The Components of Setting

[Nick the Nevermet]

I'm a setting junkie , so this thread has gotten me out of lurk-mode.  Thanks Michael :)

I would prefer reducing the 4 categories originally discussed (place, society, time, props) down to 2: Space & Artifact.  I'm using different terms just because it will be easier for me to follow.  A setting puts different things into a specific order.  If I was more awake, I could probably come up with a more elaborate statement, but that is basically it.  A setting therefore has two analytic subdivisions: the 'things' (or artifacts), and the 'ordering' (or space).  Props are artifacts, time & place are the ordering, and society is divided among the two, depending on what about society we're talking about.

Artifacts are specific things within a setting: institutions (like a faction or 'splat), items, abilities, etc.  NPCs, I would argue, are also artifacts.  There is literally a limitless set of possibilities out there on what this stuff is, and this is where space comes in: artifacts exist at specific locations in space.  

This space could be geographical (people from a certain country have certain abilities), temporal (guns exist in the game world after a certain year), or social (nobles have certain rights).  The point is, artifacts are placed in a certain order in relation to each other.  Most games have space manifest in more than one way (often, all three of the ones I mentioned above), but space always serves the same purpose: give order to what is possible, expected, and appropriate.  Likewise, space orders what is impossible, unexpected, and inappropriate.

As this is an analytical separation, an actual piece of setting information could be both.  A faction in a setting, for example, both is a thing that exists in the game world & has influences, while at the same time ordering  things (abilities, characteristic, etc.) within that game world.

[Nick the Nevermet]

As far as the evaluative element to all of this...

A 'good' setting, meaning good setting information provided by the published game (instead of the players or somewhere else), means that the ordering of things somehow helps connect the other four realms of exploration (character, system, color, situation).  Setting is not the only possible keystone for connecting these together; any of the 5 could conceivably do the job.  However, an RPG that attempts to explore setting wants to use exploration of setting in the first instance to help inform and justify exploration of the others.

Now, a designer may start with the comment, "I want to make a game with a 'horror' color." A game is setting-driven to the extent that (s)he justifies that horrific feel by describing the setting.  One could just as easily justify it starting in character, or itself being the initial statement out of which everything else flows.  Depending on how the game is designed, one could define it as based in setting, color, or character.

I also have a concern about privileging situation in discussing setting.  It is only one 'bridge' (setting-situation) out of four.  Clearly, it is important, but the other connections between setting and other paths of exploration must be analytically separate and given their due as well.   I suspect the other two bridges we think the most about are to color & character, but system is also key: if dueling is important in the setting, it may be a problem if combat is of minimal importance in the rules.

A badly done setting is when it fails at its task of integrating the other four explorations.  The 'metaplot critique' of the old World of Darkness, for example, is a complaint that its setting deprotagonized player characters, IMO.  Alternatively, a setting could be bad because it drowns 'useful' setting information in superfluous information (like the Third Goblin War).  What is and is not useful information depends on the game & the setting.

Note that I'm not saying all explorations are equal, that setting must deal equally with character, color, situation, & system.  However, I do believe a good setting 'knows' how it wants to deal with these other roleplaying issues.

[Nick the Nevermet]

I apologize for killing this thread.  Hardly my intention, but it would appear I did so.  My bad.

[GaryTP]

Hi Nick,

You didn't kill it. Sometimes it takes a while for a thread to be ingested by others and comment on it. Other times it will naturally play itself out. Rarely (if ever) can someone kill a thread by posting their views. Wait a few days and one or the other will happen. But though I only started posting recently myself, I've lurked long enough to know that the minds around here will think hard on an issue before posting. For myself, I stopped posting because I had a deadline come up.:)

Gary

[Michael S. Miller]

Neel: I think it's cool that your group has such a Setting-supportive Social Contract. Personally, I've never encountered such a group attitude, unless they had created the Setting themselves.

John: It looks like you and your group do a lot of work to bring Setting into the SIS from a variety of sources. It seems I was overgeneralizing by just saying that there's Setting-in-the-book OR Setting-in-the-SIS. What I conclude from you and MJ and Christian is that there is Potential Setting (what I had called Setting-in-the-book) and Played Setting (Setting-in-the-SIS).

The Potential Setting seems to be all the setting material that is considered eligible to enter into the SIS and become Played Setting. In many games, this takes up the majority of the text. Some games suggest movies, novels, comics, or other media that might serve as Potential Setting. A historical Setting would usually accept legitimate history texts as Potential Setting.

Played Setting, then, is Setting components that have actually entered the SIS, by people talking about them (or writing about them, or drawing a picture of them, or declaring that their character interacts with them, etc.).

