Hi,

I don't post in this part of the Forge much, but I had a question, and I think that this is the most appropriate forum to ask it. If there's a better place, lemme know.

The subject line says it all. I like thinking about various settings. I love detailing them and understanding the internal logic of them. Its just fun for me (this is what happens when you take too many sociology classes).

So, if I was designing a game (which I’m not at the moment), what is the role of a setting in the game? Does my primary fascination with setting predispose me toward Simulationism? How does presenting setting change depending on if I am aiming for gamism, simulationism, or narrativism? Note: I'm using the GNS because its a decent way to organize my thoughts, no more, no less. (i.e. I don't pretend to truly be proficient in thinking in terms of it, nor could I look down at someone who gives me a response couched in a different framework)

Beyond the game theory stuff, I was curious what people thought the role of settings are in a game. How much detail, what kind of detail... stuff like that. I'm sure there is a better way to articulate my question, but I'll probably realize it after I see other people's responses.

Thanks in advance

Talk about a broad topic. Setting is probably half of design. I like settings, too. But I'm not sure that says anything about my game designs. Especially since I have a couple of generic systems out there.

Actually, I thinlk that one reason the I like generic rules is so that I can apply them to the many settings that I come up with. Or that I can make up new settings on the spot.

Others will tell you, however, that a system should be well linked to the setting. At least insofar as the setting is an important part of what drives play. And this argument has merit. A system that is well linked into the setting could well enhance the setting.

The real question, I think, is to what extent is the setting part of the Premise of play (and here I use it in the non-narrativist use that tends to confuse people drasticly). What is the game about, and what do players do in play?

If you design settings to be explored as the goal of play, then, yes, that's a Simulationist goal. But if the setting is there to underly a Narrativist Premise, or simply to be the playing field for a competition for the players, then the setting is as Narrativist of Gamist as you want as well.

I'd suggest that a detailed setting is often a sign of a Simulationist goal. But not anything like a 100% correlation. That said, if you are intent on making such detailed setting designs, I'd say consider going with a strongly Sim systems to compliment it. And further consider if you want to further prioritize Exploration of that Setting. If so, I think there is a lot of original work that has yet to be done in the field. As an example, take a look at these threads in which we took a stab at such mechanics:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1296
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1410

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Talk about a broad topic.
Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
The real question, I think, is to what extent is the setting part of the Premise of play (and here I use it in the non-narrativist use that tends to confuse people drasticly). What is the game about, and what do players do in play?

If you design settings to be explored as the goal of play, then, yes, that's a Simulationist goal. But if the setting is there to underly a Narrativist Premise, or simply to be the playing field for a competition for the players, then the setting is as Narrativist of Gamist as you want as well.
Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
And further consider if you want to further prioritize Exploration of that Setting. If so, I think there is a lot of original work that has yet to be done in the field.
Mike

Echoing Mike a little, I think setting's purpose changes depending on what your reason for gaming is (and you might have a great mixture of reasons in your game group).

If you game to experience strange and interesting places and people, obvious the setting will be the most important element. The rules could be generic or minimal, but shouldn't take attention away from what you're trying to experience.

If you game to "tell stories," the setting could either matter a lot or not matter much at all. If you just want to tell "good" stories and don't care about the content or what themes they explore, the setting is mostly inconsequential. But if you want any say in what kinds of stories you're trying to tell, the story is very important. The setting serves as a medium for your storytelling (where you are the brush and the rules are the paint), so make sure the stories you want to tell can be told within the confines of the setting's canvas. In fact, many people try to make very specifically themed settings (post-apocalyptic horror with a post-modern vampiric cyborg theme), so they are ensured that their stories will be of a certain kind.

If your purpose is to "game with your buds," the setting could be of little consequence. Who cares if you're in the old west or outer space as long as the pizza and beer is abundant and the dice are rolling?

As you can see, this sorta maps out to the GNS theory (in fact, this thread might be better suited to the Theory board, unless you can tell us more about what you're trying to do with your game).

Later.
Jonathan

A fun setting that immediately makes me think of three character concepts and five campaigns I'd like to run is definitely a plus but what I really like about Sorcerer is how it allows and even begs you to create your own setting.

I like games that assume and even encourage you to homebrew a world and give you all of the tools to make that world your own.

