised into a meta-mechanic or minigame that turns what should be coming from the setting organically in response to player choice and action into a universal tool coming from the game mechanics the author uses to make GMs “do things right“.

If these guys spent 1% of the time they put into coming up with all the crutches to prevent GMs from learning into actually teaching new GMs, I’d be handing their books out at my FLGS to new GMs.

Strange, I see them as useful note taking tools that games like Blades in the Dark use to TEACH GMs how to track lots of information in ways that can be done quickly and referenced at a glance.

Nothing in using clocks prevents any GM from learning. And if it does, they were a lost cause, as they sure as hell weren't going to learn independently of them.

This just reminds me of the reactions to Common Core Math, which is basically "Waaaah it's not the way I learned so it's garbage!". (Honestly, the way Common Core is taught spends a lot more time on WHY things work and teaching manipulation of numbers rather than just memorizing X works because it does, which is the way math used to be taught).
 
This just reminds me of the reactions to Common Core Math, which is basically "Waaaah it's not the way I learned so it's garbage!". (Honestly, the way Common Core is taught spends a lot more time on WHY things work and teaching manipulation of numbers rather than just memorizing X works because it does, which is the way math used to be taught).


As an aside, I looked at Common Core and went "Damn, they finally figured out how my brain works in regards to math." (sort of..closest I think you can get since I learned it by hard work and instinct, not people teaching me.) I was taught the old way and sometimes its slow as hell for my brain to process.

Anyway, from the over all OP perspective: Yes, as a game designer I look at what has gone before, and what are patterns now. That doesn't mean I'll use either, but I at least adhere to the principle of trying to be aware of the new "cutting" edge as well as old stuff, and it often makes me laugh how people get tied up in cosmetics that mean little, as opposed to interesting elements that make a difference. Example: I looked at Fate when it was new, realized in many ways Over the Edge and Risus, did some of the same things, just with different cosmetics. Fate points? Not new, zero centered mechanic, not new. Heck, I /do/ remember James Bond, and MSH (still two very good games by modern standards that /I/ choose to care about for points enhancing play, and seen tons of zero centered games over the years.

It's kind of like people looking at PbtA and going "Oooh playbooks." and I'm thinking "oh look, classes...with special mechanics for each, where have I...." Haha, no I don't think about it long. It's more hilarious to me because I spend a lot of time talking about trad games with an old friend, and how even traditional games can have high trust adventures, because high trust isn't in the rules, as much as in the options allowed for people to resolve the interesting stuff/see/explore, etc. Said friend has a very interesting view on the important stuff in gaming, one which I enjoy. Not sure I can explain it either--but I admire that view on what I /do/ get out of it.

In my view: Does the game create a world in which Conspiracy adventures involving the situation be held? Does it give tools (not necessarily rules, a tool can simply be a hook, a background, some meat to hang the adventure on and more.) Now, does that mean I think its alright to create hundreds of pages of just setting? Depends, on the nature, interest, and purpose of each game. Example: I adore the old OOP Providence, it started with two books, the rule book, and the world book.

There is a heck of a lot I can do with the world book, making a LOT of the rulebook useless, because the rules don't really click to the setting and hold on--of course they were meant to be a generic set, used for "other" games in a line that was never created and even Providence died on (after a decent amount of support material came out.) Though some was useless. In my case, I don't need a bunch of named NPC's, that's for a given adventure, situation, etc. I can create that without a thought. On the other hand giving me details about a world alien to my own? Flora? Fauna? Cities? Those can be amazingly useful tools to have to build from.

I can't speak on Delta Green's new edition, I can't say much about it as it doesn't interest me so much. On the other hand, it might be very useful for Conspiracy X, as a set of material to steal some tools from--places, details etc.
 
Also worth noting that the reception to Pendragon in 1985 was also almost exclusivelly across the board great...y'know, just in case one were to attempt to invent a made-up history to try and prove a point...

