AS I'm thinking about various games, I'm not seeing two ingredients, but three:

System - the rules
Setting - the physical and social milieu
Accoutrements - the things, the objects encountered

Now D&D - and FtA! - has plenty of System, an almost-there Setting, and tons of Accoutrements.

CoC has a neat little System, tons of Setting, and few Accoutrements

I see my own games all over the place here. Some games, like Sweet Chariot and Cold Space, are all about the Setting. Others, like In Harm's Way, have almost no Setting, but lots of Accoutrements.

Everyone talks about System and Setting, but few people talk about Accoutrements - or rather talk about Accoutrements as if they were just color - when they are one of the principle ingredients in games.

Thoughts?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceAS I'm thinking about various games, I'm not seeing two ingredients, but three:

System - the rules
Setting - the physical and social milieu
Accoutrements - the things, the objects encountered

Now D&D - and FtA! - has plenty of System, an almost-there Setting, and tons of Accoutrements.

CoC has a neat little System, tons of Setting, and few Accoutrements

I see my own games all over the place here. Some games, like Sweet Chariot and Cold Space, are all about the Setting. Others, like In Harm's Way, have almost no Setting, but lots of Accoutrements.

Everyone talks about System and Setting, but few people talk about Accoutrements - or rather talk about Accoutrements as if they were just color - when they are one of the principle ingredients in games.

Thoughts?

-clash

Ok, are you meaning Accoutrements as in: Monsters,places, and fantastic things?

I don't actually see a big reason why they should be on the same hierarchical level. They're obviously a subset of point two. How big the subset is, depends on the game, of course. But both rules and setting can have "neat little tidbits".

Quote from: McrowOk, are you meaning Accoutrements as in: Monsters,places, and fantastic things?

I mean Sword+1, +2 vs. reptiles, or a steam dirigible, or an elephant gun, or a sentient spaceship, or a light sabre. Things that define the game. Places and Monsters are Setting, but not that Helm of Telepathy.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceEveryone talks about System and Setting, but few people talk about Accoutrements - or rather talk about Accoutrements as if they were just color - when they are one of the principle ingredients in games.

Thoughts?

-clash

Yeah. That's why i'm actually using accoutrements to imply the setting as much as possible, rather than just being colour. Difficult to do in a generic game though. Really, you need a bit of a narrow focus to do that properly.

Quote from: flyingmiceI mean Sword+1, +2 vs. reptiles, or a steam dirigible, or an elephant gun, or a sentient spaceship, or a light sabre. Things that define the game. Places and Monsters are Setting, but not that Helm of Telepathy.

-clash

hmmmm....well....then I'm lost.:confused:

Pretty much every game has something like that, some have more than others.

Quote from: One Horse TownYeah. That's why i'm actually using accoutrements to imply the setting as much as possible, rather than just being colour. Difficult to do in a generic game though. Really, you need a bit of a narrow focus to do that properly.

Ah, Dan! You've thought on this before? I thought I was the only one.

-clash

So, you talk about equipment? That's hard to grasp with the usual division between system and setting, with CP2020s chromebooks being the premier case IMO.

But yeah, I can see the worth of more and more ammunition for actual play (a term in which I include monsters, crunchy bits and everything else that can be thrown in as an in-game entity). Can't have enough especially for long-term play, unless it turns into dull nitpicking about hard-cured sausage rations vs peas-flour sausage rations.

Quote from: Mcrowhmmmm....well....then I'm lost.:confused:

Pretty much every game has something like that, some have more than others.

Yes - that was my point. Take lightsabres out of Star Wars and it immediately looses cool, yet it's not really the Star Wars Setting. Accoutrements are part of what defines games, but they are seldom pointed out as important.

-clash

Ah. I think i misunderstood actually, given Mcrows post and your response. I was basically meshing things and places together in my thinking. For SH, both of those will actually inform the path of the campaign.

Quote from: flyingmiceYes - that was my point. Take lightsabres out of Star Wars and it immediately looses cool, yet it's not really the Star Wars Setting. Accoutrements are part of what defines games, but they are seldom pointed out as important.

But where does one draw the line? Starfighters are pretty essential to Star Wars...

Quote from: flyingmiceYes - that was my point. Take lightsabres out of Star Wars and it immediately looses cool, yet it's not really the Star Wars Setting. Accoutrements are part of what defines games, but they are seldom pointed out as important.

-clash

Ok, then were're on the same page.

I think they are sometimes used when a writer runs out of cool setting ideas and have so-so rules.

It's sort of a crutch I think." Oh, this setting is bit bland. What should I do? I know, lets have samurai like dudes with swords of light!"

Not to say using accoutrements is bad, like Dan mentioned, in a generic game it can be a good way to add a trasnparent setting.

In a game where the setting is more established accoutrements can overpower the setting if not done correctly. There's a balance.

See, I consider "accouterments" as part of setting. It is a defining part. What is in the world is as important as who and where. Can you find a gun? Yeah, but what kind. An example would be if I say you find a breach loading flintlock. It is part of the setting but not the defining aspect. So, I expand.