Paka wrote: but what I really like about Sorcerer is how it allows and even begs you to create your own setting.

Paka wrote: A fun setting that immediately makes me think of three character concepts and five campaigns I'd like to run is definitely a plus but what I really like about Sorcerer is how it allows and even begs you to create your own setting.

I like games that assume and even encourage you to homebrew a world and give you all of the tools to make that world your own.

Simon,

Indeed, there are other things that a game provides. But as you point out these things tend to be delivered through the setting or the mechanics. For example, situational structure such as mission formats are often provided as part of the setting (you know, you live in a world where evil must be undone, and there is this organization that fights evil, and you are a member, and this is how the orgamization fights evil).

The only other sorts of text (that I've seen) are either "hints" for the GM on how to run the game, or flavor text. GM hints I think do constitute a legitamate third mode of content delivery. Flavor text can only really inform play consistently if it is backed up by one or more of the other three (but that's an ancilary debate here).

Anyhow, the point is that we may be looking at two different things. That is, the method of content delivery in the text, and the content delivered. So, in one game the thematic content will be delivered by the setting (MERP). In another the thematic content will be delivered by the mechanics (Sorcerer).

So I see the setting as a delivery method for certain things, and which things are delivered depends on the author, his intent, and his execution.

Mike

Hello,

I'd like to clarify that Setting is fundamental to role-playing, as with all the five components listed in my essay. It can be provided by text, generated by pre-play prep, or even constructed in large part through play ... but it's gotta be there. A basic and abiding interest in Setting is not, itself, Simulationist. Also, further development of a setting, in breadth and depth, seems to be almost obligatory as an outcome of long-term play.

(I have been given to understand that the original Threefold underwent phenomenal debate regarding this issue, and if I'm not mistaken, Jim Henley stood up in detail regarding this same point that I'm making. My Simulationism is not the same as the Threefold's but at least on this point, the two models aren't very different.)

Further, plenty of Simulationist play is not Setting-heavy, although a great deal of it is. By "exploring Settting," in terms of my essay anyway, what's meant is "devoting tons of imaginative enjoyment/effort to Setting." It does not mean literally that the characters are wandering around from place to place; you can Explore Setting even if they don't move from one spot all session long.

So: what does Setting do? As I see it, the first two elements of play (Character and Setting) are like words and pictures in comics. If they both do "everything," they get in one another's way. If they trade off in intensity and complement one another, in any functional combination, then the process (of play for RPGs) can occur smoothly.

That synergy is the foundation for Situation, System provides the mechanism for decision-making and narration, and Color may be thought of as the reinforcer and inspirational "spark" for the other four.

One thing I'd really, really like to clarify is that nothing about Setting presupposes that it is static. Settings may change through play, whether planned or pre-planned. I do not consider this sort of change to be metaplot, but some do (which is why the term causes so much trouble sometimes).

A related issue is reading vs. playing. Quite a few "I like lots of Setting" comments I've read and heard over the years have come from people whose games constantly fizzle, and who read their setting-books incessantly, dreaming over playing one day, very much like people read fiction. I am not condemning this practice (so settle down, out there). I'm saying it is not playing, and that as a practice, it's not what we're discussing if the topic is play and design for play.

So my points are as follows.

1) Liking or not-liking Setting is an empty issue. The real issue is how much Setting, in a given game, is enough to start with, and the answer to that is going to be highly, highly individualized per game, relative to how much Character is enough to start with. Role-player preference factors in as well, although I've found that they are usually responding to the combination of setting/character starting-depth rather than to setting-depth alone.

2) The other issue is how does this relate to GNS - and the answer is, it's relevant, but not on a 1:1 basis. Each mode of play contains a whole wealth of possible combinations of Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. I'll generalize a bit though.

Arguably, Gamist play tends to see Setting as part of the arena, whether in terms of "justifying" the conflicts at hand in-game, or in terms of posing strategic elements, or both.

Simulationist play tends to see Setting as an Explorative element per se. If Setting is not prioritized over some other component, then it's a reinforcer and might even be customizable; if it's prioritized, that's where you'll get the games like Jorune, 80s editions of Traveller, quite a bit of the World of Darkness line, and so forth.