Not sure where the irony of this statement is intended but I recall Robin Laws discussing on his podcast with Hite when Stafford passed away how Pendragon did receive blowback for its Traits and Passions system among other things.
 
Not sure where the irony of this statement is intended but I recall Robin Laws discussing on his podcast with Hite when Stafford passed away how Pendragon did receive blowback for its Traits and Passions system among other things.

I think the same few people who complained about that sort of thing at the time are the sorts that still complain about them now. Published contemporary reviews were almost across the board glowing (with only one exception I know of from the ARP fanzine), and the first edition of the GPC was awarded best Roleplaying supplement Origins award in '85.
 
No internet in the 1980s.
Not only would that obscure complaints it would also make it harder for ideological divisions to form.
 
Oh sure, the rules for building a castle are fine. What happens after that, though? AD&D doesn’t care.
I agree - that's on the referee, who hopefully is clever and understands how the game changes at high . . . wait a sec, what's this right here?!
The Captain at theRPGSite said:
I think it's the switch from offense to defense.

Instead of raiding tombs and temples and dragons' lairs, now you're responsible for an island of order and peace in a world of chaos. Instead of going looking for trouble, now trouble has your address. Evil adventurers are sacking your temples, thieves are breaking into your treasure vault, orcs are enslaving your yeomen, and dragons are gobbling up your livestock. There's no need to go searching for adventure, 'cause adventure's knocking on your door like a green-skinned yellow-fanged Jehovah's Witness.
:thumbsup:

Funny, I stumbled on that while looking up something else related to 'strongholds & strategy' play for the long-term campaign thread.

BECMI/RC gives you a whole dedicated system build a stronghold and run a domain at higher levels. AD&D1 is like “so at level 9 you can build a stronghold and attract this many followers” and that’s pretty much it. . . . When ACKS came out, I remember someone involved with OSRIC (Matt Finch?) decrying it as “Manager Merchant Landlord” for the attention lavished upon domain management subsystems, and Black Vulmea Black Vulmea ’s criticism of (IIRC) the use of morale rolls as an adjudication mechanic for thieves’ guild takeovers.

Those struck me as observations from AD&D1 DMs who were used to more leeway and/or less bookkeeping in managing factions, organizations and domains in their games.

I, as someone raised on BECMI/RC (and at a time AD&D2 had given up even on lip service towards the old endgame), welcomed the explicit rules on domains as a coherent mechanism of generating interesting content operating on a smaller degree of GM adjudication. . . . That being said, I’d love to hear more from the socket driver wrench crowd. (emphasis added - BV)
tenor.gif


I blogged at length about the endgame - domain-level play - for swashbuckling campaigns, using Flashing Blades' rules as my template, and what I can say about them is that FB's more like 1e AD&D than BECDEFG . . . in that it tells you what benefits you gain without telling you how to use them. The goal of my blog posts was to provide a sort of players' guide to using the existing rules to play 'strongholds & strategy.'

So let's take a look at a 1e AD&D Fighter Lord. The 1e PHB rules say that if the fighter builds a castle and 'frees' the land of all 'hostile creatures' to a radius of at least 20 miles - not quite 1300 square miles, about the size of Santa Cruz County in Arizona - he'll attract a company of men-at-arms led by an 'above average fighter,' drawn, per the 1e DMG, by 'stalwart admiration' of the Fighter Lord's accomplishments. The Lord receives 7 silver pieces each month, from trade, taxes and tariffs, for each inhabitant of this freehold - the rules are notably silent on where these inhabitants come from. This is significant and presents our freeholder's first challenge.

So, let's take stock of our Fighter Lord. By 9th level, he should probably have some henchmen to assist in clearing the freehold of monsters, and if he was thinking strategically from the start, one of those henchmen is a cleric, who at 110,000 xp - slightly less than half of the fighter's 250K, as a good henchman's total should be - becomes a Patriarch or Matriarch and can build a simple place of worship which attracts 20-200 - average 110 - fanatically loyal worshippers to live in religious ecstasy with their spiritual leader on the fighter's freehold, paying his taxes.