You find a breach loading flintlock on the white sandy beach of a tropical paradise. What and where...we are getting close to a setting.

You find a breach loading flintlock on the white sandy beach of a tropical paradise grasped in the hand of a gnarled pirate clasping the tattered remains of a British flag. What, where, and who...you have the whole picture.

Note: I am not making a value statement here just trying to show how I believe that description and accouterments are part of the part of the definition of Setting.

So, with my games, I try to emphasize elements that are defining and leave the GM to fill int he rest.

Also, I would say certain genres are predisposed to larger emphasis on different elements. Nebuleon (sci-fi) needs a ridiculous amount of equipment. Shades of Earth (1938 pulp) needs more description. I imagine you IHW does not need much description since it is based on specific books and targeted at fans of the period. What you needed was definition of equipment in order to enable interaction of th system with the setting. For me, building the interface is usually the trickiest part since you need to let go of preconcieved notions like "Wow! I loved my +1,+2 Reptile slayer in DND. I will add it to Shades of Earth". That just does not fit. But "Snake Oil" that does random health things...hell yes!

Just my take on it though.
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I consider "accouterments" as part of setting. It is a defining part. What is in the world is as important as who and where. Can you find a gun? Yeah, but what kind. An example would be if I say you find a breach loading flintlock. It is part of the setting but not the defining aspect. So, I expand.

You find a breach loading flintlock on the white sandy beach of a tropical paradise. What and where...we are getting close to a setting.

You find a breach loading flintlock on the white sandy beach of a tropical paradise grasped in the hand of a gnarled pirate clasping the tattered remains of a British flag. What, where, and who...you have the whole picture.

Note: I am not making a value statement here just trying to show how I believe that description and accouterments are part of the part of the definition of Setting.

So, with my games, I try to emphasize elements that are defining and leave the GM to fill int he rest.

Also, I would say certain genres are predisposed to larger emphasis on different elements. Nebuleon (sci-fi) needs a ridiculous amount of equipment. Shades of Earth (1938 pulp) needs more description. I imagine you IHW does not need much description since it is based on specific books and targeted at fans of the period. What you needed was definition of equipment in order to enable interaction of th system with the setting. For me, building the interface is usually the trickiest part since you need to let go of preconcieved notions like "Wow! I loved my +1,+2 Reptile slayer in DND. I will add it to Shades of Earth". That just does not fit. But "Snake Oil" that does random health things...hell yes!

Just my take on it though.
Bill

Yeah, that's why I have a hard time with the concept. I think they are too closely realated to the setting to be completely seperate.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I consider "accouterments" as part of setting. It is a defining part. What is in the world is as important as who and where. Can you find a gun? Yeah, but what kind. An example would be if I say you find a breach loading flintlock. It is part of the setting but not the defining aspect. So, I expand.

You find a breach loading flintlock on the white sandy beach of a tropical paradise. What and where...we are getting close to a setting.

You find a breach loading flintlock on the white sandy beach of a tropical paradise grasped in the hand of a gnarled pirate clasping the tattered remains of a British flag. What, where, and who...you have the whole picture.

Note: I am not making a value statement here just trying to show how I believe that description and accouterments are part of the part of the definition of Setting.

So, with my games, I try to emphasize elements that are defining and leave the GM to fill int he rest.

Also, I would say certain genres are predisposed to larger emphasis on different elements. Nebuleon (sci-fi) needs a ridiculous amount of equipment. Shades of Earth (1938 pulp) needs more description. I imagine you IHW does not need much description since it is based on specific books and targeted at fans of the period. What you needed was definition of equipment in order to enable interaction of th system with the setting. For me, building the interface is usually the trickiest part since you need to let go of preconcieved notions like "Wow! I loved my +1,+2 Reptile slayer in DND. I will add it to Shades of Earth". That just does not fit. But "Snake Oil" that does random health things...hell yes!

Just my take on it though.
Bill

Excellent point, Bill! The Accoutrements are a major part of the interface between character and Setting. I can see folks thinking of them as part of the Setting, but I am seeing them as something separate - more modular, and somewhere between character and setting. You are certainly correct about IHW - the setting is assumed, and can be inferred from the Accoutrements. Maybe they are part of the setting, but they are a major part.

Sosthenes - starships are vital to the setting of StarWars, but the difference between Setting and Accoutrements is like the difference between the Jedi and lightsabres. You could have Jedi without lightsabres, though they wouldn't be as cool. Now, I'm trying to explain something that just struck me and which I haven't yet fully grasped, but I'm seeing a difference there. Maybe I'm way off base - I've been known to go down wrong paths before - but that's OK. Sometimes interesting things come of wrong paths.
 
Dan - my thinking is that both System and Setting are aknowleged as important, but Accoutrements are usually thought of as window dressing when they are actually a vital part of defining and interacting with that setting. A good balance is most important, but where that balance point is is determined by the game, or rather helps to determine the game.

-clash