Narrativist play is predicated on Situation = Premise, and therefore Character or Setting are providing that "motor." Again, it does best for one or the other to be playing the main "push," such that you find Character-heavy Premise in Sorcerer (such that Setting "grows" quickly during prep and play) and Setting-heavy Premise in Hero Wars (such that Character "grows" quickly during prep and play).

Best,
Ron

First off, thanks for the replies, and my apologies about posting this in a different forum at first.

Second, thanks to everyone for helping me out.

I think that I was (rightly or wrongly) privileging setting information provided in rulebooks slightly over pre-prep play, and a lot over setting created during play. I think those are important distinctions, because I have seen several games where the sheer volume and completeness of the 'official' setting left little room for PCs. This may be hair-splitting from what Ron was talking about with setting & characters can't both do everything.

So I guess a question is if setting can pop up different places, such as in the text of the game, preparation of play, and during actual play, is it necessary to try and balance these a bit, or is it a danger that one of these areas could overshadow others to the detriment of play's enjoyment?

wish i had something more to say
but thanks so far

Nevermet wrote: So I guess a question is if setting can pop up different places, such as in the text of the game, preparation of play, and during actual play, is it necessary to try and balance these a bit, or is it a danger that one of these areas could overshadow others to the detriment of play's enjoyment?

Mike Holmes wrote: In designing a game, be sure to tailor the ammount of setting to the overall goals of play. Do you want to create a very "real" seeming world, one that seems to exist objectively? Then add lots of detail.

Jonathan, although I agree with what you say completely, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mike was thinking of a "real" world as in "this world doesn't need the players and the GM to flesh it out, it's "alive" on it's own.

Even if I make a setting which says "this is just like the real world" it does make a difference if the setting provides a lot of detail on places and things or if the GM simply has to make it up as he/she goes along (playing in real places or imagined).

Imagine Vampire without all the info of how the masquerade worked and stuff? Without the endless of city sourcebooks and the like. You got: "this is how places work, a city ought to have these organizations" and then provide a template for making up your own.

That would be a different feel to it wouldn't it? For all it's flaws WoD is a world they thought up. With or without the characters it moves on according to its own logic. In that sense it seems "alive" already.

On the other hand, a framework based vampire rpg would need the spark of the GM to bring it to life. Exploring setting would be exploring the ongoing creation of GM, setting framework and players working together creating something, compared to WoD where the GM fills out and interpolates the spaces in-between the sourcebooks. The sourcebooks lives without the GM.

Maybe this wasn't what Mike was thinking about, but it's worth considering anyway.

Actually, that's exactly what I was saying, Christoffer. I'm not much of an advocate of "realism" at all. Middle Earth is not in any way "realistic" but it does live and breathe on it's own. That's what I was getting at about a design goal that required lots of setting detail.

That said, I couldn't tell you how many people like this sort of thing. Perhaps more people are looking for "realism". And for that, I agree with Jonathan's assessment of how to achieve that goal.

Mike

Hmm... I totally see what you guys are saying (and agree with much of it), but I still don't agree with the overarching idea here. I'm trying to figure out why.

Take Nobilis, for instance. Virtually no setting. R. Sean sets up a few social structures (Chancels, Imperators, the Locust Court), a couple important figures (Lord Entropy, Ananda), and the rest is basically made up of mechanics and game concepts. Sure, there are little bits of fiction sprinkled through the text, which help provide tone and ideas for games, but there's no 'set' background. GMs (or HGs, in this case) are encouraged to re-create the entire world from scratch, ignoring whatever doesn't appeal to them.

And yet... Nobilis is probably the most "alive-feeling" game that I've ever encountered. Part of it may be the animistic world. It's so much easier to imagine a conversation with the Pacific Ocean than it is to come up with a complex bureaucracy of Vampire overlords. Still, I don't think the nature of Nobilis is so unique that this kind of living, breathing, yet setting-less game could not be replicated.

I don't think I've made myself completely clear, since I'm not sure just why this is the case, but that's where I'm coming from.

Later.
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

If you would, take a look at my post again. Nobilis and games like it, exactly as you describe, are well-accounted for in the matrix of concepts that I presented.

I'm thinking that all the grappling with the "realism" stuff in other posts got in the way of people spending time with mine.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: If you would, take a look at my post again. Nobilis and games like it, exactly as you describe, are well-accounted for in the matrix of concepts that I presented.

