Does Setting Matter?

[clehrich]

Just to be a little extremist about this, let me note Chris's point that

Setting is usually the hook that gets a group to go "ooo-cool!"

So the fact is that most players will preliminarily decide whether a game is cool or not on the sole (or nearly) basis of setting.

Now if System Matters, as we I think agree, then two games with settings cool enough to attract players will secondarily be ranked by system.  Does this one play well, and that one suck?  But it seems that people would rather play a crappy game in a setting they like than a good game in a setting they don't like.

Clearly setting matters.

Now if we're all committed to the whole coherence and mechanical/systematic thing, then there's a logical inference:

Game 1: System integrated into setting; the two cannot be separated.
Game 2: System quick distinct from setting; the system can be ported ot other settings easily.

Obviously game 1 is better than game 2, all else being equal.  That's just a logical extension of the theory of systematic integrity and coherence.

And in fact, for lots of folks who don't think system matters, a big part of the reasoning is that within the setting, they know what is likely to happen in any given situation even without mechanics.  If the mechanics don't support that conclusion, they know the mechanics are broken.  If the mechanics support it seamlessly, they don't notice the mechanics.

So presumably the Perfect Game (not achievable, ever) would have the mechanics and setting so intertwined that you would sort of never notice the mechanics, and yet those mechanics would be so elegant that they would promote and support play in just such a way as to get the best out of the setting (for whatever purpose).  That may sound very Sim, but that's why Sim has this as a goal.  It would work equally well in another context: this is why so many Nar systems seem to imply that pure freeforming is the best way.  I don't want to get into a GNS discussion here, but I think that it's important to realize that System and Setting cannot entirely be divorced; if they can be, you're talking about a universalist system to some degree.

(Donning asbestos shirt...)

[Valamir]

Thats been a personal soapbox of mine for years long before GNS was even a twinkling in Ron's eye.  Its why Pendragon is one of my all time favorite games and why I detest GURPs to the depths of my soul.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Um, I still don't see the controversy.

Role-playing requires five imaginative elements: character, setting, situation, system, and color.

They are not five little mushrooms in a row nor five heads on a hydra. They have a very easy (and I thought obvious) relationship to one another at all times.

When you have characters in a setting, situation arises. Events that proceed from that situation are established by system. Color gives everything imaginative "weight" throughout the process.

The framework of my theory is not designed to put system at the "top" or "most important" category. It is to bring system into the framework at all, in defiance of the very widely-held, widely-repeated mantra that "system doesn't matter."

Is something about any of the above not clear, to anyone?

Best,
Ron

[Rob Donoghue]

When you have characters in a setting, situation arises. Events that proceed from that situation are established by system. Color gives everything imaginative "weight" throughout the process.

The framework of my theory is not designed to put system at the "top" or "most important" category. It is to bring system into the framework at all, in defiance of the very widely-held, widely-repeated mantra that "system doesn't matter."

Is something about any of the above not clear, to anyone?

Best,
Ron

Unclear? No.  Pulling these elements into a framework is a great exercise, and probably offers some great insight into a number of game ideas, but this model, at least as presented here, I'm not sure what light it sheds on things.  Consider the assertion:  "When you have characters in a setting, situation arises. "  Seems obvious and self explanitory on the surface, but a little bit of consideration reveals an array of glaring issues with letting that stand at facevalue.

All that's somewhat tangential, and the tone of the thread so far has made it pretty clear that everyone thinks setting matters, and think so quite strongly.  The question seems to have clarified into the more specific "Does published setting material increase the success or appeal of a published game?"  as well as a corrolary (well put, from Alan) "What elements of setting contribute best to coherent play?"

Is that enough to merit another thread? I leave that to wiser heads than me, but however it shakes out, I am very curious what the answer to those questions may be.

(I'll aslo take the moment to clarify that my answer to Alan is the hoplessly mundane "How easily my players can become interested and involved in it")

-Rob D.

PS - And I should add, I have a great deal of respect for the manner of breakdowns and analysis you generally provide, and in many ways I consider some of the underlying literary analysis to be a killer app of the sorcerer line, so please do not take this in any broader sense than this specific scope.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Rob,

Trouble is, all of those applied questions ...

- Does published setting material increase the success or appeal of a published game?
- What elements of setting contribute best to coherent play?
- How easily my players can become interested and involved in it?

... are going to come a-cropper if the people discussing them mean different things by the word "setting." Some people mean "genre," with all the ambiguities and problems of that term included. Other people mean "situation" as I define it. Still others mean "map" or "universe." And all of that diversity is often embedded in a fundamental confusion between published-setting material and setting (published material or not) as realized through play.

So I think the basic discussion still needs to be held. Here's the point I'd like to see acknowledged and addressed: "System Does Matter" does not imply that "Setting [or anything else] Doesn't Matter." Acknowledging this, I think, essentially closes off the primary issues raised at the beginning of the thread.

And once that's handled, I'd like to discuss your point:

Consider the assertion: "When you have characters in a setting, situation arises. " Seems obvious and self explanitory on the surface, but a little bit of consideration reveals an array of glaring issues with letting that stand at facevalue.

