Does Setting Matter?

[M. J. Young]

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 believe (I may be wrong) that the question being asked was, is setting required or desirable in a published game?

I've been thinking about this every time I get back here, and I find it difficult to answer. That's because of Multiverser, of course. But let me give it this way:

[*]Every universe that anyone ever has or ever could imagine exists.[*]At any moment, you might be killed and find yourself alive in another one.[*]Here are the mechanics for how to run any imaginable universe.[*]For some good (and important) examples to use in play, buy the world books.[/list:u]Now, is this a setting? If it is, then I think it difficult to design a system without a setting of some sort; if it isn't, then what is it?

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

I call it a setting, but I don't know if anyone else does. By contrast, Universalis does not provide a setting at all. Multiverser and Universalis would be my personal choices for two of the extreme ends of the multivariate setting-provided spectrum; other (and independent) extremes include the World of Darkness and the upcoming Million Worlds.

For those of you who are wondering how a spectrum can have more than two ends, all I can tell you is that my mind was broken and rebuilt into eigenvector-space some time in the early 1990s.

Best,
Ron

[simon_hibbs]

list][*]Every universe that anyone ever has or ever could imagine exists.[*]At any moment, you might be killed and find yourself alive in another one.[*]Here are the mechanics for how to run any imaginable universe.[*]For some good (and important) examples to use in play, buy the world books.[/list]Now, is this a setting? If it is, then I think it difficult to design a system without a setting of some sort; if it isn't, then what is it?

So far, so much like Amber. In Amber the cosmos of shadow worlds
is infinite and infinitely varied, yet that is of minor importance to the
principle characters. What matters is their world, their family, their
power politics. Without compelling conflicts and issues in which to
involve the characters, such setting becomes so broad and vast
that it infinitely dilutes the importance or meaning of any one event.

This is the problem the Ringworld game suffered from. it presented
lots of facts, but very little to hang a campaign on. That's why I
think a Man Kzin Wars RPG would be more successful. The setting is
much smaller (my some measures), yet the central conflict is a
dynamo for generating adventures.

IMHO the measure of a good game system is how well it facilitates
play within the setting of the game. That doesn't mean generic
game systems are necesserily bad, it means they are by (my)
definition incomplete games.


Simon Hibbs

[M. J. Young]

So far, so much like Amber. In Amber the cosmos of shadow worlds is infinite and infinitely varied, yet that is of minor importance to the principle characters. What matters is their world, their family, their power politics.

My impression of Amber is that all the universes that exist are superfluous; the Amberites primarily exist in one central setting, and interact within it. In Amber, the setting would be the world of the Amberites, with the rest of the universes more like outlying districts. It would be like The Sopranos--we know Tokyo exists in their world, but it doesn't matter.

Multiverser would be different in that at any moment the character is in a specific world, involved in the issues in that world; it's just that what world the character is in might change at any moment (a bit like Quantum Leap in that regard, but that it happens when you die, not when you fix everything). It's a bit like a D&D world in which you travel to the place where the next adventure will occur; it's just that you're "traveling" to another universe, you don't choose where that is, and the rules may be very different when you get there.

Without compelling conflicts and issues in which to involve the characters, such setting becomes so broad and vast that it infinitely dilutes the importance or meaning of any one event.

Perhaps not so much so. I think the compelling conflicts and issues that involve characters in Multiverser are who are you, who are you going to become, and what are you going to do? Since it's an I game, it becomes very personal.

I remember a thread in the Funky Winkerbean comic strip back in '76 (I remember it was '76, because it was the Bicentennial), in which a well-to-do family was visiting Historic Williamsburg. The wife is all excited about her American history, and constantly talking about how wonderful it all is, and finally she asks her husband, "If we had lived then, what would we be?" "We'd have been Tories" was his answer. Dropping characters who are copies of the players themselves into myriad worlds asks them to decide who they are, and who they would want to be. The game is never without issues; in a sense, the setting is the foil for exploring the character, as much as or more than the character is for exploring the setting.

IMHO the measure of a good game system is how well it facilitates play within the setting of the game. That doesn't mean generic game systems are necesserily bad, it means they are by (my) definition incomplete games.

Well, I cringe at the label "generic" when applied to Multiverser; I suppose that's because GURPS has so coopted that term that I take it to mean a game engine that can be used to play in any (one) universe, and then used again to play in any (other) universe as a completely new game. We've discussed the terminology elsewhere on this forum, and it's not worth tackling here. This statement begs the question. Is "every imaginable universe" a setting, or is it the absence of setting? Does a game which facilitates play that moves from universe to universe "facilitate play within the setting of the game" under that definition, or doesn't it?

I don't mind if you hate "generic" games, as long as Multiverser isn't in that category.