Jonathan, I was merely trying to clarify Mike's point since it seemed you had misunderstood his use of the word.

Maybe a better word to describe it would be "independently existing". Like Mike says, there are people who like this style of game (but I honestly can't say if these people like reading in the sourcebooks or actually playing the most, which brings up Ron's point about that contradiction)

I think what you are discussing Jonathan is a world that feels alive and real when you play it. Now that's a completely different thing from what I was talking about (from that perspective I agree that it's not very helpful of talking about independently existing settings because they guarantee nothing about player and GM enjoyment).

You can actually look back at some of my early postings when I too discovered that "less is more" for the game I myself was (is) working on. So I'm not challenging that point at all.

I personally feel like a lot of setting simply means a lot of inertia when you start GMing your own adventures. There's a difference between setting and setting though.

Setting as in "background material" such as races, magic, legends, myths, rough maps and such can often be extremely helpful in working with a game (unless they are too detailed)

On the other hand, having every place on the map laid out, every location of treasure or dungeon already mapped up and explored, leaves very little room for adventure (compare playing in MERP, where Iron Crown made supplements for "off the Tolkien map" places so that the players should have some room to do things. I was personally thinking of setting a campaign in the less detailed 1st age, because that would be much simpler in terms of making up "stories that had yet to be told" within the setting). However, this makes for good reads which is why they too sell. And as long as you're running pre-made sanctioned adventures, this won't be a problem either.

However, since that solution doesn't mesh well with making one's own adventures I have problems with such settings. In the end I have to rip them up to fit in my own stories. And I can't help but to think that I would have been able to make much better stories if I wouldn't have needed to fit them into the existing framework.

Setting with pointers and easy openings for creating adventures is what I personally prefer. Setting which tells me what I can do but most of all what I can't simply gets in the way of the play.

Okay, it looks like we're not really disagreeing after all. Sorry about that. Still...

Pale Fire wrote: Setting as in "background material" such as races, magic, legends, myths, rough maps and such can often be extremely helpful in working with a game (unless they are too detailed).

Hi Jonathan,

'Scool, my friend; finding out one another's hot-button words is part of what goes on here (and then wiping the blood off, and keeping going).

Apropos to this issue you're wrestling with, check out Jesse's thread Spaceships, six-guns, and sorcery - session 1, bearing in mind that most of Jesse's extensive experience in role-playing, prior to this last year, utilized heavy-heavy-setting game design.

Best,
Ron

Jonathan Walton wrote:

Pale Fire wrote: Setting as in "background material" such as races, magic, legends, myths, rough maps and such can often be extremely helpful in working with a game (unless they are too detailed).

Most likely, part of what I was reacting against was this kind of "traditional" definition of setting. Most commercial games are pretty good (most of the time) with providing gamers with "background material"-type settings, which can be great.

Nevermet wrote: So I guess a question is if setting can pop up different places, such as in the text of the game, preparation of play, and during actual play, is it necessary to try and balance these a bit, or is it a danger that one of these areas could overshadow others to the detriment of play's enjoyment?

You're right, Jonathan, we're not really disagreeing.

All I've said is that one way to make a setting come "alive" is through well designed setting. I addressed that since this thread is about setting. But with Nobilis, what you have described is part of what we often call Situation (and to an extent the details you mention are also Setting). And you are right, a setting can also be brought to "life" via not only situation, but character, and color as well. All sorts of ways to do it.

The only question here is, when dealing with setting itself, what do you do? I can't see an argument that less setting detail makes a setting more "alive" (nor do I think that you would promulgate such a theory). But I would agree that it's not the only way, or even necessarily the best way to get that "live" feeling.

So as this is a thread about Setting, I think that the best we can say is that well designed elements outside of setting can improve the setting itself. And perhaps I should point out that by detail, I mean exactly the sort of things that you point out about Nobilis like the cool Social Structures. That is Setting. And the cornucopia of implied members of that social structure is implied detail.

I am all for this sort of thing. Creation by multiplication is a powerful tool. For example, instead of listing the 1200 members of a certain imperial beaurocracy in a game, I can list ten types, ten sub types that apply to each, and twelve cross referenced types. Bingo, instant 1200 members. Allowing this sort of stuff to come from mechanics of play is cool too.

Lots of ways to expand your Setting.

Mike