Setting is probably the most important factor in whether or not I like a game. Let me put it this way: I don't play Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness for the system. The Palladium system is fine, it just doesn't light me on fire. The setting... Ooooo the setting! Distilled lightning in a jar! I think most folks are like me in that respect, that setting sells games.
So why do I fill this blog up with system toys and tools? Because a given setting either works for you or it doesn't. There are only two basic parameters in Setting - Breadth and Depth - and beyond that, there is nothing much you can use as a tool to help you create. It's either there or it isn't. I come up with settings all the time - very few of them ever see print. I know I have a winner when a setting refuses to let me go, when it takes me by the scruff of the neck and hauls me in. If it doesn't do that... meh! It's all subjective. Taste-driven. No *tools*.
On the other hand, I believe strongly that systems should be tailored to their settings. Sub-systems should reflect the genre and special flavor of the setting. Slapping a good generic system into a good setting does *not* make a good game. When the designer is done, ideally the intended setting could be taken out yet still be strongly implied by the mechanics.
-clash
I'm tring to word this well. I don't think the system should support the setting, exactly. I think the system should support the genre. The two are close cousins and can be confused because of that relationship. (Still they're cousins. Identical Cousins!)
ReplyDeleteA specific setting can be subbed in for another one--as long as the genre is the same.
I don't think a game setting can readily sub into a game with a different genre focus. It makes it a new and related thing.
I agree with Silverlion in that system must support the genre (or even style of play) it is intended for. The setting is, after all, the window dressing for the genre-window.
ReplyDeleteHi Tim and Rich!
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The only thing a system needs to support is itself. I like to mold a system around a setting. Sometimes, I leave the setting in, like in Sweet Chariot. Other times I take it out after the system has set, as in the In Harm's Way games. In the latter case, there is no setting information at all, just system structures and accoutrements which *imply* a setting.
-clash
Settings can be designed for play or for certain kinds of play, in similar way to systems. Settings can be made easy to learn by referring to D&D or something less familiar, such as the real world (e.g. cultures in Book of Jalan, IIRC). Settings can be designed so as to have or not have a social niche for outsiders, disjoint characters, like adventurers or vampires etc. Settings can be designed to make looting ancient dungeons full of magic to be somewhat plausible. Emphasising some given social issues is also possible.
ReplyDeleteThere should be more setting design. Rules design is popular enough.
hmm, I am not as convinced about setting as you are. This is not meant derogatorily Clash, but you ARE a systems guy. You are predisposed towards a system solution and view it as the way to deal with customization to your setting.
ReplyDeleteFor me, a setting guy, it is more about allowing customization to the setting. And yes, there are many tools in terms of crafting the setting that allow it. This is why so many folks who read my settings come back with "OMG, there are so may adventure hooks" because once they get into it, they also realize that there are so many ways to customize the setting.
So, although I agree with your "System should support Setting" I have to extned that and say "There are many tools to making Setting extensible". But then, I am a setting guy...;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk! Uncle! I hope my latest post smoothes some of these ruffled feathers! :D
ReplyDelete-clash