Hey all,

In this thread about system, the point was raised that the majority of gamers (at least the vocal ones on another board) think that setting is the single most important part of a game.

My take on the matter is that the gamemaster will use whatever he likes from a setting and junk the rest, creating his own world; the system is the important part of the game and the rest is fluff. However, objectively, I must acknowledge that my argument is the same as the other side, only switching setting and system. This raises the question, Does Setting Matter?

Later,
Grant

Hi Grant,

Of course Setting matters. Without characters, setting, situation, a system, and color, role-playing isn't happening.

I lay this out pretty explicitly in my essay, "GNS and related matters of role-playing design," so I don't really see how it's an issue.

That leads me to think that you are not asking, does Setting matter, but rather, why is it the focus of so much attention, at least in terms of polls and canvasses? Here are my answers.

1. Consumerism. People legitimize their participation in an activity by buying stuff, and lots of setting means lots of stuff to buy.

2. Entertainment that happens not to be role-playing. Setting-books are only one small step removed from fiction, and people often buy them to have something to read.

3. "Genre." Quite a lot of the games published between 1987 and 2000 are what I call High Concept Simulationism, which means a well-defined setting and an embedded point or theme that isn't challenged through play, but rather repeated. Setting is often used as a term to indicate this sort of game, although people are really using it to refer to all five elements, not just one.

Best,
Ron

Grant:

I fell pretty heavily into the "yes setting" camp for a while, probably influenced by some of the elements Ron notes above.

One thing that got me to break out of it was playing with a system that didn't depend on details. I think D20 encourages details up front, to facilitate some of the gamist goals. You need to know exactly where the orc is so you avoid its reach when you move, and you want to know more about that chest to help you spot a trap. I think it's easy to take that craving for detail and keep going. If the players are going to ask about this, then they'll probably ask about that, and oh, crap, I'll need info on A, B, and C. You can see this in their World Building column in Dragon.

So, anyway, first I broke out of the "must have lots of rules to be good" camp and played some FUDGE. That got me thinking that it'd be easy to just make stuff up on the fly. Follow that up with a game of Sorcerer and Sword, and I was convinced.

Hey, and what's more, GM matters, and players matter, and catering matters...

System Matters does not mean Only System Matters.

The same principles apply to all elements of play. Sure, you can chuck parts of the setting, or alter your catering menu. But isn't it easier to have the setting you want right up front, or have the caterer bring what you want the first time?

Everything matters. OTOH, nobody ever said "catering doesn't matter" (or "setting doesn't matter") hence whey there's no essay on that point.

Mike

P.S. I'm overstating to make a point. Setting's are never complete. As such, you have to tinker with them anyhow (and hell, you might enjoy it). As such, the principle probably applies less. But it applies nonetheless. Especially regarding catering; get it right the first time...

I think there is the biggest most important reason of all why setting gets top billing in all major RPGs. Its really very simple.

System is not copyrightable.
Setting is.

Take your high concept game of choice...Children of the Sun say. All the mechanics...all the time and effort spent on writing them, testing them, balancing them...great. So what. I could write a new game lift the concepts of those mechanics whole cloth (or very nearly so) and if I was feeling particularly friendly put a mention in the acknowledgements. But the WORLD of Children of the Sun. That's sacrosanct. That's owned. That's inviolate (or at least as inviolate as the owners want and can afford it to be).

It makes PERFECT sense that systems are deemphasized and setting held out as being whats really special. Because that's what the publisher really owns as protectable intellectual property. Shane Hensley likely couldn't care less if someone swiped the "deal a card" for initiative system from Dead Lands outside of pointing out its obvious heritage. But start throwing around Manitou, Huxters, and Hanging Judges roaming around the Wierd West and I guarentee he'll have something to say about that.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense. The sad part is that so many people are sheep enough to fall for it.

Several good points above, and Valamirs point especially taken. OTOH, I don't think people are "falling for it" becuase I don't think the system, stripped down and abstracted, decontextualised, would be very meaningful on its own.

Thinking a bit about setting rtecently, it struck me how seldom we distinguish between background and foreground. There is a big difference IMO between the "living in interesting times" part of background, and the setting foreground in which action occurs. Partly I think this arises through the lack of mechanical (not play mechanical, like physical, procedural) distinction between background and foreground, and because we are accustomed to characters implicit foregrounds not being important or destined to overriden so they can all meet in a bar. One could esxtablish a background like "a norman fief" and have very different settings by virtue of whether the foreground of action is in the keep, or in a peasant hovel outside it.

My problem then is that with the Big Settings, which I do find to be interesting and entertaining in their own right, is that there is seldom attention paid to the process of selecting the foreground. I think paying attention to the distinction, and how one selects one as a subset of the other, might be fruitful in terms of exploration of setting and colour.

Setting is usually the hook that gets a group to go "ooo-cool!". Setting is usually the part that sparks the players imaginations and gets them excited about play, and is often the part that gets stuck with defining, "What play is about" where system doesn't or is very subtle about.

It's this ability to convey what the game is supposed to be about that makes a game fly or die, even if the system is wonky. People will play with a "flawed"(incoherent) system, often because they all understand via setting what the game is "supposed" to be about.

