Setting...insight....

[lumpley]

Unless your meaning of "system" is different from mine.

Could be.  System is the process by which the group negotiates what happens in the game.  A game can have a million rules, but if it doesn't talk about how the players negotiate and arrive at what happens - that is, how they should treat the rules - it's leaving System unspecified.

What happens in Ars Magica or WoD play is: the group works out for themselves and on their own a) when to apply the rules in the game text, b) how to apply the rules, c) which rules to apply, and d) how to treat the rules' results.  After some sessions of play the GM and the other players have come to generally unspoken agreements about who gets to say what, who gets to challenge, whose input about what is regarded highly and whose is blocked and undermined, who's allowed to contribute to what happens directly and who has to "roll for it."

The WoD's "Golden Rule" - if the rules don't work for you, ignore them - as much as says out loud that the game's leaving its System up to you.

Honest question: are you convinced?  

Autocrat - I'm sorry, I haven't caught your name - is this stuff welcome here or should we launch a new thread?

-Vincent

[Autocrat]

no, no, by all means, this is still on topic, just another perspective as too what "setting" and "system" are, and how they are inter/intra - realated!

I liked the WoD game, yet personally found the "lack" of specifics frustrating.....it works welll with those that game together, yet if you join a new group, things are tend to be interpreted diffrently, or played out another way....which takes up alot of time with explanations etc.
Yet the setting stuff was great.

As far as I'm concerned, you could play the WoD setting with several other "systems" or "mechanics", and still get the same sort of feel.
Which is the point I'm making really..... you get the same SORT of feel.
I don't beleive that changing things will generate the same, bu sort of the same.... there are differences.

Yet I strongly think that if you keep an open mind about settings... such as vary the periods of tech/time, think of different sized species, different forms, different cultures, different genres, then you will create mechanics and systems that should encompass them.

Ever tried AD&D with a shotgun, of a plane?
I couldn't work it.... the mechanics were built for that model only... no interchangable parts or refits permitted.
Tried fallout with a different time period, or by including magic.... works great, because they want the rules to encompass old and new tech... and magic works well enough in it as well!

Two examples of different results, yet doing the same thing!

So, how about people make suggestions of a setting they like, then rules that would/wouldn't go with it, whether perfectly, sort of or not at all....

[simon_hibbs]

So, how about people make suggestions of a setting they like, then rules that would/wouldn't go with it, whether perfectly, sort of or not at all....

I think Star Trek is a good example of a setting that has very particular demands in terms of system. This is because Star Trek is more than just a setting in terms of facts about it's universe and technology. It's an ethos, it has an agenda just as H.P Loecraft's Mythos does.

Star Trek space battles aren't about who has the best Ship's Phaser attack score. They're about bluff, bravado, trickery, technobable and swashbuckling action. When I set up space battles I had to carefully balance the offensive and defensive capabilities of the ships, engineering the encounter using the game rules to try and prepare the situation I wanted the players to be in.

When you set up a dungeon encounter in D&D, a mythos plot in Call of Cthulhu or a space battle in Star Trek as a referee you are aiming to create a situation that will naturaly include all the fun things you like about the particular setting or game. The rules of the game are there to help, sure, but you can't prepare your game in ignorance of the game system, you'll use your knowledge of the game mechanics and the setting together. What this means is that you can work around limitations in the game rules, or include stuff in the game world situation to take advantage of game mechanics to achieve a desired effect.

System isn't just the mechanics, it's realy the whole process of creating a game experience from character generation by the players, creature and NPC creation by the GM, location creation, plot generation, relationship mapping (if you use that), working out Bangs and splats and hw you bring them into play, etc, etc.


Simon Hibbs

[Autocrat]

OK, just to see if I'm begining to grasp this contrivertial snake....


MECHANIC:
Method and process; the fundemental basis of how the game works, what is done and how.
These may and may not be integral parts of the system or setting.

SYSTEM:
The accumulation of Mechancis; which may prove to be greater than the whole.  Helps inform players of the concept of the Mechanics rather than just the processes by which things are resolved/achieved.

SETTING:
The textual and sensual; the final veneer that is placed over the mechanics and that, (in theory), should permit players to sense and visual things as the Character would.
This may and may not be suppported by the Mechanics and/or System.


Does that sound right?

