Heya,

I'm working on a problem in my latest design, and am hoping to get some good input from you guys.  Let's say you have a finite ammount of space- 300 pages for instance.  Let's say that you have a very detailed system with many sub-systems and optional rules.  Likewise, let's say you have a very detailed world with in which it's colorful history plays a significant role in the current situation.  Additionally, this is NOT a Sim game and neither Systen nor Setting are the main foci of exploration.

Given all that, here are my questions:

1.  Where does setting come in? IE, where does it appear in the rules?  Where should it not be in the rules?  What are some good limitations on setting?

2.  How much space, overall, is setting worth vs. system?  Is it more important to include minute details such as cultural celbrations, local heroes, and/or commerce routes vs. other minute details like character background options, passions, and/or combat options?

3.  Is Setting really a part of the game, or just the obligatory geography where everything takes place?  And does is generally add or subtract from the fun?

That last question is most important to me.  I realize that some of this might be dependant on "what kind of game it is..." but that's not what I'm really looking for here.  What I am looking for is past experience and sage advice- in generalities if necessary.  I do appreciate your effort :)

Peace,

-Troy

PS: I am opperating out of the notion that System and Setting are equally important but are not necessarily given equal weight (page count) in a game.

Hello,

It's very hard to tell whether you're talking about game function or text presentation.

For game function, the equation is rock solid:

1. SETTING + CHARACTER(S) = SITUATION

2. SITUATION + SYSTEM = EVENTS OCCUR

3. COLOR x ANYTHING = MORE INTENSITY

Therefore, putting it all together

EXPLORATION = COLOR x [[SITUATION] + SYSTEM], remembering that Situation is composed of Characters + Setting.

An important point, although not the really big one, is that you can "weight" any of these aspects of the game to any degree you want, as long as they hang together and are mutually reinforcing in this way.

The big point is that the concept of "setting versus system" is nonsensical. And a game design which forces them to be in opposition renders itself nonsensical.

It seems to me that once you get your notions straight about these concepts, relative to the game function you're designing, then text presentation becomes a direct outgrowth from that.

Best,
Ron

Heya,

So then the components of Setting (period, locations, cultures, historical events, and characters) must all then point towards the Situation, otherwise one loses focus on the purpose of the game, right?  They must all tie into "helping the characters engage the Situation" as I understand it.  And likewise, all components of character should directly lead to the players being able to engage the situation, yes?

Peace,

-Troy

Troy_Costisick wrote: So then the components of Setting (period, locations, cultures, historical events, and characters) must all then point towards the Situation, otherwise one loses focus on the purpose of the game, right? They must all tie into "helping the characters engage the Situation" as I understand it.

Troy_Costisick wrote: And likewise, all components of character should directly lead to the players being able to engage the situation, yes?

Sorry if I'm interrupting the discussion, but I would like to know how the 900-pound gorilla and the Lumpley principle tie into this equation.

According to the 900-pound gorilla, Situation is the really big thing in actual play.
According to the Lumpley principle, Setting and Character (and thus Situation) can at least partially be included in System.

Hello,

All of you guys are making this much harder than it is.

1. Artanis, the 900-pound gorilla concept is based on the idea that the five components are not independent. Those little plusses and equals signs and stuff are very, very causal. So yes, Setting is "part" of System - any of the five things I've listed are "part" of any or all other parts. Situation is the gorilla because it's the easiest node or touchpoint for connecting any of the other parts, as we all communicate and imagine together as we play.

2. Steve, with respect, your post isn't matching up with what I'm saying at all. Foreground and background have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. That's the "weighting" stuff - whether you focus, for example, on characters before filling in the setting - and it only specifies how the stuff I'm talking about it used - not the basic interrelationships.

3. Troy, I think your use of "must" and "should" are too extreme. No one's holding guns to anyone about this. The kind of focus you're talking about is one of many possible design aesthetics, none of which contradict the ideas that I've presented here.

Even if I, for instance, prefer game designs which are quite tight in these terms, doesn't mean someone can't publish a good game text which is far less so. HeroQuest, for instance, represents a setting which has many, many weird exceptions and conceptual byways ... and in my view, playing the game is better for that; the group must arrive at their own Explorative equation (the five components listed and interrelated as above), and there's enough meat to do it.

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote:
3. Troy, I think your use of "must" and "should" are too extreme. No one's holding guns to anyone about this. The kind of focus you're talking about is one of many possible design aesthetics, none of which contradict the ideas that I've presented here.

Even if I, for instance, prefer game designs which are quite tight in these terms, doesn't mean someone can't publish a good game text which is far less so. HeroQuest, for instance, represents a setting which has many, many weird exceptions and conceptual byways ... and in my view, playing the game is better for that; the group must arrive at their own Explorative equation (the five components listed and interrelated as above), and there's enough meat to do it.

Best,
Ron