Setting also establishes some common ideas, assumptions, and backstory points that allow players to be on the same page as far as play.

Chris

Good point Gareth. I think that Foregrounding a character may be a concept we should discuss further. What's a kicker, but a sort of mini-foreground detail.Hmmm.

Mike

Hey all,

I do not pay any more credence to the nefarious plot idea behind setting-dominance than I do to the theory that simple systems are necessarily more attractive to new gamers or that children are inherently less intelligent than adults, etc ad nauseum. Broad, over-arching grand unified (conspiracy) theories beg too many questions to appeal to me.

On the other hand, Gareth, your point about background/foreground is an excellent one. It deserves its own thread, but I have pondered that same idea. I think it is part of what fails to appeal to me about Setting. The background is a huge amount of information to process, just like a heavy system would be, but fails to tell me just what my character, in the foreground, should be about.

Chris, I think your point is right on the mark. Warhammer 40K has to be one of the worst wargames that I have ever played, but a huge number of people play it--far more than any other wargame I can think of. When asked why they play, the answer is inevitably, "Great setting." Same for the various White Wolf games. The setting speaks directly to people in a way that mechanics never will. "Well, in this game, you roll a twenty-sided regular polyhedron, modified by situational modifiers, to determine whether you can, in fact, do what you want to do." As opposed to: "In this game, you play a vampire with superhuman abilities. Let's talk specifics."

I still believe in setting-lite games, but I can understand the appeal, at least. And maybe my preference lends credence to the idea that Setting Does Matter.

Later,
Grant

Hi Grant,

I think you're misreading Ralph's point about the economics and copyright. He isn't posing a conspiracy or plot. He's talking about the outcome of many instances of individualized self-interest that happen to yield very common results. That kind of thing is (a) widespread across lots of different activities and (b) often mistaken for "conspiracy."

Gareth, your "foreground" already has a name in my framework: Situation.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Gareth, your "foreground" already has a name in my framework: Situation.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Gareth, your "foreground" already has a name in my framework: Situation.

Right, but it's rarely a part of chargen. It's either ignored, to be provided by the GM in a tavern somewhere, or it's always the same in every game. As in Paranioa where the situation is that you are troubleshooters, and you've just been tapped by the computer to go shoot some trouble.

Mike

Pardon my language, but setting damn well matters.

I'm going to throw a crazy idea out there, though: setting in the form we usually see it doesn't matter. Lists of principalities and rulers and such matter little by themselves. What does matter is a setting that provides many places for player characters to enter it.

I'll look at a few of my favorite games:

The Riddle of Steel - This thing is setting-loaded. There's crackloads of info in here. Each country, though, instead of being intricately detailed, is set up with just enough information that the sort of conflicts that might happen there are very apparent. Take the country of Farrenshire, my favorite. It's sandwiched between Stahl, the country of atheist militarism; Oustenreich, the quasi-German sell-out nation that licks Gelure's boots; and Angharad, the nation of clan-based pirates and mysticism. What might happen to these wine-drinkers and cheese-eaters? Well, being a country with a good sea-front, it can be a good launching point for Gelure in a war, so there's some conflict as Gelure tries to rule it. It's close enough to Stahl that they might try to annex it and it's got a very traditional feudal system, so the gentry and the peasants could be at each other's throats in an instant.

That's narrativism without even looking at the system - a setting absolutely packed with conflict is presents.

Sorcerer and Sword - Here's a different sort of setting that matters. You've got a definite sort of visceral fantasy present - with demons that want to tear out your soul for a bedpan. No traditional setting is present (well, we have a few examples), but a baseline setting exists, in that we know what sort of player characters exist, what forces move in the world, and what sort of action can happen. S&S is one of the most setting-heavy games I own, in my opinion, and the setting is what drives the game.

That's just two examples, but you could take a lot of games out there, including Trollbabe, Dungeons and Dragons (want to talk setting-heavy? The "light setting" that comes with the game is full of setting chunks), and Unknown Armies, and look at their settings, all of which are riddled with unfilled holes that fit player characters like puzzle pieces. That's how good setting matters.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Sorcerer and Sword - Here's a different sort of setting that matters. You've got a definite sort of visceral fantasy present - with demons that want to tear out your soul for a bedpan. No traditional setting is present (well, we have a few examples), but a baseline setting exists, in that we know what sort of player characters exist, what forces move in the world, and what sort of action can happen. S&S is one of the most setting-heavy games I own, in my opinion, and the setting is what drives the game.

Hi there,

Maybe we need to make a distinction here between setting in actual play and setting presented in the rule book. I'd suggest that setting isn't necessary in a rule book, but is necessary for actual play. In fact, setting is created by the act of role-play as the imaginary world is explored.

A more interesting question: What elements of setting contribute best to coherent play? I mean to suggest that the GNS options will each be best supported by different details of setting.

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!"

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.

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

Ron Edwards wrote:
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

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.

Ron Edwards wrote: ...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....

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

Ron Edwards wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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

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?"

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

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?

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

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

Simon Hibbs wrote: 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?

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

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

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?

Simon Hibbs wrote: 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.

Then Simon wrote: 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.

Then he wrote: 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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

Blake Hutchins wrote: 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.

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.