Would an apt analogy be Card games, such as Gin, Bridge, Poker etc.?
You use the same materials, the end results and goals to be achieved are usually the same.  The differences lie in the way they get there and the personalised tweaks of each.  Playing Poker and Gin and Gin-Rummy wouldn't be as much fun if they had the same terminologies, even though some of the hands are similar.  Nor would things be as enjoyable if things were handled the same way.
thus, even using the same basis, but altering the mechanics of each game, the system becomes different enough to distinguish each game, and the descriptors/settings of the card hands result in a completely different feel.
May be not quite the perfect fit, but hints at what I think the differences are!

[M. J. Young]

Hmmm....

System: the means by which the play group comes to agree regarding the actual contents of the shared imaginary space. Parts of this are articulable, parts are observable but not easily explained, parts are so imbedded in the social interactions of the members of the group that they can't be distinguished from personal relationships. System as a term is agreed to refer to this notion, expressed in the Lumpley Principle.

Rules: clearly articulated statements that may be referenced in deriving the contents of the shared imaginary space. Rules have, or are, authority. Their involvement in the game requires that they be called by someone with the credibility to do so, which may be everyone or may be restricted to a specific player (usually the referee) or limited number of players. The contents of game books are rules by this definition, but so are any "house rules" whether written or spoken. Rules are not directly part of system; they become part of system as they are referenced in play. For example, there might be a hit location table that is regarded by all the players as "part of the rules" which is never used, and therefore never part of the system (unless it is not used because another rule which is used says to use it in limited circumstances which never arise).

Mechanics: a specific type of rule that generates results when referenced. As with any rule, the mechanic is only part of the system when called into play by one of the participants. Examples of mechanics include attack or skill success rolls which provide an answer to the success/failure issue; movement rates which provide distance traveled by time elapsed (or inverted, time expended in traveling specified distance); attribute definitions giving maximum ability such as weight limits. The common feature is that reference to the mechanic answers questions of what happens or can happen within the world when there are different possible outcomes.

Setting: a specific type of rule that provides context within which action occurs. Again, as with all rules, setting is part of system when called into play by one of the participants. Examples of setting include distances between known locations; cultural background and expectations; weather patterns. There may be overlap between those rules generally considered Setting and those generally considered Mechanics, such as in a weather generating rules system.

Does that clarify anything?

--M. J. Young

[Henri]

Honest question: are you convinced?

I'm not sure if this was intended for me or Autocrat, but yes, now I see your point.  Thanks for helping me understand what you mean by system.

[Mike Holmes]

In general, I'd first comment that System is ususally undefined in usage. But by the Lumpley Principle, it has come to mean something very specific around here. Namely more than just mechanics. I should know this, as I used to use System in the way you do above, Autocrat, but now use it in the way that most do here in the name of communication.

That is to say that System in the Forge jargon means more than just mechanics, it means any means by which the imagined space is agreed upon. For instance, this could be the system for a game (and, indeed is how a lot of people play):

Make up whatever you like, but play nice with the other players.

No mechanics there, but it specifies that the players will make everything up as they see fit. That's a system. Add:

If players disagree about something, roll a die. High roller's version is then adopted by the group.

and now we have one mechanic in our system.

SO, the general impression I'm getting is that so long as things work, everything that should be in the setting has mechanics to back it up, and everything in the mechanics has a relation to the setting, then things are OK?

So, if the the mechanics provides alternates and stuff for a variety of potential settings... yet the setting materials have everything they need, and the correct mechanics to work... then things are OK?

This is easier said than done. That is, the above system covers "everything" that one could possibly imagine. But is it the right game for everyone? Moreover, when you start to add mechanics, you actually reduce the appropriateness to other areas.

To demonstrate, here's a quick game:

Players play's a type of algae in a pond. Each one has a photosynthesis rating, and a Growth Rate rating. The player has five points to distribute between these, no more than four points in either. Roll Photosynthesis when doing anything "active," like trying to move part of the colony about. Roll Growth Rate when trying to do something "passive" like resisting an invasion by another colony. Rolls are 1d6 to get the rating or below.

Now, let's assume that the rules in question are actually perfect for playing algae (they most certainly aren't, but for argument's sake). The point is that these rules will evoke a very specific feel to play. Whereas using, say, GURPS, will do nothing for playing algae in a pond.

"Generic" rule sets tend to actually be quite specific. For instance, they assume a human base, almost all of them. That is, the activities that they model will be things that humans would/could do, even if only fictionally. As such, they state that the settings in which they exist will have humans, or at least something more human than algae. Or space dust, or whatever else you could make an RPG out of.

So let's stop thinking that these games actually cover "everything". They don't, nor are they intended to. They admit, all of them, that there's some merit in modeling certain things. Even Hero System, as maleable as it is, puts a lot of emphasis on combat.

