Role of Setting

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jonathan,

If you would, take a look at my post again. Nobilis and games like it, exactly as you describe, are well-accounted for in the matrix of concepts that I presented.

I'm thinking that all the grappling with the "realism" stuff in other posts got in the way of people spending time with mine.

Best,
Ron

[Jonathan Walton]

If you would, take a look at my post again. Nobilis and games like it, exactly as you describe, are well-accounted for in the matrix of concepts that I presented.

Yeah, completely.

But I think the discussion was segwaying into "How do you create a setting that feels 'alive' on its own?"  Not that ALL settings should necessarily try to do that, but people who like settings tend to like ones that can stand on their own.

Mike and Pale Fire seemed to be saying that it was usually connected with the level of detail and amount/quality of material.  I was suggesting (more or less) that you could do it with a well-designed set of concepts and mechanics that would allow GM and players to effortlessly invent setting, without having to put the effort in that Pale Fire was talking about.

Did I miss something else?

Later.
Jonathan

[Christoffer Lernö]

Jonathan, I was merely trying to clarify Mike's point since it seemed you had misunderstood his use of the word.

Maybe a better word to describe it would be "independently existing". Like Mike says, there are people who like this style of game (but I honestly can't say if these people like reading in the sourcebooks or actually playing the most, which brings up Ron's point about that contradiction)

I think what you are discussing Jonathan is a world that feels alive and real when you play it. Now that's a completely different thing from what I was talking about (from that perspective I agree that it's not very helpful of talking about independently existing settings because they guarantee nothing about player and GM enjoyment).

You can actually look back at some of my early postings when I too discovered that "less is more" for the game I myself was (is) working on. So I'm not challenging that point at all.

I personally feel like a lot of setting simply means a lot of inertia when you start GMing your own adventures. There's a difference between setting and setting though.

Setting as in "background material" such as races, magic, legends, myths, rough maps and such can often be extremely helpful in working with a game (unless they are too detailed)

On the other hand, having every place on the map laid out, every location of treasure or dungeon already mapped up and explored, leaves very little room for adventure (compare playing in MERP, where Iron Crown made supplements for "off the Tolkien map" places so that the players should have some room to do things. I was personally thinking of setting a campaign in the less detailed 1st age, because that would be much simpler in terms of making up "stories that had yet to be told" within the setting). However, this makes for good reads which is why they too sell. And as long as you're running pre-made sanctioned adventures, this won't be a problem either.

However, since that solution doesn't mesh well with making one's own adventures I have problems with such settings. In the end I have to rip them up to fit in my own stories. And I can't help but to think that I would have been able to make much better stories if I wouldn't have needed to fit them into the existing framework.

Setting with pointers and easy openings for creating adventures is what I personally prefer. Setting which tells me what I can do but most of all what I can't simply gets in the way of the play.

[Jonathan Walton]

Okay, it looks like we're not really disagreeing after all.  Sorry about that.  Still...

Setting as in "background material" such as races, magic, legends, myths, rough maps and such can often be extremely helpful in working with a game (unless they are too detailed).

Most likely, part of what I was reacting against was this kind of "traditional" definition of setting.  Most commercial games are pretty good (most of the time) with providing gamers with "background material"-type settings, which can be great.  However, like you mentioned, I tackle reading one of these like reading a novel full of good ideas.  I'll probably never use the campaign setting, but I might steal bits and pieces of it.

However, I guess I'm searching for a more progressive definition of setting, which is more of a gestalt (for lack of a better word) that you can place your games within, instead of a specific details.  In my mind, this includes things like Nobilis & Sorceror & Metal Opera & a good number of the games that are created here.

Now that I think about it, this is probably what Ron was getting at with his post, trying to broaden the definition a bit.  I apologize if I was just to dense to see that.  I suppose the word "setting" is just too loaded for me.  Allow me to go bang my head against the wall a bit :)

Later.
Jonathan

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jonathan,

'Scool, my friend; finding out one another's hot-button words is part of what goes on here (and then wiping the blood off, and keeping going).

Apropos to this issue you're wrestling with, check out Jesse's thread Spaceships, six-guns, and sorcery - session 1, bearing in mind that most of Jesse's extensive experience in role-playing, prior to this last year, utilized heavy-heavy-setting game design.

Best,
Ron

[Christoffer Lernö]

Setting as in "background material" such as races, magic, legends, myths, rough maps and such can often be extremely helpful in working with a game (unless they are too detailed).

Most likely, part of what I was reacting against was this kind of "traditional" definition of setting.  Most commercial games are pretty good (most of the time) with providing gamers with "background material"-type settings, which can be great.

I'm not 100% you get my point. Look at basic D&D out-of-the box. This woul be what I mean by background material. Something which isn't specifically linked to a specific usage. Hmm.. how do I make this a little more clear?

Well ok, let's say game A states that "orcs live in caves" and game B state that "orc lives in the caves of Bathorok and in the southern mountains of Groklak". In the case game A is what I would say is background material.
Orcs live in caves, so you can put them anywhere. In your newly created mountain range in the Dark Marshes or close to the Dwarven kingdom of Khuzad which you also made up. On the other hand game B specifically says where, so unless you move your game to Bathorok or Groklak you might not be able to see the orcs. Unless you create exceptions "well there are orcs here because..."

In the first case you have a tool for knowing approximately where to put the orcs and what kind of dudes they're supposed to be (this is a little more important if the monster is called Ygbukks and you have only the description in the sourcebook to help you figure out what that is). In the second - Game B - you only have some decisions pre-made for you. Sure, it's good not to have to decide everything, but the more leeway provided the better. Anyway in Game B the description isn't a tool, but a fact. A setting fact rather than a tool provided by the background material.

In my opinion there is this difference anyway. Maybe people disagree with me?

[M. J. Young]

So I guess a question is if setting can pop up different places, such as in the text of the game, preparation of play, and during actual play, is it necessary to try and balance these a bit, or is it a danger that one of these areas could overshadow others to the detriment of play's enjoyment?

Let me see if I understand this question.

I write a lot of settings, and adapt a lot more. Multiverser demands a lot of settings, and I oversee production of material for it. My rule is this: a setting needs exactly that level of detail that the referee will need to run a game in it, no less and no more.

What that means may be very different from setting to setting.

When we did Sherwood Forest (Multiverser:  The First Book of Worlds), we provided some rather detailed information about people and places. Where is Nottingham? How far is London? Canterbury? What is the world like in this time? Who are the leaders, and who the peasants? If the character flees to other countries, what are the situations there? If he attempts to rescue King Richard, whose lands must he cross, and what is their attitude toward England, toward Prince John, toward King Richard? We identified major buildings, major political figures, societal attitudes of the age. We recognized how chivalry fit into Richard's status as prisoner, and the complications that would create for a rescue attempt. There was a great deal of detail there.

In the same book we did The Dancing Princess. We did not give the country or the city a name; we didn't name the king (although we named his daughters). No statement was made concerning the size of the kingdom or its geography or climate, or the size of the city or its political or religious situation. We focused on what the player character would do initially, how to hook him into the rescue attempt (and what to do if he would not be hooked), and the aspects of the core of the adventure: the room in which the princesses slept, and the world beyond the portal through which they passed each night. Anything that wasn't included in the materials the referee could invent at need easily enough.

The point is that the amount of information that needs to be inherent in the setting as published is very much dependent on what is expected to happen within the setting. For some worlds, a great deal of detail is required because the detail matters greatly; for others, mere sketches of the overview will be sufficient to give the referee everything he needs.

And it will do no good to ask what sort of things should be detailed and which sketchy, because that is the same question. Those things which are essential to the adventure should be detailed; those things which are peripheral should be sketchy. The Mary Piper focuses on being a member of the crew of a trading vessel running a trade circuit. There are a dozen ports on that circuit, not one of them described with more than a few sentences, because although events happen in ports at times, everything ultimately revolves around the ship and the shipping route.

The difference between material created in prep and material created during play is much more a function of the talents of the referee, although the nature of the adventure is a significant factor. Personally, if I am taking my player characters into a dungeon, I want a map of the dungeon and a key to the contents of the room; but I have done games without a map, inventing it as I go, with the players none the wiser; and I have played with a computer generated map but no key, making up the details on the fly, with equal ease. I have also used a system in which the map is in essence self-creating, and the detail self-generating, and I just record what the thing looks like as we progress. Some referees can fake an entire city and the players will never realize it's all being made up as they go along; others have trouble running a barfight without a floor plan. That's too individual to dictate.

I hope that's helpful.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

You're right, Jonathan, we're not really disagreeing.

All I've said is that one way to make a setting come "alive" is through well designed setting. I addressed that since this thread is about setting. But with Nobilis, what you have described is part of what we often call Situation (and to an extent the details you mention are also Setting). And you are right, a setting can also be brought to "life" via not only situation, but character, and color as well. All sorts of ways to do it.

The only question here is, when dealing with setting itself, what do you do? I can't see an argument that less setting detail makes a setting more "alive" (nor do I think that you would promulgate such a theory). But I would agree that it's not the only way, or even necessarily the best way to get that "live" feeling.

So as this is a thread about Setting, I think that the best we can say is that well designed elements outside of setting can improve the setting itself. And perhaps I should point out that by detail, I mean exactly the sort of things that you point out about Nobilis like the cool Social Structures. That is Setting. And the cornucopia of implied members of that social structure is implied detail.

I am all for this sort of thing. Creation by multiplication is a powerful tool. For example, instead of listing the 1200 members of a certain imperial beaurocracy in a game, I can list ten types, ten sub types that apply to each, and twelve cross referenced types. Bingo, instant 1200 members. Allowing this sort of stuff to come from mechanics of play is cool too.

Lots of ways to expand your Setting.

Mike