Quote from: TonyLBYou've travelled a long way from your initial statement that RPGs were all about "presenting" a setting.  Agreed?

Like ... the Greyhawk Gazeteer, back in the day, presented a setting.  It gave you that huge honkin' map, and lots of info on what was where, what you could do with it, and so on.

The Champions rulebook ... I, personally, wouldn't claim that it presents a setting in that way.  There's no map, no city names, no ... no nothing!  There's art that has a certain feel, adventures that include some four-color elements, and rules examples that seem geared toward a world somewhere between the 1920s and the near future (strength is measured in terms of lifting busses and tanks, but not dinosaurs or ether-zeppelins).  Is that what you're talking about when you say that it "invokes" setting ... that the game does seem built to be played in combination with some setting, even if it gives no information whatsoever on that setting?  Because that really doesn't strike me as being quite as strong a claim.

A game does not have to present a setting overtly, it can imply a setting. That's what Champions does. Or it can suggest a feel, much as FUDGE does. But even more importantly, the game's system shows how things work in that game. We see how the world works through the system. That is what I'm referring to when I speak of presentation.

How things work in an RPG is determined by the system. Since the action takes place in a world, a setting, the system therefor determines how the setting works. By this we see what sort of setting events take place in as determined by the system.

By the same token, the setting and the setting assumptions shape the system. Even when the type of setting is only implied, it will affect how the system is done. A world of epic adventure produces a system that emphasizes epic play. One of gritty action a system that emphasizes such.

My point is, RPG design works best when you start with a vision; with some idea of what you want to do. What sort of game do you want? What is the feel you're looking for? Answer that and you'll go far towards producing the sort of RPG you want.

Consider Synnibar and Rifts. Both are rightly known as kitchen sink games. No focus, not really. Both have a vision, but both are incoherent. You can get some idea of what their respective designers were going for, but matters are so confused it becomes nigh impossible to see if the designs work.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.X was once a coherent design. It was focused, it had a goal and it fulfilled that goal well. Now it's swelled so it has become incoherent. So much has been added over the years you honestly can't make sense of it.

That is what I hope I can help people avoid. Keep in mind what you're trying to do, what sort of game you're designing, and how things work in your game. Remember at all times how things fit together and you should avoid incoherency in favor of something that makes sense.

Quote from: James J Skachwhoa whoa whoa.  I'm not saying anything negative (or positive) in my statement.  Or, to be more accurate, I didn't intend to.

Didn't say you did. However, you did express two opinions I found interesting, and I wanted to get to the root of what elements of the books formed the foundation of those opinions.

Quote from: James J SkachThe feel in 3e was just my take on it.  Partially due to the included example, partly because of the character (Dai, IIRC), partly because that was my focus when I bought it, partly becuase of the focus on HTH combat.  I mean, all of those things evoked that gut reaction in me.

4e was just...different.  The expansion of Advantages and Disadvantages to include things that just struck me as more Sci Fi/Superhero than Fantasy, The Infinite Worlds stuff. It just evoked a different feel.  Thie other big difference, for me, is that the rules portion seemed much more generic to me this time around - so the included stuff (characters, Inifinte Worlds) had even more influence on my reaction.

So, would it be fair to say you were looking for a default setting?

Quote from: mythusmageA game does not have to present a setting overtly, it can imply a setting. That's what Champions does. Or it can suggest a feel, much as FUDGE does. But even more importantly, the game's system shows how things work in that game. We see how the world works through the system. That is what I'm referring to when I speak of presentation.

So if I present a game and I never refer to any setting element (as in Breaking the Ice, or Primetime Adventures), have no in-story art, and basically say nothing that wouldn't equally well for both "cave-men hitting each other with clubs" and "modern runway models trying to support each other in the hard-hitting world of professional fashion" ... as long as I've got rules I've presented a setting?

That's a stretch, man.  Once you've redefined the words to that point, what does your original statement really tell us?

Quote from: PaulChapmanSo, would it be fair to say you were looking for a default setting?

Nope!  In fact, I liked the 4e in this regard - that the rules portion seemed even more generic.  It's been a couple of months since I broke it out to read, but it's about time to again - perhaps after the new year - and I'll see if it evokes the same reaction (now that I'm more aware of it).

It's one of the things I think WOTC does wrong with D&D.  Leave it at the fantasy and stop trying to provide a default setting.  It seems they can't decide one way or the other and it just makes things confusing. D&D should use d20 to move towards the GURPS model - make the rules generic and make your bones on the setting and extensions.

But that's just me and I wouldn't want you to spur your own competition

Quote from: TonyLBSo if I present a game and I never refer to any setting element (as in Breaking the Ice, or Primetime Adventures), have no in-story art, and basically say nothing that wouldn't equally well for both "cave-men hitting each other with clubs" and "modern runway models trying to support each other in the hard-hitting world of professional fashion" ... as long as I've got rules I've presented a setting?

That's a stretch, man.  Once you've redefined the words to that point, what does your original statement really tell us?

Wrong Tony, the system itself references the setting. The rules of an RPG are how the RPG's world works. Even when you have no overt setting the system you use implies the setting. When you have a rule saying you need a special ability to track a quarry, you are saying something about how things work in that world. A game where a man can die from stubbing his big toe is a very different place from one where a man can easily survive a fall of 10,000 feet. System shapes setting, setting shapes system. Knowing what you're trying for will help you get it right.

BtI in particular has a very strong assumption of setting.

Quote from: droogBtI in particular has a very strong assumption of setting.

How do you mean, droog?

Your characters will be a couple that goes on several dates. That's it right there, no matter whether the colour is Warsaw in 1939 or New York in 1999. But I suspect fundamentally different definitions of 'setting' operating here.

When an RPG presents no specific setting, assume bog standard for the genre.