Here's the other problem. If you omit making as much rules for one thing as another, the system informs that those things ignored aren't as important as the things emphasized. This is my combat rant all over again. That is, if you include rules for combat that are different from the general resolution rules, and don't include rules for painting, then combat is emphasized. So, if I'm using your "generic" rules, and my setting is all about competing painters at court, is it really "OK" that the system is telling the players to get into fights, when in actuality they should be exploring the painting thing?

No, it's not OK.

This is really hard for people to see. But your preferences are built into your system, no matter how generic you think you've made it.

And that's fine.

In fact, you should embrace your preferences. You should see what it is that you're trying to promote with the game, and make the game do that (this includes combat, if that's what you really want). Setting is no different. You've chosen the setting for some particular reason. The system should reinforce exploring it in a specific way that makes sense to the setting. Is there magic that you want explored? Then you make rules for it, right? But in a world without magic, those rules are useless, right?

So the "everything but the kitchen sink" approach is doomed to failure. You can't make subsystems that adequately cover every setting. The guys doing Hero System realized this in 1980 when first designing Champions. Heck, it wasn't even possible to have a system that covered every possible superpower individually. So what did they do? They created a system that can cover any possible power. As Hero System it can cover Magic, Psionics, Superpowers, any ability you can come up with.

So is Hero System the be all system that everyone should use for every game? Let's set aside that it has mechanical problems, and assume that it was as good as the game that you're thinking of creating. Would it then be the game that everyone should use for every setting?

Nope.

Because Hero System, while allowing a mechanical definition of everything you can think of, still has it's own biases. Again, it's combat oriented, for one. If you don't want your game to be that way, then Hero System isn't the right system. In fact, Hero is probably very poor for most settings because no matter how well it manages to mold mehanical results of in-game effects to it's system, it can't incorporate the feel of the setting in question. Sure you could play InSpectres with it, but would you feel the stress that the InSpectres feel? Would the plot get created by the players as in InSpectres? Would it be funny?

No, no, and no.

So a generic game can really only appeal to those people who the system appeals to. You lose the attractivness of any setting to which you apply it. Your fantasy setting becomes just another fantasy setting, your supers setting becomes just another supers setting. For some people that'll be fine.

But for anyone who's played a game tailoired to the setting type in question, who's played Hero Quest for fantasy, who's played InSpectres, chances are that generic games won't do it for them anymore. I personally believe that generic games have been as successful as they have because for the most part they've actually been better designed for the setttings to which they've been appllied than their setting specific competitors in many cases. For instance, GURPS Traveller is probably the best edition of GURPS out there. Because it's less bad than all of the other editions. If someone had actually created a system that really evoked the feel of the Traveller universe, we'd all be playing it right now.

Games that actually manage to evoke their settings well, are few and far between right now. But they're becoming more common. Generic games are on their way out. Note how the new edition of Paranoia, a game that could get away with a generic system better than most becuase of it's particular style of play, is going to be emulating games like InSpectres in the new edition. Just as a for instance.

Working with Ralph Mazza, we put together a game that I'd like to say is about as generic as you can get without being completely freeform. Do I think that it should be used in any setting? No, actually the game is designed to be used without a setting. That is, the setting is created as part of play. If I had included a setting with the game, I would never have made it at all generic.

All this said, I agree with Raven. It is possible to make a system that covers more than one setting well. If the settings have something in common, or the games are intended to, then one system can handle them with aplomb. Or, if, like Sorcerer, the setting is supposed to be created with the mechanics in mind, to facilitate the play that they system promotes, then no problem. This is all fine. If that's what you're saying in the quote above, then cool. But if you mean that the System Doesn't Matter from setting to setting in portraying it in a coherent way, I couldn't agree less.

Mike

[Autocrat]

Atleast, I think I may have got it....

It was the algea example, so thank you.

I'd never considered the "specialised" games as being so variant!

SO, in future, I will state and consider my work as being flexible and having the potential for various settings of my creation that tie in with my rules... be it hi/lo magic, psionic, tech, combat, social, vehicle or what ever.... though the style of play and the core areas will work the same, the emphasis can shift due to the mechanics working the same for almost any of the key areas.
It is not generic nor universal to things outside it's own radius of creation, (pond? LOL).

OK, thank you everyone... I gfeel I've finally come to understand the differences now!
Yet I do have a question.... several people refered to this "Lumpley Principle".... does every one agree with thes ethings, or is it a method of removing confusion and helping with contextual meaning?

