I’ve been thinking about subtext in fiction writing and script writing lately and it occurred to me if you stretch the concept a bit you get a quick little insight into a worthwhile game design principle.
Unlike the advice often offered to writers who are making a novel, RPG sourcebooks need to keep the loose ends. It's up to the GM and the table to fill those in.
Do you think that in a way, this contrasts with people's desire to "see the story unfold"? I'm a fan of Warhammer 40,000, and there seems to be this idea that fleshing out the Horus Heresy and advancing the current plot with the revival of Primarchs may have taken some of the mystery for the setting.
Of course, you could always use the Battletech solution of having different eras explicitly made for different editions, but I'm wondering what your thoughts on this matter are, if any.
It's a balancing act. In the past, I've worked on games with a "metastory" that changed the world, and saw how hard it was for GMs to work around it when the setting for their own game regularly kept changing while they tried to run a campaign. It's almost like watching a waiter serve someone a delicious looking meal and then just standing there, occasionally removing parts of it from the plate. On the other hand, in my game Numenera, I promised I'd never further elaborate on portions of the setting detailed in the corebook, and that's probably kept us from doing some cool adventures or sourcebooks. It's a very difficult issue for a publisher.
You need books to sell, but you don't want to obsolete old books with new books, since then you'd have to reprint the core rules or tread ground you've already covered. What a difficult situation to be in.
Great read! Thank you! Your example "Make it clear that the hover platforms will hold the weight of the idol" gave my a nice idea about prepping more interestingly for myself
Unlike the advice often offered to writers who are making a novel, RPG sourcebooks need to keep the loose ends. It's up to the GM and the table to fill those in.
Do you think that in a way, this contrasts with people's desire to "see the story unfold"? I'm a fan of Warhammer 40,000, and there seems to be this idea that fleshing out the Horus Heresy and advancing the current plot with the revival of Primarchs may have taken some of the mystery for the setting.
Of course, you could always use the Battletech solution of having different eras explicitly made for different editions, but I'm wondering what your thoughts on this matter are, if any.
It's a balancing act. In the past, I've worked on games with a "metastory" that changed the world, and saw how hard it was for GMs to work around it when the setting for their own game regularly kept changing while they tried to run a campaign. It's almost like watching a waiter serve someone a delicious looking meal and then just standing there, occasionally removing parts of it from the plate. On the other hand, in my game Numenera, I promised I'd never further elaborate on portions of the setting detailed in the corebook, and that's probably kept us from doing some cool adventures or sourcebooks. It's a very difficult issue for a publisher.
You need books to sell, but you don't want to obsolete old books with new books, since then you'd have to reprint the core rules or tread ground you've already covered. What a difficult situation to be in.
Great read! Thank you! Your example "Make it clear that the hover platforms will hold the weight of the idol" gave my a nice idea about prepping more interestingly for myself
Themes would be a great topic
Nice insights!