Please clarify, listing, if you'd like, the glaring issues. I suspect you're reading content or implications into my summary that are not present, most especially in terms of what comes first.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

...people discussing them mean different things by the word "setting." Some people mean "genre," with all the ambiguities and problems of that term included. Other people mean "situation" as I define it. Still others mean "map" or "universe." And all of that diversity is often embedded in a fundamental confusion between published-setting material and setting (published material or not) as realized through play.

So I think the basic discussion still needs to be held....

I'd like to nominate 'Setting' for the list of 'Words We Must Not Use,' like genre, story, and so forth (probably not at the top of the list, but farther down around the middle.)

I've given up on it completely and almost always use 'genre expectation' or 'background' or 'circumstance' in place of the various interpretations.

Fang Langford

[Rob Donoghue]

Hi Rob,

Trouble is, all of those applied questions ...

- Does published setting material increase the success or appeal of a published game?
- What elements of setting contribute best to coherent play?
- How easily my players can become interested and involved in it?

... are going to come a-cropper if the people discussing them mean different things by the word "setting." Some people mean "genre," with all the ambiguities and problems of that term included. Other people mean "situation" as I define it. Still others mean "map" or "universe." And all of that diversity is often embedded in a fundamental confusion between published-setting material and setting (published material or not) as realized through play.

I think it's safe to say that most of those questions gain quick clarification if one narrows the field to "Published Setting" only, and I'd be glad to start there first before working up to the more rough and tumble dynamic definitions. :)

So I think the basic discussion still needs to be held. Here's the point I'd like to see acknowledged and addressed: "System Does Matter" does not imply that "Setting [or anything else] Doesn't Matter." Acknowledging this, I think, essentially closes off the primary issues raised at the beginning of the thread.

And as to that, I will cheerfully acknowledge and agree - the question of what matters should not translate into a reciprocal question of what doesn't matter.  I'll cheerfully let this lie if this is really the issue behind this thread.

And the quick answer regarding:

"When you have characters in a setting, situation arises. "

Ignoring the issues you raised quite ably about the difficulties in defining setting, this statement seems couched as an assertion of definate rather than possible outcome.  I'll agree that situation frequently arises out of characters in a setting, but that particular turn of phrase seems to indicate that situation will inevitably arise from characters in setting, something that I think can be disproved by the very boring. :)

You've got a precise enough control of language that I'm assuming that this was intentional, but it may have been the upshot of a summary.

And of course,my ride just pulled up. Sadly, further thought must wait.

-edited to conclude -

I'm also curious about the use of the verb "arises." I'll admit, it is one of the reason's I'm inferring an assertion of inevitability, since its use leaves me feelign the statement is closer to chemistry than anything else.  I'm curious why it was chosen, and on the assumption that your intention is to convey inevitability it's an excellent choice of a word, but it's interesting enough to at least lead me to be curious as to the thinking behind its selection.

Bear in mind that my concern is that if an idea is abstracted too far it runs the risk of losing relevance to itself.  That satement falls into this category from my reading because of things like "arises." It definately feels fairly far removed from the bags of meat around my table.

But that said, I may be missing, possibly from picking one particular point (which I fear I did out of a desire for brevity, not out of any sense of absurd reduction) the insight this abstraction is pointing towards.  I'm quite familiar with the crystal clarity that can come from a clean abstraction that lets you see a truth that had been heretofor obscured by its own obviousness, and I applaud its pursuit.  

In all likelihood, we are already strongly enough in agreement (as in X matters, above) that I am merely confused by my own position in the choir - if there are readers who do not consider the underlying assertion that various elements all play their role to be self evident, then I cheerfully stand back so you can deal with them, sicne I surely would lack the patience.  

And in my own verbosity, I have come to see my own gut response, so I'll spare you further pedantry on my part an boil it down:

The position you put forward feels to me like an excellent starting point, and I buck because it is presented as a conclusion or end.

So there it is. To go any further, I would need to better understand your goal, I think.


-Rob D.

[Alan]

Hold on there.

I think it's important to retain "Setting" as a term.  It has a very exact definition in fiction theory; I don't see why that definition doesn't apply to RPGs.

In fiction, setting is the people, places, and things that surround the characters.  It is closely related to "situation" because situation arises from the _relationship_ between people, places, and things.  

More modern fiction theory calls setting & situation together the "context" of the story.

[contracycle]

I would like to come back to the response that what I described as Foreground, as distinct from Background, is Situation.  I don't think it is.

My reasoning is that when deciding to play a game, you almost always give consent to the background rather than the foreground.  But if we look at Situation interms of the drives of the people, even informed by surroundings, I think you can locate many instances of a given situation, in the abstract, in a wide variety of settings.  A given dilemma can be expressed in many ways; I'm not sure that Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story can be considered to have the same setting even if they do share a situation.

