Setting vs. Situation (long)

[DannyK]

OK, after reading lots of Sorcerer and thinking about setting up a game of my own, it occurred to me that there's a tricky distinction between Setting and Situation that I don't quite understand.  I became aware of this when comparing a setting I was working on (in the Sorcerer forum, under the title "Sorcerer & Delta Green") with a setting Eric Brennan created for Sorcerer (search for "INDIGO VOID" to see it).  

Basically, both settings are almost identical, featuring government agencies fighting Lovecraftian horrors, but there's one very salient difference:

--My writeup describes the setting and who the PC's are, and leaves it at that.  

--Eric's writeup also specifies a situation: the head of the agency was just assassinated, and there is reason to believe the whole network has been compromised.  

Obviously, Eric's writeup is a little more engaging, maybe at the price of limiting what the story is "about."  But I think there's more to it than that, and I'd like other's input as to how -- and why -- they get specific with the setting.  

Another example which addresses the same question:

I'm the GM and I want to do a story about scottish lairds.  Ralph is playing in the game, and immediately latches onto the MacBeth story.  He wants to try his hand at playing MacBeth, and see if he can make it come out better.  The other players are interested in the idea, and agree to make characters that will fit into this premise.  

So, where do we start the game?  

--The old-school D&D way is to roll up a 1st level fighter, in the hopes that if the game lasts that long, maybe Ralph will get to gank the king and take his crown.  
--I could start the game with Ralph already an ambitious nobleman, jockeying for position in the court, with the long term goal of ganking the king and...
--I could start the game with the Kicker, "The king is going to be staying your castle for the next week before he goes overseas."  That puts his desire to gank the king front-and-center.
--I could start the game with the Kicker, "The king died tonight in your castle.  You don't think anyone saw you."  

Same question as with the first example, which option is the best for which purpose?

[Hunter Logan]

I would start here:

--I could start the game with the Kicker, "The king is going to be staying your castle for the next week before he goes overseas." That puts his desire to gank the king front-and-center.

This is where the rubber meets the road, and leaves the most possibility for engaging play. If the king is already dead, and the PC did it, that's no fun. The player should have to sweat through doing it.

Another interesting possibility is for the king to be dead, but killed in some gruesome and obvious way where the evidence makes it look like the PC did it, even if he didn't. In other words, the PC's greed becomes his own weak spot. Though his wish has been granted, he may not get the spoils, and this may open some interesting thematic play as the player tries to a)clear his name and/or b)still grab the throne.

The quoted scenario is still the best, I think. Here is the PC's opportunity to get what he wants. How far will he go to get it? What price will he pay?

[List]

It depends on what Ralph considers relevant to his character, and what he's looking for in the game.  I generally think a little bit of prologue is very helpful, and as such would agree with Hunter about starting on 'the king will be staying at your castle', though for relatively different reasons.  Too much going on before the murder defeats the point of having a MacBeth game, and you lose a precious opportunity by skipping over it.

I would avoid making him actually test to kill the king, especially if it's a high-system game.  After all, it kind of messes up your intended full plot if he fails.  However, there are definite advantages to talking through exactly what he does, because those will be the moments that shape the rest of his life, and he should have the benefit of their happening on screen.  If some courtier accidentally almost catches him, he could have a different relationship to the courtier.  And you get those wonderful 'if he had not looked like my father as he slept, I had done it' moments.  Detail for something like that could make a great difference to his worldview (and maybe to his sanity) later on.

To generalize, I'd advocate starting on something that would launch the story right at the beginning of the significant event (say, on the road coming home to find bandits killed your wife and children), if it is based around one, for similar dramatic/engagement purposes as starting a movie with a dramatic scene.  However, I do think it's kind of silly to work that into a system.  Save for very specific, play-a-few-times-then-you're-done games, additional specific plot information seems to have no real advantage.  That's what modules are for.

[simon_hibbs]

You get this kind of thing in Amber all the time. One way to handle it is with a points-buy system for the players:

Distant claim to Throne (King's Second Cousin): 5 pts
Claim to Throne (King's Nephew): 10 pts
Strong cliam to Throne (King's illegitimate paternal brother): 15 pts
Very strong claim to Throne (Older paternal brother): 20 pts

Weak support (Outlaw clans support you): 5 pts
Some support (Weak clans support you): 10 pts
Strong Support (Strong clan supports you): 15 pts

Cold start (you're at home and the king's at court): 0 pts

On foreign ground (At the king's castle): 5 pts
On friendly ground (AYou and king at a friend's castle): 10 pts
On home ground (King's staying at your castle): 20 pts

Already done the deed (You're a suspect): 10 pts
Already done the deed (You're not a suspect): 20 pts


Something like that. This way the players get the chance to influence the situation, but with tradeoffs.


Simon Hibbs

[DannyK]

Okay, writing that whole thing out helped clarify my thinking.  One difference between Eric's writeup and mine was that Eric's post was referring to an actual game , while mine is just doodling around.  I think having an actual game in prospect focuses the mind, and maybe makes you look for more grabby situations.  

But then I think of a game like Exalted, which is loaded for bear in both setting and situation: so far, every single damn faction in the game is about to make a major play, or just made one, or is in crisis in some way...  it's cleverly engineered to justify turmoil and enormous world-changing decisions in whatever sort of Exalted game one plays.  

Anyway, back to the MacBeth example.  
I can see the Amber point-cost system working, if everybody wanted a chance to make themselves king.  But this is a game with an explicit premise that Ralph will get a shot at the king and try to hold the throne.  I don't see a point in weakening Ralph's character just because he volunteered to be the party plotmonkey.  

I agree, starting the game with Ralph getting his chance is the most obvious choice.  Would anybody pick one of the others, and if so, why?

[M. J. Young]

I agree, starting the game with Ralph getting his chance is the most obvious choice.  Would anybody pick one of the others, and if so, why?

I'm recalling that there were some critical moments leading up to the assassination in MacBeth; particularly, there were the predictions of the weird sisters, naming MacBeth as a future king but Banquo(?) as the father of future kings. This set up MacBeth to kill the king in order to seize the throne, but also prompted him to attack Banquo.

Now, if you can create such set-up moments prior to the moment the assassination becomes possible, they might well be worth doing. However, don't wander around trying to get to the crisis.

--M. J. Young