What I noticed as I searched over various works to find ideas for my Westerly Clans was how few games actually do this. That immediately creates a context, and we already begin to imagine what the different heroes and enemies of those factions might look like, how love interests might vary across them, and what sort of disadvantages we might exploit (or seek to guard, in the case of our allies). Or, for a more explicit context, we as humans want to have dwarves and elves as allies, and we want to be fighting orcs, demons and the undead.
We want to have a group to belong to, a group to hate, and a group that allies with us, but is distinct and different from us, so we can compare ourselves to them, and find rivals and perhaps "outsider" love interests. But factions tells us who lives there and why we should care about it. Maps tell us about the layout of a world: here be forests, there be mountains, and there is a far-away, wondrous land that you can aim at, if you can cross the forests and mountains. In a similar way, we use factions to navigate a social world. I think we want maps because we intuitively use maps to navigate the physical world. I have an anecdote lying around somewhere that the only reason that Cultist Simulator has its dreamscape is because the developers met an RPG creator who told them that they needed a map, and it's become the most iconic aspect of Cultist Simulator. "Faction" is just one example of a context. But the human mind does not grasp the abstract nearly as well as the concrdisengeniousete.
This is, of course, not true, but unless we're discussing a specific context, we must describe the abstract. I just had a discussion with someone about the mechanics of GURPS vs the mechanics of D&D and she expressed disappointment that the mechanics of GURPS are as abstract as the mechanics of D&D. Now a lot of this could be classified more broadly under the notion that "Players like lore." People want a context to operate in. I've been playing a mobile game that's mechanically almost identical to Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes, but fantasy and its own characters and lore, and because it tells its story well (or, at least, has a somewhat reasonable, comprehensible story, which is remarkable for the low standards of mobile games) I gain the context of what the characters are like, so I'm able to get invested. I would have to create and invent that context and get the other player invested in it before they would enjoy it. But who cares? It lacks that particular context that gives it its verge and zing. Rogue Stars is a generic minis wargame that will let you design anything, so of course I could design an alien army of any type I wanted. I noticed that I was trying to fall back into 40k, and reoriented towards one of my newer games: Rogue Stars.
In particular, I've thought about building a Xenos army from one of the less well-known races (Rak'Gols or Khrave and man, that second name is great) because I think it would be fun to let someone's Space Marine army beat up on one of these groups out of legend and lore. I keep thinking of armies I'd like to try, or concepts I'd like to explore. But I've noticed that I keep being drawn back into the gravity of 40k. In part, it's because I don't agree with some of the direction Games Workshop has been taking lately, but a lot of it is a drive to explore lesser known works, both to cultivate variety and to support the efforts of less famous creators. I have a problem with Warhammer 40k at the moment. In the very least, it should offer a lot of ideas for the design of a clan or faction!), and as I worked on this, I found myself reflecting on the importance of factions. I've recently dropped a poll for the first of the Westerly Clan (and it might be a mistake, as I seem to have triggered analysis paralysis among my backers, but if you're a backer, go check it out.
0 kommentar(er)
