Preference concerning imbedded worlds in RPG

[Domhnall]

Hi again.  

Do you believe RPers generally prefer worlds as part of a RPG, or that the system is the relevant center of attention the majority of the time?  Of course, this depends on RPer personality, but I'm looking to see where most fall on this.  Thanks.

[Garbanzo]

Hey, Daniel.

The Forge tries pretty hard to stay away from "opinion poll" questions.  And your question, as posed, is asking for opinions about opinions.  
Rather than try to design for the mythical everygamer, folks here are continually encouraged to design for their own desires.  

"Alright, we've got 20% for Tastes Great, 80% for Less Filling.  Now I guess I need to work on something Less Filling." - when there're already a zillion of both Tastes Great and Less Filling out there.  Instead: Focus on what you can provide that's strong and unique.  Go with Tangy and Fruity!!


That said, I'm not sure I understand your question, quite.  What would it mean for "the system to be the relevant center of attention most of the time?"  This sounds like rules-heavy vs. freeform, which I don't see as the same dimension as pre-packaged-setting vs. settingless.

(Actually, my guess is that I'm making this too complex and you're strictly talking about percentage of presented text dealing with setting or rules.  In which case I say, Do whatever works best for your specific game.)

-Matt

[Selene Tan]

You might want to check out these threads:

The inclusion of setting with your mechanic and
Ember Twilight: Setting vs. System

I'm curious. What will you do with this information? If you have a reason other than idle curiousity, you might get more useful replies by stating it.

For what it's worth, I prefer systems that are intertwined with settings, although I'll show appreciation for particularly elegant systems.

[Domhnall]

I'm asking about when players go and look at a new system to try, whether you care if there is a world (places, scenarios, histories) inside the book, or if you are just far more interested in the systemic.

Thanks.

---


Selene Tan

Oh, and thanks for the links

[Domhnall]

You might want to check out these threads:

The inclusion of setting with your mechanic and
Ember Twilight: Setting vs. System

I'm curious. What will you do with this information? If you have a reason other than idle curiousity, you might get more useful replies by stating it.

For what it's worth, I prefer systems that are intertwined with settings, although I'll show appreciation for particularly elegant systems.

Oh, yeah, I have been working on my system a shamefully long time, and so am wondering since (deeply in the theoretical) I want to publish someday....

[Jasper]

I'll just add this.  If you already have a setting, and for you it's closely intertwined with the system -- i.e. the system makes that setting work and/or the setting brings the rules to life -- than certainly include them together.  If you don't have a setting already, don't make one just so you can publish a "rules and setting" package.

If you have a setting you've been using but you don't think it's critical to the system...that's a harder call.  One option is to include it briefly as an example   or a starting point.  Or do several, like Ron did in Sword and Sorcery -- they're scenarios you could just run with if you wanted, but also illustrative of what you can do using the system.

Either way, I'll echo what's been said already.  Don't worry about what "most role-players" like.  I can't imagine someone saying "Oh, a game with a setting?  Yeuch, I hate settings.  I'll buy something else."  Or vice-versa.  In other words, you can be successful regardless. So make it how you want it.

[Selene Tan]

If you don't have a setting but still want to publish a system, I would suggest at least describing what kinds of scenarios/settings the system is meant to be used for. This could be general like "heroic fantasy adventure", or "settings where characters have a code to follow and punishments for breaking it" (Paladin). It could be more specific. Or if you have a completely generic system, you should say that too. :P

[zobmie]

I'm asking about when players go and look at a new system to try, whether you care if there is a world (places, scenarios, histories) inside the book, or if you are just far more interested in the systemic.

Thanks.

---


Selene Tan

Oh, and thanks for the links

I'll talk to you.
Im a "noob" on these boards too, and haven't read every single thread since 1997, and i dont plan on it. The reason we are on a forum is to converse with human beings. Many of us need this kind of insight becuase we are new game designers, or maybe even just curious individuals interested in what it takes to be a game designer.

I've come up with a few pretty rough games myself, and i've gone about building them from both sides.

As a wannabe game designer, i like the system only design because It appeals more to my sence of creativity. I love coming up with worlds and dreaming up the setting myself. However there is a certain magic about a game system that really compliments its setting well. When mechanics are tailor made for the world you are in, and the game mechanics themselves FEEL like the setting.

Right now i am working on a game for me and my friends that is based on the setting. I think it will be a real challenge to make the rules express the setting, but thats the fun part isn't it?

what were you planning on doing? or did you just need a starting point?