Lessa
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,891
- Reaction score
- 3,041
Honestly, I think a big part of them don't. And it's a shame. Please, bear with me...
I've just finished reading the new Delta Green and my immediate feeling is that it's an awesome setting married to a very narrow playing scope that ultimately makes it a wasted opportunity. Long story short, the GM book is a 400 pg tome devoted mostly to - hear that - the past lore of the organizations and it's members, while the only actual play support is a dozen pages that basically boils down to "Hey GM, here are some tips for a monster of the week game". Wait, wut? A full fledge double-corebooks of 600pg with such a big developed history full of conspiracy and intrigue... for a monster of the week game? No support for long-term campaigns, no support for factional intrigue & conspiracy, etc?
And I couldn't stop thinking about how other games' tools available in the current design-space could improve that potential enormously: Night's Black Agent's Conspiramyd for making open-ended long-term campaigns viable, or Silent Legions tables for creating adventures/scenarios complications/cults/creatues/phenomena on the fly, or Conspiracy-X base/conspiracy/safehouse building with "pulling strings", etc. Even a PbtA "front" to bring the inter-factional play to the fore would do (EDIT: alas, The Labyrinth, a recent Delta Green expansion, is exactly that).
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've just finished reading the new Delta Green and my immediate feeling is that it's an awesome setting married to a very narrow playing scope that ultimately makes it a wasted opportunity. Long story short, the GM book is a 400 pg tome devoted mostly to - hear that - the past lore of the organizations and it's members, while the only actual play support is a dozen pages that basically boils down to "Hey GM, here are some tips for a monster of the week game". Wait, wut? A full fledge double-corebooks of 600pg with such a big developed history full of conspiracy and intrigue... for a monster of the week game? No support for long-term campaigns, no support for factional intrigue & conspiracy, etc?
And I couldn't stop thinking about how other games' tools available in the current design-space could improve that potential enormously: Night's Black Agent's Conspiramyd for making open-ended long-term campaigns viable, or Silent Legions tables for creating adventures/scenarios complications/cults/creatues/phenomena on the fly, or Conspiracy-X base/conspiracy/safehouse building with "pulling strings", etc. Even a PbtA "front" to bring the inter-factional play to the fore would do (EDIT: alas, The Labyrinth, a recent Delta Green expansion, is exactly that).
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.
Last edited: