Setting Design reconsidered

[Patrice]

(And now I'm wondering if this is part of what we're exploring over the in part 2 of the Color First thread?)

Tricky.

I need to consider how to take that into account before answering, because doing it would mean each and every reader of this thread reading the whole part 2 of the Color First thread. Yes, we've pretty much delved the same ground unknowingly. Gimme a few hours to consider this. I can't really keep the thread going on without taking into account what's being said in the part 2 of the Color First one.

PS. Sorry for my late return to the thread, just back from a long week-end and busy days.

[Adam Dray]

Setting is just one component of Exploration in the Big Model. Creative Agenda (including Simulationism, Gamism, and Narrativism) touch (or punch through) the Exploration layer.

What I'm saying is that Setting is tightly integrated to every part of the game in every CA. You can't really have much Shared Imagined Space (SIS) without a place to imagine it happening. Don't get caught up in Setting as a Sim thing.

Also realize that the five elements of Exploration, including Setting, are very tightly tangled. It's hard to talk about Setting without also talking about Color and Situation. It's hard to define your character without those three. It's hard to write a System without at least a nod to the rest.

Setting is a vital part of the game. If you don't supply Setting, you have to give the players tools to create it themselves. See Universalis and Shock: as examples of games that don't give you the Setting, but see how they require you to build it before you have a place to play.

Annalise is an interesting case, though. If you play exactly by the rules, you don't have to have a Setting before you start. Yeah, most players will discuss details about the Setting before jumping in, but you can start by introducing the first Character in a scene and building Setting on top of that. I would say that interaction between Characters (or even PCs and NPCs) requires some notion of Setting for context, though.

[Patrice]

Setting is just one component of Exploration in the Big Model. Creative Agenda (including Simulationism, Gamism, and Narrativism) touch (or punch through) the Exploration layer.

What I'm saying is that Setting is tightly integrated to every part of the game in every CA. You can't really have much Shared Imagined Space (SIS) without a place to imagine it happening. Don't get caught up in Setting as a Sim thing.

Also realize that the five elements of Exploration, including Setting, are very tightly tangled. It's hard to talk about Setting without also talking about Color and Situation. It's hard to define your character without those three. It's hard to write a System without at least a nod to the rest.

Setting is a vital part of the game. If you don't supply Setting, you have to give the players tools to create it themselves. See Universalis and Shock: as examples of games that don't give you the Setting, but see how they require you to build it before you have a place to play.

Annalise is an interesting case, though. If you play exactly by the rules, you don't have to have a Setting before you start. Yeah, most players will discuss details about the Setting before jumping in, but you can start by introducing the first Character in a scene and building Setting on top of that. I would say that interaction between Characters (or even PCs and NPCs) requires some notion of Setting for context, though.

Well Adam, you're getting exactly at what we are in this thread. Of course, we're not talking about dropping the Setting altogether, nor are we talking about the Setting being disconnected from Color and Situation. Let me summ up what we've said so far, that would spare you a lot of reading:

We're wondering what's a Setting for in order to think another way to design it that would fill its role better than what we have by now (Simulationist-inherited models mostly). Now, we came to the conclusion that the Setting is a frame designed to bring Situations (Challenges in the Gamist CA then).

Now, reading of the Color First thread takes the matter further. Let's take a closer look at it. I said earlier that the main use of a Setting is to bring about Color and Ron offers an equation in the Color First thread in which Color stands first and Setting is one of the two elements of a Situation (Character+Setting). Basically meaning, regardless of the part of Color in a Setting, that the Color is always first, not Setting as I had implicitly put it in my first posts in this thread.

I offer an idea if you would accept it: To keep this thread to the Setting-Situation (Challenge) connection and leave the answering of the Color part to Ron's thread. So if you all would agree, please keep off of Color in here and let's discuss it there if we feel inclined to. Ron's thread does not only impact this one, but has the potential to affect all threads and I don't feel comfortable with discussing parallel moving concepts until they have reached some common ground.

So back to the black and white Setting thread. You have all brought in a lot of issues lately, but I think they all share something in common, somewhat backing my previous assumption: The Setting in itself doesn't provide Situations. That's why we have a System actually, the "whole other bag of tricks" (David Berg) involved in making a functional challenge out of it. I think that kind of challenges David C.'s idea of Setting adequating System. Is it the bitterest roleplayer in the world curse? I mean, do you think that from the Setting itself, Challenges will emerge spontaneously? I say, you need a mechanic to connect Setting and Situation.

That would mean (Setting+Character) _{leads to} Situation _through System, which is basically the same as Ron's equation in the Color First thread the other way round (is it?).

Zooming into it, Raven wonders "how do you make what you provide for Setting into System parts?". This is essentially the same question. What's involved of the System in the generation of Situations from the Setting frame?

I won't get into System ideas or details here, but I say, we have to find ways to design Settings aimed at Situation generation, which is their purpose anyway. I wholly agree, JoyWriter when  you say you can generate Situations from anything: Background, History, etc. But you do it because you mentally skip the Setting _{getting into} Situation phase. You do it yourself through your own design skills and imagination, unaware of this phase since you're used to fill this gap on your own. You still use the Setting but it takes another step to get where you are, it's not immediate, direct generation.

Now what do you want here for this thread? Do you want us to check what's useful meat and what's not bit after bit? Do you want this thread to be launching experimental Setting design (ticking boxes, moving parts and the like)? Or do you feel the assumption phase is not over yet? I'd like myself the assumption phase to be complete before taking the matter further into the core question that depends on it: How do we design a Setting aimed at immediate Situation generation? What's in it?

[tonyd]

Let's say the dragon slows its advance and the sea creatures forge a tentative peace.  Okay, this part of the Setting is just like the rest of whatever you established pre-play: just Color, for now.  On the other hand, the wizard has his virgins and begins the process of his spell, which causes avalanches to bombard the town the PCs are in.  Meanwhile, the rains come and the river overflows, forcing the PCs to take the dangerous route out of town instead of going by boat, or giving them drowning villagers to rescue, or something.

I never thought of this in terms of color/setting. This sounds a lot like what Empire of Dust does. The game has a regional map showing how the various factions are interacting, making war, gaining and losing territory, and so on. At various points, random rolls cause things to change on the maps. Sometimes it's a town you've never visited changes hands, sometimes it's the place your about to arrive at becomes a war zone. Has anyone played enough Empire of Dust to talk a little more on this?

[Adam Dray]

That was a great summary, Patrice. Thank you for taking the time to do that.

From your description, I am getting the impression that you see Setting as interconnected with Situation in a clear way, with Character in a more vague way, and that's about it. In my last post I made the point that I think Setting is connected with every part of Exploration.

Setting connects with Character. Setting sets parameters for what kinds of characters are possible. Who can I play?
Setting connects with Situation. Setting circumscribes what kinds of events or challenges are possible. What can I do?
Setting connects with Color. Color is, among other things, a collection of bits of Setting. What are the details of this setting?
Setting connects with System. Setting gives context to the system, not just through Situation. How does the setting influence the game?

Thus, I don't think Setting exists mainly for a vehicle for Color. I can certainly leave that point at that, and we can explore only the Setting-Situation connection in this thread. But you can't explore only Setting-Situation and also talk about how to create System for it. =)

The simplest System bit for Setting is this: "Here's information about the setting. Use it to influence your play." Every game does this to some degree.

[Patrice]

From your description, I am getting the impression that you see Setting as interconnected with Situation in a clear way, with Character in a more vague way, and that's about it.

Actually... Yes.

I must confess this is true. I'm a bit worried about the Setting-Color distinction because when I read you writing that Setting is connected with Characters and Situation I quite get it, whereas when you go into Setting connects with System I wonder if we're not kind of confusing Setting with Color. There we stumble into Ron's post again. I dearly wish we could escape it because, as I had put it earlier, I'm not comfortable with two threads hanging around the same thing, but of course, this needs answer.

I would gleefully say that Color gives context and influence to the System, but I'm not sure about the Setting doing it. The Setting feeds the Color back imho. There's a part of Color in the System, the Setting and the Character, that's why Color is a multiplier. The Setting isn't in itself, it's the Color it gives, almost in a reflection of the Color's first input, that shines and renders that sensation. When I say Setting is about Color and Situation, I don't say Color is trivial. Color is vital and the way the Setting feeds it back is of prime importance to Setting design.

But if we have some ideas about the way to design a Setting so that it would give Color, we have less about designing a Setting towards Situation. I quite love the Empire of Dust idea, because it opens a whole wide field of experimentation, by the way. Thanks for that, David.

Raven wrote earlier "Yes! Having grown up on traditional Sim-style ultra-complete setting gazetteers and volumes and volumes of encyclopedia-style details of fantasy worlds, this is something I've struggled to develop myself: what's useful meat, and what's just unchewable fat? What parts can people use...or maybe the question is: how do you make what you provide for Setting into System parts?". Just replace System with Situation in this sentence and you get a perfect summary of what I'm looking for here.