By your definition it sounds a bit like Sorcerer doesn't have a setting to your liking; yet it certainly facilitates play within situation (if I can attempt to make that distinction?) in ways a lot of setting-based games fail to do.

So perhaps we need to step back and figure out what a "setting" is before we can answer the core question.

--M. J. Young

[simon_hibbs]

In Amber, the setting would be the world of the Amberites, with the rest of the universes more like outlying districts. It would be like The Sopranos--we know Tokyo exists in their world, but it doesn't matter.

But neither Multiverser or Amber are like The Sopranos in this respect. In both games characters spend most of their time 'out there in Tokyo'. In my experience Amberites often spend well over half of game time out in varous shadows, some of which might be personal realms or the realms of other Amberites, Chaosites, etc and therefore important.

It's a bit like a D&D world in which you travel to the place where the next adventure will occur;

And this is a selling point?

Dropping characters who are copies of the players themselves into myriad worlds asks them to decide who they are, and who they would want to be. The game is never without issues; in a sense, the setting is the foil for exploring the character, as much as or more than the character is for exploring the setting.

Which is pretty much what old D&D was about - development of character, in the narrow sense of gaining levels, was pretty much all there was. There have been a number og TV shows that tried the 'new planet/city/plane each week format but in most cases they end up linking these settings together with recurring bad guys or at least recurring themes. Take Voyager for existence, they're supposed to be hurtling as fast as possible across uncharted space, but they ended up coming across the same bad guys over and over again. Go figure.

This statement begs the question. Is "every imaginable universe" a setting, or is it the absence of setting? Does a game which facilitates play that moves from universe to universe "facilitate play within the setting of the game" under that definition, or doesn't it?

I think it can, but that it's not enough. That's why I used Amber as a contrasting example. Amber has infinite universes, yet has a strong and easily comprehensible setting. Setting is foreground as well as background. Most games only give background and guidelines for the GM to create the immediate environment for the players.

By your definition it sounds a bit like Sorcerer doesn't have a setting to your liking; yet it certainly facilitates play within situation (if I can attempt to make that distinction?) in ways a lot of setting-based games fail to do.

Sorecere has several settings 'out of the box'.

It comes down to the way the game is intended to be used. I would argue that Sorcerer does not provide enough setting as-is for extended campaign play. That's not necesserily a bad thing. Some games are pretty much designed around a specific scenario, in which case the locations described in the scenario should be sufficient setting for the game.

In Multiverser perhaps the game system is oriented around character developmental issues, but even so it must have enough information to enable the character's to have meaningful interaction with setting. That is at least implied setting even if it isn't explicit (D&D is a good example of a game with a lot of implied setting in the basic rulebooks).

Youre right that there are a lot of issues here and it is chalenging to get to grips with them.


Simon Hibbs

[Le Joueur]

I take Simon's comment very well about the dilution importance of Setting in the use of broad, almost unfocused, Settings.  It almost goes along with what I put into Setting, Information, and Suspense Don't Matter*; Setting can only do so much.  What Ron talks about when he discusses the late twentieth century move towards 'heavy-Setting' games, to me, was a marketing move.  As has been pointed out a 'big flashy Setting' will sell a product much better than a detailed description of its System.

I also take well the comments about how 'System without Setting' are of reduced value, if we accept that means a System that avoids 'Setting dependency' regardless of the presence of a Setting in the presentation or not.  Ron keeps trying to bring things around pointing out that no game is without Setting and you know where that gets this discussion?

Back to where it started.

Let me point out that what seems to really be at issue here isn't the actual presence or absence of Setting in a game (Ron defines it as inescapable).  Neither is this about Setting's preponderance in relationship to the rest of the published game (the whole issues of 'coherence' goes out when we toss the GNS out of the conversation).  What it really seems to be is a question about Setting's relationship with a game's 'creative agenda.'

If the Setting produces an excellent venue for the games 'creative agenda' then it works.  If it seems to ignore the same, then it fails.  If a Setting enforces (or forces) the 'creative agenda,' all the better.  Talking about 'linking the mechanics' well to the Setting misses this point; if the Setting supports or stresses the 'creative agenda' well and so do the mechanics, they will seem linked even if they aren't.  The actual 'linkage' isn't necessary; all that matters is putting both at service to the game's 'creative agenda.'  (Orchestrating their simultaneous work can produce more than the sum of their separate efforts, but I don't think it is necessary even in 'elegant' design.)

What does this mean to Generic, Universal, or Generalist games?  They all have Settings even if those are 'modular' (Ron defines all games as having it).  Some question comes from how well they can put forth for the 'creative agenda' (which I suppose is why so many of them become Simulationism: Exploration of System - it's the part that's constant).  This is a legitimate question, but not 'Is Setting important?' or 'Can generic games be good without linkage to their Settings?' but actually, "Does the genericness keep the game from focusing on the 'creative agenda' that the Setting may espouse?"