[Tomas HVM]

Now, there are several questions I would like answered so I, personally, can gain an insight into this.... because I feel like I may be missing a point, (infact, I feel rather pointless in this regard!).

1) Do you have to....
a - Make the mechanics fit a setting,
b - Make the setting fit the mechanic,
c - A mix of both.
A - Yes.
B - Yes.
C - Yes.
D - You could make it all very badly, or traditionally, or in a way that takes it for granted that the players will work it all out, somehow...

2) Do you need to think of....
a - The setting whilst making the mechanic,
b - The mechanics whilst making the setting,
c - A mix of both.
A - Yes.
B - Yes.
C - Yes.
D - You dont have to think in any prescribed way, of course, or adehere to any context. However; to create a certain frame of mind while writing the game might give it some edge...

3) Does there have to be something special....
a - In the mechanic, that sets it apart from other games,
b - In the setting, that sets it apart from other games,
c - In them both, that sets it apart from other games.
A - Yes.
B - Yes.
C - Yes.
D - There is nothing stopping you from making a truly traditional kind of game, with traditional content, nothing exceptional at all. Most designers do, in fact. If you made a good game, I for one, would tell you so, but I might tell you that it was the kind of thirteen-a-dozen-game.

4) Does the....
a - Mechanics make the game,
b - Setting make the ,
c - Both make the game.
A - Yes.
B - Yes.
C - Yes.
D - A roleplaying game has many components. Trust them all to influence the game. That's what they're there for.

5) Is it possible...
a - To make the mechanics, then think of a decent setting,
b - To make the setting, then think of a decent mechanic,
c - To make them both at the same time.
A - Yes.
B - Yes.
C - Yes.
D - It is possible to write a truly great game in one night, the whole shabang! Or you could work on it for years and years, setting first, system then, and back to setting, and never finishing it at all (or maybe sometime in the future, and a great game it will be). There is no known method for writing anything which agrees with every and all writers.

Hope this helps. It may look a bit funny, answering YES to everything you ask about, but every single answer is sincere. The antagonisms implied in your questions are construed. Try to focus on the game you want to cesign, and the particular challenges pertaining to the process of creating it. Keep your focus on matter, not on form!

[Mike Holmes]

Yet I do have a question.... several people refered to this "Lumpley Principle".... does every one agree with thes ethings, or is it a method of removing confusion and helping with contextual meaning?

More the latter. That is, "system" is just a term, and can be assigned many meanings. We use the meaning assigned but the Lumpley Principle because it's convenient for several reasons. That doesn't mean that everybody automatically buys into the Lumpley Principle, just that we've agreed on a common meaning for System for the purposes of discussion.

So, if, for a particular discussion, you need System to mean something else, then either state that up front to be clear, or choose another term and define it. For example, perhaps you could create a term called "mechanical system" being the accumulation of all the mechanisms in a game.

FWIW, the Lumpley principle is almost too simple to be denied in any case. It just says that we use some method (which he terms system) when playing a RPG for determining what happens in the imagined space created by play.

Mike

[Autocrat]

OK, where do I find this list of terms?

Further, does anyone think it would be a smart move for a link to call up the the RPG-thesaurus would be a smart move?
Atleast then there is a constant source of correct terminology to help prevent misunderstandings, esp. to newbies or those unaware of the common turn of phrase, (or even basic syntax and structual form of english, LOL,  " knows wh't I is get'n at Guv' ").

[Tobias]

The list you wanted

[Mike Holmes]

Autocrat, there is no imperative to learn the language. That is, if you use a term, and don't know the Forge meaning, as long as you define your term, you're just fine. The only thing that's bad is using undefined terms (for obvious reasons). Even when you think you know a "Common" use for a term, consider the possibility twice. Often terms that people feel they know the meanings of, turn out to have many meanings in the community at large. This is the problem with communicaitons about RPGs in general.

When you see most people around here using a term, they'll probably be using it in the Forge sense. If we sense that they are not, then we ask them to either define what they mean by the term, or to use the commonly accepted version of the term. Either works fine.

The advantage of an accepted norm is that for we who use it, it saves a lot of time and confusion. Yes, this is a tyranny that forces most people here to eventually adopt our vocabulary for disscussions here, but we consider this a neccessary evil.

Mike

[Autocrat]

If learning the lingo removes some obstacles and permits more affluent / productive converse, its worth it, (it's worth more if it removes confusion or mistermed words, misunderstandings and general annoyance!), so I'll have a look!