TheRPGSite

Proposed

That the purpose of RPG design is the presentation of a setting suited to the style and genre of game desired by the designer. With the system focused towards that end.

Furthermore, this holds true when generic, cross-genre, and multi-genre games are considered. This because each designer has a specific vision of what an RPG is about, and how it can best be used for. Thus each system will work best to emulate a particular style. So that a generic system designed by one will have a different flavor than a system designed by another.

Quote from: mythusmageProposed

That the purpose of RPG design is the presentation of a setting suited to the style and genre of game desired by the designer. With the system focused towards that end.

Furthermore, this holds true when generic, cross-genre, and multi-genre games are considered. This because each designer has a specific vision of what an RPG is about, and how it can best be used for. Thus each system will work best to emulate a particular style. So that a generic system designed by one will have a different flavor than a system designed by another.

Nah - S'crap - the really good games - DnD, Vampire, Star Wars, Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, Dogs all present a situation loaded for conflict, but the precise feel of that conflict is left to the players.

The designers job is to enable players.

Where does it all take place?

The obvious answer is that "it all takes place in a setting". On the other hand, the setting is an imaginary place that only exists in the head of the GM, and (to the extent that he/she can communicate it to the players) in the heads of the players.

D&D, Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel, True 20, and whatnot all come without a exhaustively-described gameworld to play in - some of them occasionally hint at stuff in their core setting, but ultimately the setting of the game is something which the GM can almost make up as he/she goes along. People got along fine with D&D for years without any campaign settings being published for it - heck the old Greyhawk and Blackmoor books for OD&D were more collections of Gygax and Arneson's house rules than campaign world gazetteers.

Quote from: mythusmageThat the purpose of RPG design is the presentation of a setting suited to the style and genre of game desired by the designer. With the system focused towards that end.

How would you view game systems like old school Champions, where no setting information is provided?

Quote from: TonyLBHow would you view game systems like old school Champions, where no setting information is provided?

Not explicitely, but the action all takes place somewhere. Where it be obvious, or assumed, it takes place somewhere.

Champions, it was assumed, took place in a world much like that of the 4-color comics of the day. The system, the art, the adventures were all geared towards that asumption. Same as the D&D of the period was aimed at a romanticised fantasy world. Whether laid out, or left to the imagination, all RPGs take place somewhere. They can't avoid it.

We are creatures of many parts. Among these Man is a creature of place. We have to be somewhere. We get anxious and fretful if we don't know where we are. Our entertainments need place, they need to be somewhere. Even if that place is a series of cubelike rooms set with nefarious traps. When the victims/characters find themselves in a cube-room that seems familiar we and they draw comfort from the familiarity. We know where we are.

When a designer goes to design an RPG his first task is to decide on what sort of RPG he is going to make. What is he trying to do? What sort of style, flavor, genre is he seeking to emulate? What sort of world, what sort of place, will things happen? Even when the setting is only implied the designer is designing for a setting. Thus it has always been.

Look at the rules around your home. What worlds do they suggest to you? Is the fantasy of Burning Wheel the same as the fantasy of Dungeons & Dragons? Yet both evoke the same general images, though the emphasis and flavor remain very different. Even when the system is written to be generic, it will evoke a flavor all its own. It will suggest a setting, and most of the time GMs will find themselves creating settings that adhere to those suggestions as the GM understands it.

The lack of a setting with the rules does not mean an RPG does not have a setting. What it does mean is that you, the players, need to find that setting for yourselves.

Okay, but let's look at what you said again.

QuoteThat the purpose of RPG design is the presentation of a setting suited to the style and genre of game desired by the designer. With the system focused towards that end.

Champions, Classic Traveller if you stuck to the core rulebooks, Burning Wheel, D&D, all have assumed settings - or assume that you're working within the group of settings implied by the system. On the other hand, I think the term "assumed setting" is misleading. There's uncountable numbers of ways you can spin out the implications of the basic rulesets to make staggeringly different worlds. In fact, all the "assumed setting" consists of is... wait for it... pointers towards the style and genre the game is desired to be a part of. "4-colour comics" is a genre, not a world.

And an RPG doesn't even need that. What would you consider the assumed setting of FUDGE or GURPS to be?

And GURPS is a weird one for me.  In the 3e book, it seems to tile towards fantasy - I mean IIRC the example adventure is fantasy-ish.

Then I go and get the 4e, and it's completely different.  I mean, it's all about this - I don't know - parallel universes thing.  Which is cool, but it's not traditional fantasy like the 3e.

The rules were changed/streamlined/updated/etc.  But the basic mechanic and chargen stuff were, from a 50,000 foot perspective, the same.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd GURPS is a weird one for me.  In the 3e book, it seems to tile towards fantasy - I mean IIRC the example adventure is fantasy-ish.

Did the rules actually strike you as "assuming fantasy," or are you basing that on the inclusion of a fantasy scenario in the sample section?

Quote from: James J SkachThen I go and get the 4e, and it's completely different.  I mean, it's all about this - I don't know - parallel universes thing.  Which is cool, but it's not traditional fantasy like the 3e.

For Fourth Edition, the rules are completely separate from the sample setting (Infinite Worlds). Obviously, I've spent a good deal of time with my head in the Basic Set (both for work and for my current -- and next -- campaign), but I can't see any "parallel universe" bias.

