This is a spinoff from Front-loaded relationship-driven Nar/Sim overlap, in a way--that's what led me to think this way, and it's relevant to the discussion there.

I had been touching on this a week or so ago in another thread, but I don't recall what or why.

System (according to Lumpley) is that by which the content of the shared imaginary space is formed. It includes distribution of credibility, resolution mechanics, narration rights, and more.

In a sense, it is obvious that the setting is integrated into the shared imaginary space; one could argue that the setting is given a certain measure of credibility of its own (or more accurately that the setting, if in written form, has authority which is referenced by those with the credibility to incorporate it into the shared space), but I think that setting is itself part of the system that determines what happens in that space.

In the thread mentioned above, it appeared that front-loading a heavily premise-laden setting into virtually any game engine will result in thematic play of a narrativist sort. It is argued there as to what to call that, and whether it is simulationism or narrativism. I think the confusion there comes from the idea that the setting is distinct from the system.

I would maintain that it is not distinct. Setting is part of system; it is drama-based resolution of in-game reality, that is, someone (whether an author or a someone at the table) gets to say what the reality of the world is, and that reality controls events within it. Further, as part of the system, the setting has a significant impact on the nature of play within the game.

It occurred to me as I considered this that I see it often in Multiverser, precisely because setting keeps changing. I've got a few settings that scream gamism, and nearly everyone who lands in them winds up playing gamist. Others have significant themes built into the setting, and many (although not all) players go with the themes in a narrativist fashion. Because the core engine does not address theme or demand challenge (but supports both if called upon to do so), the move to a new universe means that new setting material is being loaded into the existing system--and thus becoming part of the system, because it controls events within the shared imaginary space.

Thus even though Multiverser is a universal engine which in some sense runs the same regardless of setting, as soon as play begins setting becomes part of the system--and if setting changes, that means system also changes (even apart from the inherent adjustments made by the engine itself).

I do not mean to say that it doesn't matter what game engine you use for play; that can make a significant difference in many ways. However, I think that if you're asking what system to use for a setting, you probably should think about it a bit differently: into what system will this setting more easily integrate? That seems to be what is being asked.

--M. J. Young

Well... yes.

If we're agreed that the system is what's being explored, and exploration is the fundamental basis for all htree modes, then the constraints, expectations and opportunities imposed on play by the setting must influence mode of play.

Not dictate, necessarily, but certainly effect.

Examples: The Forgotten Realms seems to me (haven't played in years) to be pretty much devoid of themes, and tends to promote gamist and simulaitonist play.

Glorantha (which I knwo a LOT better than FR) has a whole mess of thematic conflicts (the Hero Wars) kicking off right at the start of the default setting (Dragon Pass, 1621). Play styles promoted are Sim and Nar (which is possibly why RuneQuest, with it's highly detailed, personal level mechanisms, seems in retrospect a poor fit for Glorantha as presented in the setting material).

Marc Millers 3rd Imperium was oginally only hinted at in early traveller (leading, iirc, to a lot of gam/sim inside ref built sectors): even when the rebellion kicked off in MegaTraveller, the playing out of themes tended to be at a high level above PC influence, but the increased details of the background allowed a shift in balance from the heavy gam style of early traveller to more interest in the sim exploration of the Traveller universe.

And that's just at a high level, product line view of things, outside of individual games.

Now, if there's congruence in play goals between the setting and the mechanical parts of the system, all well and good, but if the mechanics work against the system (RuneQuest & Glorantha), then incoherence and drift must occur: either the setting drifts to accomodate the play promoted by the mechanics (as mostly happened in RQ: check the Glorantha Digest for arguments over inconsistencies between how Greg was creating Glorantha and how it was played and written in RQ supplements), or the system drifts to better simulate the setting (usualy with house rules, but occassionaly with revised rule editions, etc.)

Since Multiverser is designed as a mechanical engine for playing in multiple settings, it tends to support Gam/Sim. There are parts of it which work slighly against certain elements (I think the lack of perma-death slightly cushions some gam elements, frex), but it means that a large part of Sim and all Nar has to be provided by the other elements of the system, especially the setting. But because it has been designed to accomodate Nar and setting exploration (granted, without much mechanical support), it less "drifty" in my mind than the Gam/Sim/Nar train wreck that was RQ Glorantha.

Well, that's how things look in my cold addled tiny mind anyhow.

Hello,

I have always found my phrasing that System adds "in-game time" to Situation, and that Situation is composed of Character + Setting, to be adequate for most role-playing. Procedurally speaking, it's not possible to segregate the five elements from one another in any useful way; the procedures of role-playing integrate them by definition.

Best,
Ron

So I think what you are saying is setting is software, system is hardware(Not a perfect analogy, as there is some feedback between the two, as pete mentioned), although they are
both components of the (need a term?) game(what results).

I suppose this makes the question: Given that one wants to encourage a certian type of play, how does one make the setting to do that?

Hi James,

The most general answer to your question is, remember that Setting will interact with the Characters to produce Situation, and all role-playing concerns Situation. Whether Setting drives or overwhelms or "grabs" Characters, or whether Character stride about seizing aspects of Setting, is another question.

Best,
Ron

I believe something to remember is, system is partially defined by setting. The fact is, you cannot necessarily play three radically different settings with precisely the same system, not without making modifications to take into account the laws and rules of the setting. You have the various playable species, magic or no magic, degrees of weaponry from primitive to super-modern to right-out-the-window advanced... system is molded in part by setting, must be able to shift to accomodate the goals you are seeking for your players and world.

A good case in point was the discussion a little bit ago about character sheets. Character sheets reflect the setting as much as the system, for they are designed around the abilities and needs of the characters. To some extent, they are a bridge, helping to connect the one and the other on a concrete level. Many other aspects act as similar bridges, drawing the yin and yang that are setting and system together, melding them so that each influences the other in certain definite ways. Are you seeking a setting for high adventure and amazing feats? Well, that is going to affect the system. Are you looking for something more gritty and brutal? This, again, will affect the system. Ultimately, the two are reliant upon each other; changing one has definite effects on the other.