So basically, "Sure, Setting matters as long as it's there to advance the 'creative agenda;' Settings that don't are just filler."  And corollary to that, "Settings don't have to be explicit to advance the 'creative agenda.'"  (I'd suggest that the ambiguity of Amber's Setting focuses it on 'family agenda' play - which is good.  Multiverser may provide both wide swaths of Setting and tools to employ even more, but I don't think that implies even a Generalist approach, more that the dilution of potential Settings subordinates them to what the characters do in them - another good thing.)

Fang Langford

[Blake Hutchins]

Setting matters.

Put characters into a setting and inject conflict - I'd probably swap the term "conflict" or "problem" for "situation," but that may be the subject of another thread.  Sometimes, a setting contains inherent conflicts that players can hook characters into.  Sometimes simply putting a particular character into a particular setting creates conflict right there and then.  Sometimes you need to inject situation - a relationship wrinkle, an event or a potential event, a mystery, a threat - but this too becomes part of setting.  Setting-based conflicts may be external, world-based events or potentialities, such as Farrenshire's situation in TROS, or they may be thematic conflicts embedded in the characters themselves, such as the demon-sorcerer relationships in Sorcerer or allegiances and relationships in Hero Wars or Amber.  Given how integral demons are to Sorcerer,  incidentally, I'll argue they derive from setting more than character.

Setting itself is an active component of play, because it provides the backdrop and mirror for the characters to strive against.   It is the primary venue through which the GM/narrator delivers the game environment.  I don't care whether it's a light or heavy on details so long as it inspires or facilitates the development of meaningful conflict.

Best,

Blake

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Blake,

That's a ... very straightforward "what I think" post. Is it being presented for aspects of debate? Supporting or refuting existing points on the thread? I'm having a hard time relating anything you've said to what's been discussed already. Can you help?

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Setting itself is an active component of play, because it provides the backdrop and mirror for the characters to strive against.   It is the primary venue through which the GM/narrator delivers the game environment.  I don't care whether it's a light or heavy on details so long as it inspires or facilitates the development of meaningful conflict.

Setting is the way you color things like conflict. The question is whether you need to have setting to drive conflict, and make it compelling via that context. I have no doubt that setting can do this as in the examples you give, Blake; in fact I've been a big advocate of the idea in the face of the opposite opinion. But system can provide for conflict as well. This is what Sorcerer does. You can call Demons settting, if you like, but what particular setting are they better in? What setting is SOAP better in (or does rumormongering represent setting)? These are setting-independent games because the mechanics drive the conflict and make it compelling for players.

So, is conflict less compelling without a setting designed to promote it? I don't think so, otherwise you woudn't have West Side Story. The themes of confllict are universal, and can be present in any setting. Even one's made by the players. Hence, there is conflict in GURPS, and every RPG. Where the conflict comes from is a simple matter of taste.

"Does Setting Matter" cannot be a question of volume of material. Just as there is no superior amount of rules a priori, there is no superior amount of setting. It all depends on the design. What Setting Matters must mean is that you have to consider setting and include the right amount and right sort of details. If Sorcerer had more setting, it would have been a worse game for it. If Hero Wars had included less setting it would have been a worse game for it. And both have well considered what to include in terms of types of details.

Mike

[contracycle]

Hmm, well. I'm inclined to think that sorceror does not have setting per se, but that it does, probably like multiverser, establish some boundaries.  In sorcerers case it is the demons that are the fixed point, in multiverser its the coexistance of multiple universes and the transition betwen them.  Both of these establish a fair bit of placement, of "location", within the game space from which players can orient.

I think this is a really different thing from the "places to adventure" approach to setting, which is often a rather tedious travelogue without much of value or interest.  IMO, heartbreakers are often found in this category, as their adherence to conventional tropes runs counter to any specific focus, in hopes of not excluding an option.  But IMO this lack of focus means that the settings are seldom of value as settings, being deliberately generic in much the same way that a system can be generic.

And then there are the games like L5R and Blue Planet which are not just Places but also Moments; in both cases I think these are attempts roughly as Fang describes to prefigure or force the creative agenda.  Perhaps more accurately, to heavily inform the selection of specific agenda.

My preference is for the forced approach, probably because it allows the chosen conflict to be masked as an naturally emergent phenomenon of the game world.  I find the generic approach useless, or at least in need of so much cutting as to be nearly so.  The first approach which has  a point of departure is interesting and accessible but not my preference.

In any case, the actual printed work might have other elements that overcome any given weakness.  That may be a contributing factor to the porting of systems to worlds.