To restate my problem with Setting in these new terms: Many RPGs provide a great deal of Potential Setting with no guidelines of how to turn it into Played Setting. As Neel and John have pointed out, many individual groups have created their own ways of doing this well. I know from experience that many groups have not.

In Ken Hite's latest Out of the Box, he describes the Forge as the site that asks "How else?" So, How else can we design games to enhance Played Setting?

If anyone feels moved to answer that question in a post, please do it in a new thread linked to this one. If you want to debate the Potential Setting vs. Played Setting idea I put forth, that can stay in this thread, I think.

Nick: Thanks for your insights. (You didn't kill the thread, my long hours at work just delayed my response) I'm a bit leery of just using Artifact and Space as the components of Setting. I can see your analytic point, but Character is also made up of Things and an Order-of-Things. So are the other four elements. So how do we tell one from the other? Maybe I'm misreading you.

In your second post, I'd agree that a good Setting is one that supports and enhances the other four. But again, all five elements should be supporting and enhancing one another for a high-quality instance of role-playing. I'm not seeing much that's particular about Setting. But my eyelids are drooping, so perhaps I'll see it tomorrow.

[John Kim]

The Potential Setting seems to be all the setting material that is considered eligible to enter into the SIS and become Played Setting. In many games, this takes up the majority of the text. Some games suggest movies, novels, comics, or other media that might serve as Potential Setting. A historical Setting would usually accept legitimate history texts as Potential Setting.

Played Setting, then, is Setting components that have actually entered the SIS, by people talking about them (or writing about them, or drawing a picture of them, or declaring that their character interacts with them, etc.).

To restate my problem with Setting in these new terms: Many RPGs provide a great deal of Potential Setting with no guidelines of how to turn it into Played Setting. As Neel and John have pointed out, many individual groups have created their own ways of doing this well. I know from experience that many groups have not.

Hmm.  I suspect this is more a matter of temperament rather than techniques.  If I'm interested about a setting and play in it with others, we'll talk about it.  For example, I play HarnMaster.  I like Harn and am interested in it.  So when I play, we talk about it and thus things enter the  shared space.  For example, I created my character for an upcoming campaign (Jim's http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jchokey/city/">City of Red Domes), I talked with the GM Jim about the Jarin, their culture, the religion, and so forth.  

But some people don't like that.  For example, Gordon Landis and Tor Erickson played in my Shadows in the Fog playtest, and in retrospect I think they were a bit bored by our tendency to talk about Victorian culture, society, and so forth.  Now, mind you, it is difficult to create adventures and I feel there should be better guidelines -- but I feel this is true for nearly all RPGs, whether they have detailed settings or not.  

The technique Jim has used in Harn is just to, well, set the game there.  On the other hand, in his Cuthren Village campaign, very little of Harn was transformed from Potential to Actual.  It wasn't a world-spanning game -- it mostly took place in a small village in southern Rethem, with one journey two weeks south.  So there were acres of potential material we never used.  But I don't see how stuff that wasn't used detracted from the game.  I would judge it by what was there.  

Now, you imply that Jim or I have some secret, unwritten techniques which, if explained, would make Harn play interesting for you and/or everyone.  I'm not sure that's true.  There are lots of skills and tricks we've developed over years of roleplaying, but there are still lots of people who simply won't be interested in HarnMaster -- even if it is interesting to us.  

Now, I'd be glad to talk about guidelines for how to run and play in HM.  It would probably be useful stuff I could feed to Jim, among other things. But is that where you're looking to go with this?

[Michael S. Miller]

Now, you imply that Jim or I have some secret, unwritten techniques which, if explained, would make Harn play interesting for you and/or everyone.  I'm not sure that's true.  There are lots of skills and tricks we've developed over years of roleplaying, but there are still lots of people who simply won't be interested in HarnMaster -- even if it is interesting to us.

I certainly don't think there's a magic bullet of "Add a chapter detailing John's secret procedure X and everyone will love your setting." However, I *do* think that spelling out a procedure for Potential Setting to become Played Setting, and writing Setting material with that procedure in mind, will make it easier for more people to become interested in Harn or any other Setting.

Just as many Forge-inspired games strip down System to the most relevant and accessible core (i.e., "a game doesn't need heaps of rules that allow you to do anything, it just needs rules that allow you to do these few things really well, because that's what the game's about)--it seems to me that Setting could be stripped down (or at least restructured) to its most relevant and accessible core (i.e., "a game doesn't need heaps of setting material that tell you a little about everywhere, it just needs setting material that tells you about these few Places/Times/Societies/Props really well, because that's what the game's about).

