[whispers] question about settings

[ChrisJaxn]

Hi.
I'm new here, but I've been lurking for a little while, and finally have a question of my own to ask.

The game I'm working on, Whispers (working title), is mostly being written to play with my friends, and potentially publish on the web if enough (or any) interest is generated.

The basic premise is that the characters are fragments of a personality inside the head of someone who is a little off. It could potentially be dark, if such was desired, but so far I've been writing it up in a more surreal and whimsical fashion.

Right now I have rules (which have yet to be tested) suitable for the internal interactions between characters, as well as how they may affect the external world.

What I'm wondering about, though, before I collect my scattered typed notes into something resembling a playtest draft for some of my friends to look at and use, is setting. At this point I'm not sure if it's really important, but even if it's not now, it might be eventually. Is it better to type this up engrossed and tied to a single basic setting (for example, the person who's mind is split is a disgruntled corporate drone), with examples and text geared to helping the reader get a feel for the game (since it won't always just be me), or is it better to be neutral in my explanation of rules and important concepts, but write up a small section with information about possible settings and examples for all of these? Additionally, could these be combined well? I feel somewhat that if I write the text geared towards a single setting the game will always end up feeling like that setting, even if it has different common character types and details.

Thanks.

[Jasper]

Hi Chris,

This question gets asked all the time.  If you do a search, you'll find numerous threads, some recent, discussing it.  But there is no right answer.  It'll come down to personal preference and what you want your game to be.*  Since the former is worthless, it's all you.

I feel somewhat that if I write the text geared towards a single setting the game will always end up feeling like that setting, even if it has different common character types and details.

That's probably true. But gamers aren't stupid.  If you want to have a settingless system but have an example setting for its use in explaining the thing...just say that in the rules, repeat it often, and people will get it.  Put in some alternate ideas too, to show that the "settingless" stuff isn't ot just hype, and youll be golden.

* Someone could probably bring up marketing issues, but I it's all highly speculative.  Especially since big (relative) success doesn't seem to be a concern of yours, this shouldn't be an issue.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Given the unusual concept for your game, why not consider what the real setting is for a person's mind? One possibility is the web of relationships and beliefs that the person inhabits.

Imagine, for example, two characters - one of which really prefers to lie a lot, and one which prefers to tell the truth, mostly. They are both in a single person's head ... and that person is Jerry Seinfeld. Jerry always gets into scrapes about his love life, his career, and his family. He knows he really shouldn't lie, but sometimes it seems like such a good idea.

... now consider the setting, which as I see it, is his relationships with Kramer, Elaine, and George. Each of them has a somewhat more extreme view of lying than Jerry has; Kramer and George, especially, pretty much have only one little guy in their heads (blurt vs. fib, respectively); Elaine is a bit more tactically flexible but has no moral qualms about lying for advantage, unlike Jerry.

The setting isn't really going to change, nor is it at stake. The friendships are as rock-solid as (say) the map of a fantasy world for a standard RPG. What matters is the immediate situation with family, work, or romance. The setting might offer opportunities, crises of its own, or simply landscape for this situation.

How's that work? I figure if you step outta the box, I'll help you get really outta the box.

Best,
Ron