Domhnall wrote: I have (what I assume to be) ~92% of my system ideas hashed out, and ~70% of the footwork complete. But, I am wondering if systems are more well received if they are imbedded with (no, not a journalist) a world. It seems that people do have a dual interest, and may be more apt to try a system if it also a world (which would be “optional”) that is appealing aside from the rules. Do you all think this is true?

When game rules are obeyed by the players, the players (and their characters) exhibit a number of behaviours. These behaviours are then rewarded or penalised by the rules system (and by the group's social contract), which then feeds back into the player's subsequent behaviour. This behaviour is what the "world" behaves as in play. There fore one can't separate "world" behaviour from rules.

Does your to-be-written description of the "world" match the cumulative (snowballing) behaviour of the players and their characters? If you don't have a description of your world, consider your desired play style for players. Here's a example of a mismatch: The written world description says that skill in melee weapons is best, yet player behaviour generated by the rules consistently finds that skill in missile weapons is favoured, therefore all rationally designed PCs and those PCs that have advanced in skill with rational players, all have high skill in missile weapons and minimal skill in other weapons. This implies that other rational NPCs will notice this behaviour in the physics of the world, and change their starting behaviour, so effectively changing the description of the world. Those NPCs that don't do this, soon die out; evolution in action. :)

I hope that helps!