The presumption is that the fighter creates his freehold out of howling wilderness, but that doesn't rule out building the freehold where there's already a village or a hamlet. Perhaps 'freeing' the land of 'hostile creatures' includes removing the evil brigand - or a pair of spirit nagas - holding sway over a frontier hamlet of a 200 souls. How about a freehold that encompasses a portion of a road or a bridge from which to charge tolls, though our Lord best be able to protect those travelers if he does. What about a freehold on the bank of a navigable river? Build a galley to hunt down pirates and throw a chain across the river to control access and insure that tariffs are paid.

Now, the rules provide me with little beyond the cost of building the castle, the shrine, and the galley if so inclined, but it gives me a base value of income which I can tweak - make a RULING - up or down based on what the player chooses for his character to do. I have random tables for populating the surrounding lands with not just monsters but other freeholds and freeholders, and I can infer from these tables the nature, frequency, and quantity of travelers on his road and his bridge or his river; if our Lord successfully negotiates with a merchant caravan or a band of pilgrims, perhaps he can increase the population of his freehold even more.

By the way, if you look closely at the map of the Wilderlands, you'll see exactly the kind of setting implied by these rules. It's perfectly crafted for the 1e AD&D strongholds & strategy endgame.

tl;dr? The rules are thin but interpolation of the implied setting provides the basis for making informed rulings judging the success of the freeholder as master of his domain.

Now, anyone need to borrow a socket driver?
 
I try to read as many rpg as I can, but not indiscriminately: I try to see how some of them model specific things: from mecha-combat to romance to madness, etc...

BUT

I also try to get my ideas elsewhere: boardgames, videogames, you name it. I think t's not good to limit oneself to rpgs only.
 
I like the domain management rules in things like the Rules Cyclopedia. I actually wish they put more rules like that post-apocalyptic settings where you might be running something like Gas Town from Mad Max.
 
I like the domain management rules in things like the Rules Cyclopedia. I actually wish they put more rules like that post-apocalyptic settings where you might be running something like Gas Town from Mad Max.

Have you looked at Mutant Year Zero ? The rules for building/developing your community are pretty cool. Lots of ideas there.
 
In my opinion, Clocks really are like anything “useful or innovative” from XxxX - decent GM advice or tasks over-formalised into a meta-mechanic or minigame that turns what should be coming from the setting organically in response to player choice and action into a universal tool coming from the game mechanics the author uses to make GMs “do things right“.

If these guys spent 1% of the time they put into coming up with all the crutches to prevent GMs from learning into actually teaching new GMs, I’d be handing their books out at my FLGS to new GMs.
But... clocks are just countdowns and memory aids for people at the table, presented in a convenient visual format. Not a minigame or particularly formalised, not anything particularly innovative. If the GM decides that a particular thing has happened that pushes things towards the end of the clock, mark some segments, if not, don't, and if something happens that pushes things away from it, erase some segments. If something happens to drastically push the countdown either way, the GM still says "right, we'll get rid of that countdown, because..." because they're still in charge.

Certain specific uses of clocks in a game may have specific mechanics tied to them, but I don't feel that's any more restricting the GM than rules that say "if your sanity hits 0 then your character is removed from the game", or "if a PC does this thing then they gain a Whatever Point, and when they hit this many Whatever Points, something happens", or something like D&D4's Skill Challenge mechanics, or the Escalation Die in 13th Age.
 
I agree - that's on the referee, who hopefully is clever and understands how the game changes at high . . . wait a sec, what's this right here?!

:thumbsup:

Funny, I stumbled on that while looking up something else related to 'strongholds & strategy' play for the long-term campaign thread.


tenor.gif


I blogged at length about the endgame - domain-level play - for swashbuckling campaigns, using Flashing Blades' rules as my template, and what I can say about them is that FB's more like 1e AD&D than BECDEFG . . . in that it tells you what benefits you gain without telling you how to use them. The goal of my blog posts was to provide a sort of players' guide to using the existing rules to play 'strongholds & strategy.'