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

I have never actually played in a GURPS game.  I would change one fundamental thing about it (that would end up changing the entire foundational mechanic, but hey, who's counting?), but I love it.  I Love the idea of it.

The 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 in a weird way (which is the exact word I used) this difference proves the point about GURPS not having a specific genre.  It's what I'd consider the fundamental layer of the RPG Stack.

Quote from: WarthurOkay, but let's look at what you said again.



Champions, Classic Traveller if you stuck to the core rulebooks, Burning Wheel, D&D, all have assumed settings - or assume that you're working within the group of settings implied by the system. On the other hand, I think the term "assumed setting" is misleading. There's uncountable numbers of ways you can spin out the implications of the basic rulesets to make staggeringly different worlds. In fact, all the "assumed setting" consists of is... wait for it... pointers towards the style and genre the game is desired to be a part of. "4-colour comics" is a genre, not a world.

And an RPG doesn't even need that. What would you consider the assumed setting of FUDGE or GURPS to be?

But genre automatically assumes a type of world. When you think of science fiction you do not think of knights and dragons. Nor do you think of lonely estates on the moors when you hear the words, "Action/adventure." Each genre comes with it's own set of assumptions, and it's a rare person who thinks outside.

I agree that the specifics can work out differently for each person, but in general settings that start from similar assumptions will tend to be similar over all.

Now let's take a look at FUDGE. Now I have no real knowledge of the rules, so I'm going to ask a few questions. What is the feel? What is the style? How do things work out in play? What type of game is FUDGE best suited for? Is it adventure, intrigue, or exploration. Do mysteries work best, or straightforward action..

That aside, even when a system suggests no style of play, it will still invoke setting, because it can't be avoided. The action has to take place somewhere. It's all about location. Where is it? How do you get there? What happens when you get there? What happens after you leave? Even when the setting is a formal abstraction, it occurs somewhere. We are world makers, and without a world we are helpless.

GURPS I see as a gritty, quasi-realistic style, Dangerous Journeys is more on the heroic end, and Toon is Tex Avery after 5 cups of coffee. Each has its own way of establishing the where. Not only the what, but the how and why as well. A slave market in GURPS Fantasy is a rather different creature than a slave market in Dangerous Journeys: Mythus, and the two very different from a slave market in The Forgotten Realms. The same genre, but different styles.

Then too all designers, whether they want to admit it or not, have their preferences. Luke Crane prefers a different style of fantasy than Gary Gygax. Steven S. Long prefers a different style of 4-color superhero than Chris Pramas. The system in use will determine how the world works.

That's the heart of the matter, how things work. What is possible, what is impossible. How the people and creatures alike fit into and interact with the setting, and how the setting works. d20 has increasing hit points as skill improves, True20 has improving wound saves instead. Each sets a different feeling, a different style though the setting be similar in general.

Think of it this way, it is not that lead should be denser than water, but that lead is denser than water. The same applies to setting. A setting is not something an RPG should have, but something an RPG will have. Even when that setting is implied. How the system work, how it feels will establish the setting. At the very least it will inform what sort of setting it is, and how events occur in that setting.

It comes down to this, what sort of RPG do you want to play? What sort of adventures do you want to participate in? Is it cyberpunk romance or fantasy horror? Perhaps a space opera western? What sort of system best suits your purpose overall? How can a system be best used for your purposes?

In short, system matters. William Stoddard (GURPS Fantasy) once ran a "Sauron Won" scenario using the BESM system. Because it best suited the style and feel he wanted. True, he had an explicit setting; but what I speak of still applies.

Genre aside, what sort of RPG do you want to create? Once you've decided on that how things work in the game, the system can be easily determined.

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.

I have never actually played in a GURPS game.  I would change one fundamental thing about it (that would end up changing the entire foundational mechanic, but hey, who's counting?), but I love it.  I Love the idea of it.

The 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 in a weird way (which is the exact word I used) this difference proves the point about GURPS not having a specific genre.  It's what I'd consider the fundamental layer of the RPG Stack.

By and large I agree regarding GURPS, you can use the system for most any genre you wish. But, it does work best with a particular style of game. It emulates well a gritty quasi-realistic style. Thus it evokes well a gritty, quasi-realistic feel in the settings. GURPS is, all in all, the best at handling intrigue, politics, and diplomacy of any system I've seen yet. Dangerous Journeys is the only system I know besides GURPS that handles cross-genre play as well, though feel is radically different.

Quote from: mythusmageThat aside, even when a system suggests no style of play, it will still invoke setting, because it can't be avoided. The action has to take place somewhere.

You'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.

Quote from: mythusmageBy and large I agree regarding GURPS, you can use the system for most any genre you wish. But, it does work best with a particular style of game. It emulates well a gritty quasi-realistic style. Thus it evokes well a gritty, quasi-realistic feel in the settings. GURPS is, all in all, the best at handling intrigue, politics, and diplomacy of any system I've seen yet. Dangerous Journeys is the only system I know besides GURPS that handles cross-genre play as well, though feel is radically different.

So Genre is different than Realism is different than Method is different than Style.

I only ask to get input into my Layers (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3408) thread.

Quote from: James J SkachI only ask to get input into my Layers (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3408) thread.

Ooooooh!  Sneaky! :D

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.