IMO its more pronounced in RPG becuase the selection of a specific context of play is seldom discussed.  In Blue Planet, there are a variety of types of situations - law enforcement, scientific adventure, survival in nature, revolution - and for any one of them you have to do quite a lot of specific setting developement to realise in play.  The default realised sub-setting, the city of Haven, is only really appropriate to some of them.  I think there would be virtue in considering how we get from one to the other and why, not least because we may well to transition from one sub-setting to another in the course of play.

[ThreeGee]

Hey all,

This is a great discussion and I do not want to slow it down, but before an out-and-out flame war erupts over semantic differences, I would like to point out that my initial post concerned not setting in general, but Setting, the published minutiae of a game setting (setting in the modern literary sense) that make or break a game.

So we can move past the more basic questions:
Does System matter? Of course it does. It matters so much that we all sit around ranting about this and that in search of the perfect system (for ourselves, at least).
Do all five elements of exploration matter? Of course they do. They matter so much that fights break out over the details and differences between different games and different styles.

Ron, this thread is not on the GNS board. If people want to use GNS terminology to make their points clearer, that's great. If they prefer to use modern literary terminology, that's great, too. I studied the darn stuff in college and feel more comfortable using words in their usual (to me) sense. Frankly, context will make all the difference.

Good. Now that we all agree system matters, and setting matters, and GNS matters, and etc, ad nauseum, can we either move separate ideas to new threads and/or continue the current discussion politely?

Later,
Grant

[John Kim]

Well, everyone seems to agree that Setting matters.  However, my perception is that discussions often take Settings for granted.  That is, a typical conversation starts with "I have a world and genre, and I want to design mechanics for it".  Then people will debate over the mechanics.  In contrast, the design and effect of the Setting is not so clearly debated.  

To take an example:  I think that Puppetland represents a triumph of setting design.  The setting is absolutely vital to the game, which simply will not work without it.  I see Puppetland as mainly a design of setting.  The aim was to make a game with an intense experience where all words spoken are in-character.  However, it takes the unique Setting design to make that work.  

I think there is a lot of room for discussion of Setting design, along the lines of "What changes can I make in my setting to make the game work more the way I want it to?"

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

John: agreed in full. Puppetland is a gorgeous example, especially because its Setting exists as a set of conventions and concepts as much, or more so, than a mapped imaginary space. This is what Fang's talking about regarding Genre Expectations, and I agree with his concept although not with his proposal to abandon the term "setting."

Gareth, that's a good point, and I think we might get somewhere good with some more discussion ... maybe a thread on Setting, Foregrounding, and Situation, or something like that.

Best,
Ron

[DaGreatJL]

I have a question relating to the suggested idea earlier that a game's setting may or may not lend itself towards a certain style play, ie that a game can theoretically have an incoherent setting as well as an incoherent system. My question is, could the setting from a game with an incoherent system (say, Vampire) by used with a different system (say, The Pool), with the result of the players involved being more likely to be satisfied with play, or at least be on the same page as far as play style?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi JL,

I like to think of incoherence as being an actual play issue, which a game as a whole can help prevent or actually (unfortunately) help to cause. So we can't really talk about "a system" itself being incoherent, all by itself. Although if that's really the identifiable part that's messing play up, such a phrase might be short-hand for saying so.

With that in mind, sure, setting can be incoherent too - which is short-hand for saying, in this game, the setting as written (or as presented during play) disrupts or hinders functional GNS-level play. But bear in mind that overall, when we're talking about incoherence and design, the whole game is really the variable we're looking at.

Best,
Ron

[simon_hibbs]

I think this discussion is ranging all over the place because different people seem to have different understandings about what it is we're discussing.

I think it's pretty obvious that setting is necessery for a game when you actualy come to pay it. I believe (I may be wrong) that the question being asked was, is setting required or desirable in a published game?

I can see the point of the argument. Providing a strong setting with a game and linking the mechanics closely to that setting will make the game less usefull for people who don't like that setting. They may prefer a setting-lite game that easily allows them to adapt it to a setting of their own devising.

I understand the argument, but I don't accept it. Game mechanics on their own have very little to offer me. I'm thinking of writing up a new game at the moment to run in about 6 months to a year's time, and I've got several radicaly different game mechanics options I'm considering, but realy any of them would do the job. The tricky part is applying those game mechanics to the particular problems that arrise due to the nature of the setting.

Devoid of the Amber setting, the ADRPG game mechanics make little sense - but they're idealy suited to deal with situations likely to arrise in that setting, or ones like it.

If Robin Laws had been designing a new edition of call of Cthulhu I doubt he'd have come up with the game system in Hero Wars.

Ok, you could say that all you need to know is the genre - design the game system for a specific genre and the rest of the setting is up to the GM. I don't think that stands up either. One area that Hero Wars sorely needed was examples of how to apply the rules in play, and one of the biggest criticisms of it is that the magical feats are insufficiently well described. These criticisms are of a lack of setting, not that there's too much of it. Without setting, GMs and players don't have any flesh to hang on the bones of the game system. Even if they go on to design a setting of their own, a solid example of how the mechanics can be integrated into a setting is invaluable.


Simon Hibbs