Speaking for myself, and my own Narrativist biases, when I looked over Harn, I thought "Tectonic plates? Weather patterns? When am I *ever* going to use this stuff?" And the game itself didn't help. (not that I'm picking on Harn--most games don't help)

Now, I'd be glad to talk about guidelines for how to run and play in HM.  It would probably be useful stuff I could feed to Jim, among other things. But is that where you're looking to go with this?

Yes! Who first mentions/establishes the Setting--player or GM? When is the other side (GM or player) allowed to comment on the Setting? Are they allowed to only ask questions for clarification, or can they change things? At what points in the preparation for play does this occur--pregame musing, concept stage of character gen, rules/details stage of character gen, pre-scenario briefing? What sorts of setting material is touched on at these times? Who has/controls accesses to the books, etc. containing setting material? How is setting referenced during play itself? By whom? What if one of the participants is not as conversant in the setting details as another? Are handouts used? If so, what's on them? Are they referenced in play or just for character gen? Do the characters make "Setting Knowledge" rolls to get the GM to prompt them with appropriate setting info? Is linking the character's individual past to the setting emphasized? If so, is this just a character creation thing, or can it be revealed/created in play? Who gets final say over that?

Is that enough question marks, John? ;)

Don't feel the need to answer each point, but this is the kind of thing I'm looking for. When I have time, I could answer them for my own unfulfilling play experiences, so we can observe the contrast.

Thanks.

[Valamir]

Just as many Forge-inspired games strip down System to the most relevant and accessible core (i.e., "a game doesn't need heaps of rules that allow you to do anything, it just needs rules that allow you to do these few things really well, because that's what the game's about)--it seems to me that Setting could be stripped down (or at least restructured) to its most relevant and accessible core (i.e., "a game doesn't need heaps of setting material that tell you a little about everywhere, it just needs setting material that tells you about these few Places/Times/Societies/Props really well, because that's what the game's about).

Speaking for myself, and my own Narrativist biases, when I looked over Harn, I thought "Tectonic plates? Weather patterns? When am I *ever* going to use this stuff?" And the game itself didn't help. (not that I'm picking on Harn--most games don't help)

Yes.  This is what I was getting at with my post above about not committing to a Situation.  Theoretically there could be a gamable situation in which knowing Tectonic Plates and Weather Patterns would be important (or at least useful).  Using the base "open ended, do anthing, be anything" logic that is standard for most traditional game design since it is potentially useful to some situation it should be included so its there if someone wants that situation.

However, without any guidance it leads to information overload for people not already comfortable with the idea of wading through volumes of information that then needs to be custom applied.

By being willing to committ to a situation the designer can then easily not include such tangental information or can not only include it but demonstrate how its relevant to given situation.

An interesting topic for a thread would be to explore how and why game designers have traditionally avoided committing to a situation in their game design and whether that choice is more than simply an artifact of history.

[xenopulse]

Many RPGs provide a great deal of Potential Setting with no guidelines of how to turn it into Played Setting.

That's very true, and definitely one of the main important points to keep in mind when creating a Setting. As people are fond of saying around here. the main question about an RPG is really, "What are the characters going to do?"

Now, while the difference between written Setting and played Setting, which you describe, is an important distinction, my point on potential was really a little different. I meant to point out that some written Settings provide a lot of potential for certain characters, situations etc. that are appealing. Other written settings, even if they describe just as much stuff, just don't offer the same potential for application.

So the bridge here is that a good Setting provides for appealing ways in which it can be turned into Played Setting (with involved Characters and Situations), and describes well how to do that.

[John Kim]

Just as many Forge-inspired games strip down System to the most relevant and accessible core (i.e., "a game doesn't need heaps of rules that allow you to do anything, it just needs rules that allow you to do these few things really well, because that's what the game's about)--it seems to me that Setting could be stripped down (or at least restructured) to its most relevant and accessible core (i.e., "a game doesn't need heaps of setting material that tell you a little about everywhere, it just needs setting material that tells you about these few Places/Times/Societies/Props really well, because that's what the game's about).

Speaking for myself, and my own Narrativist biases, when I looked over Harn, I thought "Tectonic plates? Weather patterns? When am I *ever* going to use this stuff?" And the game itself didn't help. (not that I'm picking on Harn--most games don't help)

I think what you are looking for is a campaign module or adventure module (as they are typically called) in an otherwise low-detail setting.  I'm not that widely read, but Daredevils or early HERO games are like this -- i.e. the core book specifies a genre but very little setting, while modules provide specific, usable background.  An excellent example of the breed is Aaron Allston's "Lands of Mystery", which is a campaign sourcebook for lost worlds romance.  

