This Bastionland Editorial was originally sent as a reward to all Patreon supporters, and is released freely on this site a week after its original publication.
If you want to support my blog, podcasts, and video content then head over to my Patreon.
I
know, I've probably been talking about Magic: the Gathering too
much this past week or so. But this time it actually applies to RPGs.
Scrap
recently wrote a post about applying some of MTG's
design philosophy to faction systems, and it's a great read. It got me thinking
about it from a slightly different angle.
First
I need to talk about an element of Magic's design that I haven't really touched
on yet. The fabled Colour Pie that gives its five colours their
identity, both thematic and mechanical. Red cards should feel a certain way,
and Green cards should feel different, and then you might get a Red-Green card
that feels like both. In addition, and some would argue more importantly, there
are certain things that each colour of card absolutely should not be able to
do.
While the five colours don't strictly represent factions in MTG (they're a different-but-related thing), there are a few ways I think approaching elements of your setting in the same way would have some positive effects. For this example we could be talking factions, but also key locations, deities in a pantheon, looming threats on the world. Any set of big elements in your world.
1:
Dividing attention evenly between elements.
Imagine
a parallel universe where Games Workshop laid out their own colour pie
equivalent for the factions of the WH40k universe. Let's say Imperium, Chaos,
Xenos. It doesn't even have to be five.
You
could still explore specific factions within each slice of the pie, but they'd
be united through a set of common thematic and mechanical elements. Maybe
Chaos, being so closely tied to the warp, are the only pie-slice that can deep
strike onto the battlefield. You can explore the space between the slices, so
Genestealer Cults clearly exist between Imperium and Xenos.
But
even more appealing is the idea that equal development time would go on
each faction. Is this whole thing an excuse for me to complain about there
being no new Eldar or Tyranid models for years, while Marines are showered with
new releases? Hmm.
They
sort of went this way with their Age of Sigmar factions, and while I don't love
that setting I think it's spawned some interesting new ideas in among the
questionable ones.
But
we're not multinational corporations selling miniatures, so I think this is
more of a way to challenge yourself to spread your creative energy between the
different parts of your world, rather than leaving some lacking. Which leads
to...
2:
Ensuring each element has a strength that makes them interesting.
I
sort of default to making my world a bit rubbish, so I'd appreciate having a
reminder that each of these elements should have their own strength. They
should have weaknesses alongside them, of course, but if we're designing five
cities then there should be something that makes each of them a compelling
place to visit. It can be a total shithole, but if it's the only place that has
any sort of magical healing then the players are going to end up there at some
point.
And
let that strength project out into the world and deny the other elements of
your setting. If you're giving one faction a military focus, then consider
trimming back or even outright removing military components from the other
elements of your pie. It's one thing to make one city-state a strong military
force, but another to combine that with the fact that half of your city-states
don't have an army at all.
3:
Keeping the fans happy.
I'm
not immersed enough in the fanbase to know if this is something that MTG
manages more often than not.
But
it sort of links in to that old Apocalypse World thing calling for the GM to
"be a fan of the characters".
But
instead, be a fan of each element of your world, or at least imagine that each
element has a set of fans that you want to please.
The
MTG team has to design a new set so that there's something for every colour to
be excited about. They can't really just release a set that focuses in on Blue
and White, because the Red, Black, and Green players will be left out. Now,
most players don't restrict themselves to one colour, but that actually means
they have to try even harder to make every colour appealing. If Blue gets
nothing good in this set then you're not just pissing off the Blue players, but
the Blue-Red, Blue-Green, Blue-Black etc.
What's
the point in all this? Think back to my earlier point about the WH40k setting.
Of course it's vastly popular, but there's a lot of dissatisfaction where it
feels like GW just doesn't care about huge chunks of their world. Eldar are an
inconvenience to them, a faction that they think won't sell as well as a new
type of Space Marine, but it's a faction that has its fans. Aside from making
them unhappy, I feel like it has a negative effect even on those that aren't
especially interested in Eldar. It makes the universe feel smaller, less
diverse, with dusty old elements that feel out of place alongside the current
areas of focus.
There's merit to having blank space left on the map, but not when it's just because the ink has faded.
FFG sort of did the 40k faction wheel pie thing with the 40k conquest LCG. Each card pack cycle had a main focus faction and a couple of side cards added in for the other factions.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. I am going to try to incorporate this into my worldbuilding.
ReplyDeleteI do wish GW would put more focus on the other factions... I get why they don't, but still. But to the main point, this is excellent world building advice! I'll definitely keep it in mind as I build out my own worlds.
ReplyDelete