So let's take a look at a 1e AD&D Fighter Lord. The 1e PHB rules say that if the fighter builds a castle and 'frees' the land of all 'hostile creatures' to a radius of at least 20 miles - not quite 1300 square miles, about the size of Santa Cruz County in Arizona - he'll attract a company of men-at-arms led by an 'above average fighter,' drawn, per the 1e DMG, by 'stalwart admiration' of the Fighter Lord's accomplishments. The Lord receives 7 silver pieces each month, from trade, taxes and tariffs, for each inhabitant of this freehold - the rules are notably silent on where these inhabitants come from. This is significant and presents our freeholder's first challenge.

So, let's take stock of our Fighter Lord. By 9th level, he should probably have some henchmen to assist in clearing the freehold of monsters, and if he was thinking strategically from the start, one of those henchmen is a cleric, who at 110,000 xp - slightly less than half of the fighter's 250K, as a good henchman's total should be - becomes a Patriarch or Matriarch and can build a simple place of worship which attracts 20-200 - average 110 - fanatically loyal worshippers to live in religious ecstasy with their spiritual leader on the fighter's freehold, paying his taxes.

The presumption is that the fighter creates his freehold out of howling wilderness, but that doesn't rule out building the freehold where there's already a village or a hamlet. Perhaps 'freeing' the land of 'hostile creatures' includes removing the evil brigand - or a pair of spirit nagas - holding sway over a frontier hamlet of a 200 souls. How about a freehold that encompasses a portion of a road or a bridge from which to charge tolls, though our Lord best be able to protect those travelers if he does. What about a freehold on the bank of a navigable river? Build a galley to hunt down pirates and throw a chain across the river to control access and insure that tariffs are paid.

Now, the rules provide me with little beyond the cost of building the castle, the shrine, and the galley if so inclined, but it gives me a base value of income which I can tweak - make a RULING - up or down based on what the player chooses for his character to do. I have random tables for populating the surrounding lands with not just monsters but other freeholds and freeholders, and I can infer from these tables the nature, frequency, and quantity of travelers on his road and his bridge or his river; if our Lord successfully negotiates with a merchant caravan or a band of pilgrims, perhaps he can increase the population of his freehold even more.

By the way, if you look closely at the map of the Wilderlands, you'll see exactly the kind of setting implied by these rules. It's perfectly crafted for the 1e AD&D strongholds & strategy endgame.

tl;dr? The rules are thin but interpolation of the implied setting provides the basis for making informed rulings judging the success of the freeholder as master of his domain.

Now, anyone need to borrow a socket driver?

So it’s a rulings-not-rules thing. Gotcha.
 
So, my question is: do authors look for what's out there when creating their games? Should they? Is a look at the design-space around you desireable? Also, are there specific demographies or subcultures that do this more than others? I have a suspicion that older games fanbases tend to be more insular and attached and thus more prone to ignore whats out there, while newer games fanbases are naturally more, "ecclectic". But it's just anecdote.

Personally, I don't generally look at what's out there. I've already got a varied collection of games that cover a lot of bases. A very quick glance at one of my gaming shelves (so physical copies) and you have FATE, Dungeon Word, LotFP, Equinox, Ingenero, Earthdawn, 1879, Shadowrun, B/X, AD&D, SotDL, Zweihander, Magic World, SPLINTER, High Valor, Savage Worlds, Warhammer, Sorcerers of Ur -Turuk, Mythras and I've a ton of PDF's and I've played a lot of other stuff besides. I only spend about $50 on games a year. So I reckon I have way less games than most folks. Unless I was writing for something that I was truly unfamiliar with - Supers is the only genre that springs to mind - I wouldn't go out and look at the design-space. I feel I have a fair idea of what different kinds of games and mechanics exist that I can build on if required, or steal outright.