As for Harn, it sounds like it just isn't to your tastes, period.  i.e. You don't like ultra-detailed settings.  Harn is actually pretty well structured to allow selectively ignoring detail.  It is not laid out as long text, but rather as short, focused articles and encyclopedia entries.  If you're not interested in weather patterns, then don't read that section.  It's easy to flip past.  But if you just don't want it to be there, then don't play Harn.  

Conversely, I like that about Harn.  I like the sense that the game-world doesn't just consist of the PCs and the people they directly interact with.  It gives context and relation to what goes on in the game.  i.e. Knowing, say, the origin of the Halean religion in the Southern archipelagoes and how that relates to the Jarind and Ilviran background gives a depth to attitude.  

Now, I'd be glad to talk about guidelines for how to run and play in HM.  It would probably be useful stuff I could feed to Jim, among other things. But is that where you're looking to go with this?

Yes! Who first mentions/establishes the Setting--player or GM? When is the other side (GM or player) allowed to comment on the Setting? Are they allowed to only ask questions for clarification, or can they change things? At what points in the preparation for play does this occur--pregame musing, concept stage of character gen, rules/details stage of character gen, pre-scenario briefing? What sorts of setting material is touched on at these times? Who has/controls accesses to the books, etc. containing setting material? How is setting referenced during play itself? By whom? What if one of the participants is not as conversant in the setting details as another? Are handouts used? If so, what's on them? Are they referenced in play or just for character gen? Do the characters make "Setting Knowledge" rolls to get the GM to prompt them with appropriate setting info? Is linking the character's individual past to the setting emphasized? If so, is this just a character creation thing, or can it be revealed/created in play? Who gets final say over that?

Well, let's start with the background on players.  Both Jim and David are long-time Harn players who have most of the books.  I've got the basic books (HarnWorld + HM) and maybe a half-dozen books.  Dennis has played more than me, but he may have only the basic books.  So everyone has open access to all of the published setting material, but not all of it will be read in practice.  

For the last campaign, there wasn't much in the way of handouts as far as setting goes.  Instead, everyone just took notes.  I put some up on my web pages, and Jim has some on his.  Jim also is one of the http://pages.sbcglobal.net/harn-religion-team/">Harn Religion Team -- so that's a bunch of additional material.  For the upcoming campaign, Jim's put a lot up onto the http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jchokey/city/">website .  

I joined the last campaign (Cuthren Village) well after it had started, so I'm not sure how that it was started.  For the upcoming campaign (City of Red Domes), Jim proposed running HarnMaster and suggested I think three options for campaigns.  The others gave feedback and eventually he settled on one.  So he ran his first campaign, then David ran his Lord of the Rings RPG game, then I ran my James Bond 007 game.  There was idle talk about what we would like during my James Bond 007 game, then when I expressed a desire to end it, we moved forward with character creation.  

So we rolled up characters and then there followed a fair amount of back-and-forth discussion about them and how they would fit with each other, as well as what they were like.  This is pretty much freeform discussion.  Dennis and I are the less expert Harn-ers, so we'll generally take cues from Jim and David -- but are still capable of contributing.  

The character creation process itself specifies a bunch about the character's relation to the setting.  It doesn't have a lifepath method, but there is a lot of detail on birth and raising.  The later character history is freeform.  We have worked that out to a fair degree in discussion amongst the players and with the GM.  The character's history will be agreed in broad terms prior to the game, but details are within the purview of the player.  

No one *changes* setting, but we will extrapolate and invent beyond the published material.  For example, since my character was involved with the Order of Cuchlain Wheelwright, Jim sent me sections of the Gedan module which describes them.  I gave my interpretation of it, and Jim concurred.  There are never "Setting Knowledge" rolls.  Usually if a player has a question, he'll ask it and if someone knows they'll generally answer regardless of whether the PC knows or not.  Jim may mention after answering that it isn't something the PC would know, but it's generally left to the player's judgement.

[Michael S. Miller]

Sorry it took so long to respond. Demands of RL abound.

Ralph & Christian: Those are good points. It seems that Potential Setting must transform into Character or Situation to become Played Setting. And while the quantity of Potential Setting is one variable, quality of Potential Setting is another. I'd specifiy "quantity" as how many pages (or other sources) of details, and how many different Times/Places/Societies/Props are covered therein. I'd specifiy "quality" in this sense, as the ease with which Potential Setting is able to transition through Character/Situation/System/Color in order to become Played Setting. Does that seem right to you?

