Setting Limits

[Mark Johnson]

I am currently developing a Tarot based game that I am discussing in its appropriate forum and came across a question that probably deserves to be discussed here.  Does the "setting" of a game limit the utility of a game, ensure its long-term playability or both?

It seems to me that someone who has invested time and energy in learning a setting would be more likely to continue to game in that world whereas a gamer who games in less setting intensive environments would be more willing to change games.

Does a "deep" setting with a lot of detail deter potential players?  Is it possible to create settings scalable resolution:  create a broad outline that every game is set within, and allowing people who really wish to explore the details the option without interfering with people who wish to game in the less detailed version of the setting.

One way I was thinking of handling this was in my current game was to restrict most of the core action and personas to a single city, but offering setting detail for other places to those who wanted it elsewhere.

Thanks,
Mark

[Eric J.]

I would say that your answer to most of your questions is: What kind of audiance are you looking for?

Some RPGs are setting specific.  Some are not.  If Gurps was setting specific I'm pretty shure that it would deter playing.  If MERPS wasn't setting specific, it I'm pretty shure that it would deter play.

On your last note:  I can see it being done correctly, but from the perspective your using, I believe that doing so can lead to incoherency.  Is the role playing game ABOUT the city?  Put it there.  Is it about elsewhere?  Put it there?  Is it about both?  Make it a big detailed world.

[Andrew Martin]

One way I was thinking of handling this was in my current game was to restrict most of the core action and personas to a single city, but offering setting detail for other places to those who wanted it elsewhere.

Make your game suit yourself. Don't try to make it suitable for someone else who isn't interested in it. Be selfish in this respect. That way you'll make a great game that lots of people will like, because it's so well designed to fit your desires; desires which other people can share as well.

[Bankuei]

Does the "setting" of a game limit the utility of a game, ensure its long-term playability or both?

I think what we're looking for is the term accessibility.  A setting can completely assist a game(White Wolf, Star Wars), or make it harder to get into(Talislanta, Fading Suns) based on accessibility.  Accessibilty of setting is totally based on "mainstream" culture.

When you tallk about Dust Devils, and Westerns, most people instantly key into the concepts you're talking about.  There's no need to reexplain the history and feel of westerns.  When you have unknown settings, that aren't "like" other forms of media, that have no cousins that you can point to and say, "It's just like...", people have a harder time getting the point.

So how can this benefit/hurt a game?  Well, if you tell folks about a game, and its premise sounds interesting("You play Vampires, like outta Anne Rice", "Let's do a gritty Western, like Unforgiven", etc.), folks might jump on the bandwagon whether or not your system is good.  On the other hand, if you pull out some more wacky ideas("You're adventurers in an ever shifting dream world", "You play time traveling Shakers, trapped in Attila's Horde...", etc.), even if your system rocks, people might just pass it up.

I'd say that this is the hardest thing for settingless games.  Far too many folks pass it up because it doesn't have the "setting" hook going on.  I'd say that's the hardest thing I've had in trying to "sell" people on playing stuff like The World, The Flesh, & The Devil, the Pool, or Universalis.  Just because you can play anything doesn't necessarily give them incentive to do so.

Chris