I remember writing for an IP once and the Developer gave me a reading list of books I needed to read. The cost of the list of books was way more than I would have got paid to write for the game. A few hours on the internet and a few days writing and I had the job done.

Having said all that, I am a fan of having plenty of tools for the GM to use or ignore to help with setting up and running the game.
 
So it’s a rulings-not-rules thing.
Mmmm, sorta. As I said, with Flashing Blades all the pieces are there, in the rules as written; in 1e AD&D, you can play it by-the-book, but a ruling here or there encourages and rewards player creativity.

What neither game does is explain how to use the tools and resources available to the character, or how to effectively referee the endgame, in my opinion.
 
Strange, I see them as useful note taking tools that games like Blades in the Dark use to TEACH GMs how to track lots of information in ways that can be done quickly and referenced at a glance.

Nothing in using clocks prevents any GM from learning. And if it does, they were a lost cause, as they sure as hell weren't going to learn independently of them.

This just reminds me of the reactions to Common Core Math, which is basically "Waaaah it's not the way I learned so it's garbage!". (Honestly, the way Common Core is taught spends a lot more time on WHY things work and teaching manipulation of numbers rather than just memorizing X works because it does, which is the way math used to be taught).

Hey, I don’t like the new shiny, I must be a dinosaur, how...:sleep:
Common Core, really? Wtf? I’ll take weird non-sequiturs for 100, Alex. (Fuck, I just remembered Alex is gone. :weep:)
 
What neither game does is explain how to use the tools and resources available to the character, or how to effectively referee the endgame, in my opinion.

That’s the point I was trying to make, and where the more fully realized domain management subsystems appeal to me.

I suspect much of the ground they cover must have been second nature to the old school hex-and-chit wargaming crowd, and lost to later generations (mine obviously included). Or maybe just handwaved away, in favor of retiring the character and playing one of the lower-level followers.
 
So, my question is: do authors look for what's out there when creating their games? Should they? Is a look at the design-space around you desireable? Also, are there specific demographies or subcultures that do this more than others? I have a suspicion that older games fanbases tend to be more insular and attached and thus more prone to ignore whats out there, while newer games fanbases are naturally more, "ecclectic". But it's just anecdote.

I think most do, but they are going to find inspiration from different games, different styles, and they are going to be guided by differing principles. So if I understand the question, if you are writing for an audience that likes X, Y and Z, or if you as a designer, prefer X, Y and Z, you may encounter trend T in the hobby but eschew it because you know it won't fit for you or your audience (or you might try to adapt it). I don't think every game needs to be structured with the same mechanical and procedural options. I don't think this is an older fanbase thing. Most often when I get into discussions across styles, it seems to be with older gamers. But I have encountered younger gamers just as set in their ways style and system wise as older gamers (in fact I know plenty of older gamers who are more open-minded about style and system because they've seen it all: though I do know my share of older gamers who know what they like and have little interest in other approaches at this point). One thing I have seen, that may touch on what you are saying about older gamers being insular is some designers that are say 40+ have said to me things like "I accept I am the old man in the room now"----I have heard this a lot. And I think that is more a statement of, they know they are not going to be able to connect as well with younger gamers, and they have resolved themselves to the fact that their audience is older and they understand an older audience rather than a younger one (and this applies to a range of things, not just mechanics, but aesthetics, attitude of the prose, etc).

I don't play Delta Green (it is a game that has long been on my list to try, but for whatever reason, I've never gotten around to it), so I can't comment specifically on it. But I think there is nothing wrong with them putting out the game they want to put out. If it doesn't feature some new element that you've come to expect, I'd say the game simply isn't for you, or you should try hacking it a bit to get it more into the shape of what you want. I've certainly bought games that lacked features I wanted. In most cases though I think that was simply the designers having a different set of preferences from myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top