John: On the first point, I already know that Harn, specifically, is not for me, specifically. I'm looking for more general points about Setting, generally. I understand that the structure of the Harn write-ups allows for selective ignoring, but I think more could be done. The weather charts are there. Somebody thought they were important enough to research them and write them. I don't naturally see how they're important, but I want someone to tell me how & why they're important. I think this should apply across Setting.

On the second point: Thanks for taking the time to type up your group's Setting prep for play. Wow. The forthrightness of your group's Social Contract impresses me greatly. I loved the "Expectations" section of the City of Red Domes website. It clearly spells out what the GM and the Players are committing to doing. Guidelines and suggestions for doing stuff like that should be in game texts, IMO.

As for drawing generalities out of your specifics, I can see that this group prioritizes Setting by:

A) choosing a Setting that all players are reasonably familiar with (Harn, in this case)

B) discussing it before preparation for play even begins (as you said: "Jim proposed running HarnMaster and suggested I think three options for campaigns. The others gave feedback and eventually he settled on one. ")

C) group character creation. Always a big, big plus in my book. In your group's case, it allows Setting to be reinforced through both the System (i.e., the detailed births) and the Social Contract (as you said: "Dennis and I are the less expert Harn-ers, so we'll generally take cues from Jim and David -- but are still capable of contributing.")

D) Encouraging player contributions, but also requriing some level of Setting knowledge (you talk about the GM sending you part of a module [i.e., requiring that you read it])

E) making Setting information freely available to the Players (the free flow of information on the website and during chracter creation, as well as the ways the GM answers Player questions, but may specify that the character doesn't know certain details)

All in all, very cool. When I get some time, I'll give you a snapshot of what a dysfunctional relationship to Setting looks like.

[Valamir]

Ralph & Christian: Those are good points. It seems that Potential Setting must transform into Character or Situation to become Played Setting. And while the quantity of Potential Setting is one variable, quality of Potential Setting is another. I'd specifiy "quantity" as how many pages (or other sources) of details, and how many different Times/Places/Societies/Props are covered therein. I'd specifiy "quality" in this sense, as the ease with which Potential Setting is able to transition through Character/Situation/System/Color in order to become Played Setting. Does that seem right to you?

Sure.  All of the elements of exploration are entertwined like that. One could just as easily talk about the ease in which potential character transitions to played character and interacts with setting et.al. on the way.

And, of course, this transition from potential to played and what of what exists as potential is worthwhile transitioning to actual will be heavily guided by Creative Agenda.

[Marco]

I understand that the structure of the Harn write-ups allows for selective ignoring, but I think more could be done. The weather charts are there. Somebody thought they were important enough to research them and write them. I don't naturally see how they're important, but I want someone to tell me how & why they're important.

I suspect that this is one of those questions that, if you have to ask, you wouldn't agree with the answer.

(not that I'm generally dying to know about weather patterns in my games, but if given a detailed fantasy reality to play in, I can understand why knowing the weather could be as important or useful as knowing anything else)

I think this is pretty much true across the heavy-setting/light-setting spectrum of desires: I think it's a matter of taste and perspective.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how you mean "tell me how and why they're important."

-Marco

[neelk]

I understand that the structure of the Harn write-ups allows for selective ignoring, but I think more could be done. The weather charts are there. Somebody thought they were important enough to research them and write them. I don't naturally see how they're important, but I want someone to tell me how & why they're important. I think this should apply across Setting.

Hi Michael,

Here's an example from the Exalted game I play in. I wrote up an article about the sanitation system of the city the PC's now rule. It got a positive response from the group, and it wasn't really very important from the perspective of the story. It helped me fill in the characterization of my PC a little, but that's about it. I think that the reason it made people happy was twofold. First, on the interpersonal level, it helped show that I thought the game, and in particular everyones' contributions to it, were worth taking seriously. Second, it played with the setting in interesting ways. Exalted has a basically Iron-Age technical base and an animistic cosmology, and mixing up an account of Roman engineering and using cold hard cash to get the divine spirits of the universe to do sewage treatment was a new addition with a very Exalted vibe to it.

It's just lots of fun to do things like that -- it's play, like with Legos or Tinkertoys.

[Lee Short]

Second, it played with the setting in interesting ways. . . .

It's just lots of fun to do things like that -- it's play, like with Legos or Tinkertoys.

Some players think that's fun; others don't.  Given that "tinkering with the setting" is an end-in-itself for some players, I think that it is either a CA, or a subset of the Sim CA.