I've had so many thoughts that I have been having a hard time organizing them.
Thought #1
Focus on the player characters and what they are to do in the world.
Yes, this seems obvious, but I've seen way too many games become enamored with their setting details that the role of the PC is lost.
My favorite example of this is Fading Suns. I was super excited when that game came out and I loved the setting. I loaned the book to a potential player and his only question after reading it was : "So what do the players do?" It was then that I realized that I didn't know either.
Thought #2
Savage Worlds is a game system design to produce fairly competent characters involved in activities that often lead to violence. The setting should reflect that. Again, obvious, but I've seen settings designed in such a way that use of violence was a rare exception rather than the norm.
Thought #3
Settings need fault lines that generate conflict. Again, this seem obvious, but a great many authors tend to tie-up all of their loose-ends and have conflicts be at equilibrium.
Star Wars is a great example of a setting with fault lines. In the original series, there was the Empire, the Rebels, and Rogues (bounty hunters and crime lords). Even if the PCs tried living ordinary lives, the intersection of the three factions would lead to complications and thus adventures.
Blue Planet RPG is another great example. That setting had so many fault lines running through it, I was able to write a 3-4 page "newspaper" as a handout before each session.
One of my favorite fault line from IZ2 was the Russia/China conflict. The campaign that I designed for IZ2 (FATECore Edition) was the liberation of Siberia from China.
Thought #4
Groups need a reason to adventure together.
Games like D&D and Shadowrun are great as it is easy to justify why a group of individuals routinely faces danger together.
The further that one gets from a team-focused setup, the more difficult it becomes. I ran two different Dresden Files campaigns, and the hardest thing to do was find reasons for every single player to get involved in the current adventure.
This was a problem with the original Cyperpunk game from RTG (aka Cyperpunk 2013). They had a number of different archtypes such as Rocker and Nomad that would make sense working together in a one-shot adventure, but not over a long campaign.
Thought #5
The Underground RPG had a really cool system that described the social-economic parameters of an area. Depending on the campaign, the area could be as small as a single neighborhood or as large as a nation. This allowed player a tangible way of changing the status-quo.
A similar system could be developed for IZ3 and be tied to city trappings, allowing areas to evolve over time in response the characters' actions.
Thought #1
Focus on the player characters and what they are to do in the world.
Yes, this seems obvious, but I've seen way too many games become enamored with their setting details that the role of the PC is lost.
My favorite example of this is Fading Suns. I was super excited when that game came out and I loved the setting. I loaned the book to a potential player and his only question after reading it was : "So what do the players do?" It was then that I realized that I didn't know either.
Thought #2
Savage Worlds is a game system design to produce fairly competent characters involved in activities that often lead to violence. The setting should reflect that. Again, obvious, but I've seen settings designed in such a way that use of violence was a rare exception rather than the norm.
Thought #3
Settings need fault lines that generate conflict. Again, this seem obvious, but a great many authors tend to tie-up all of their loose-ends and have conflicts be at equilibrium.
Star Wars is a great example of a setting with fault lines. In the original series, there was the Empire, the Rebels, and Rogues (bounty hunters and crime lords). Even if the PCs tried living ordinary lives, the intersection of the three factions would lead to complications and thus adventures.
Blue Planet RPG is another great example. That setting had so many fault lines running through it, I was able to write a 3-4 page "newspaper" as a handout before each session.
One of my favorite fault line from IZ2 was the Russia/China conflict. The campaign that I designed for IZ2 (FATECore Edition) was the liberation of Siberia from China.
Thought #4
Groups need a reason to adventure together.
Games like D&D and Shadowrun are great as it is easy to justify why a group of individuals routinely faces danger together.
The further that one gets from a team-focused setup, the more difficult it becomes. I ran two different Dresden Files campaigns, and the hardest thing to do was find reasons for every single player to get involved in the current adventure.
This was a problem with the original Cyperpunk game from RTG (aka Cyperpunk 2013). They had a number of different archtypes such as Rocker and Nomad that would make sense working together in a one-shot adventure, but not over a long campaign.
Thought #5
The Underground RPG had a really cool system that described the social-economic parameters of an area. Depending on the campaign, the area could be as small as a single neighborhood or as large as a nation. This allowed player a tangible way of changing the status-quo.
A similar system could be developed for IZ3 and be tied to city trappings, allowing areas to evolve over time in response the characters' actions.
Comment