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

I call it support. For example GURPS may be a fine System but I just had the basic book there is little support any specific genre. I would have to do a fair amount of work to use GURPS in a detailed campaign just with the basic.

Or Traveller it has a system to generate all that stuff but you have sit down and either roll it or figure it out (in the case of starship).

Or the original folio/ boxed set of Greyhawk. It give you a basic overview and a basic encyclopedia of the land but to use it in actual play I would have make a more detail map of an area and some village and add details to one of the cities in the region.

I think support or Accoutrements as you call it can indeed be a strong point or weak point of a RPG.

Rob Conley

clash

For me, accouterments, setting and system are closely intertwined. Games with settings require a complimentary set of accouterments to properly convery the feeling of the setting and give concrete examples of key concepts. Runebearer makes little sense without lots of examples of runes. You could understand the magic rules mechanically, but their feel (and how they tie in with the setting) would be lost. Similarly, in a game about giant mecha, I would hope there would be a lot of examples of 40' tall, butt-kicking robots.

On the other hand, you have games that don't explicitly have a setting. In this case, I find that the accouterments create a de facto setting. Are magic swords of the +1 variety, or do they all have a history and special powers? If there are a proliferation of magic items, the question has to creep into your brain: who is making all of these items? Cool stuff is meant to be used and when it is used, it shapes the players' sense of the game environment.

So, as diverse as the myriad of fantasy worlds are, they all have magic missile spells and +1 swords?  This is the D&D paradigm. My world is called Oerth and yours Tim, but they all feel a lot like "another D&D world." Contrast this to Arcana Evolved, which uses the same system, but changes every single accouterment. The result is D&D, but with a different feel to it.

Just a few random thoughts,

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.

Unless a RPG is about defining a genre and supports many different setting and styles of play. Then "accouterments" are definite an issue because otherwise the curve to get into actual play would be steep.

For example if Forward to the Adventure! had only a quarter of the items, monsters, and spells. Would it be considered a better product or a worse product?

The big pain of even the best of the generic system is the lack of "Stuff" in the initial book. (Hero and GURPS for example) Once you get going and have a few campaigns under your belt and have put together your library of stuff it becomes a lot easier.

Quote from: cmagounclash

For me, accouterments, setting and system are closely intertwined. Games with settings require a complimentary set of accouterments to properly convery the feeling of the setting and give concrete examples of key concepts. Runebearer makes little sense without lots of examples of runes. You could understand the magic rules mechanically, but their feel (and how they tie in with the setting) would be lost. Similarly, in a game about giant mecha, I would hope there would be a lot of examples of 40' tall, butt-kicking robots.

On the other hand, you have games that don't explicitly have a setting. In this case, I find that the accouterments create a de facto setting. Are magic swords of the +1 variety, or do they all have a history and special powers? If there are a proliferation of magic items, the question has to creep into your brain: who is making all of these items? Cool stuff is meant to be used and when it is used, it shapes the players' sense of the game environment.

So, as diverse as the myriad of fantasy worlds are, they all have magic missile spells and +1 swords?  This is the D&D paradigm. My world is called Oerth and yours Tim, but they all feel a lot like "another D&D world." Contrast this to Arcana Evolved, which uses the same system, but changes every single accouterment. The result is D&D, but with a different feel to it.

Just a few random thoughts,

I agree with everything here! This is exactly what I am trying to get at!

-clash

Quote from: estarUnless a RPG is about defining a genre and supports many different setting and styles of play. Then "accouterments" are definite an issue because otherwise the curve to get into actual play would be steep.

For example if Forward to the Adventure! had only a quarter of the items, monsters, and spells. Would it be considered a better product or a worse product?

The big pain of even the best of the generic system is the lack of "Stuff" in the initial book. (Hero and GURPS for example) Once you get going and have a few campaigns under your belt and have put together your library of stuff it becomes a lot easier.

Exactly, estar! The Accoutrements are the prime tools for the characters. When you define the Accoutrements, you begin defining your game.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWhen you define the Accoutrements, you begin defining your game.
-clash

I say that depends. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. For example traveller. The only "Accouterments" that "defines" the basic game is the Jump Drive and and the no FTL Commuication system. Other than those everything works with any type of SF Genre.

Now I will say the fact that the Trade and Commerce rules are in there makes it way easier to run a merchant campaign than any other type of sf adventure.

I also want to point out that there may be a possible fourth category. I call it a Game within a Game. The canonical example would be Traveler's Trade and Commerce Rules. Some would say that it part of System. But I say it different as a "Game within a Game" could be run as its own game not as a RPG. Starship Combat often works like this. Basically it seems to be that "Games within a Game" are used as simulators to focus more detail on on aspect of a genre or setting.

Quote from: estarI say that depends. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. For example traveller. The only "Accouterments" that "defines" the basic game is the Jump Drive and and the no FTL Commuication system. Other than those everything works with any type of SF Genre.

There's more. The prevalence of firearms over energy weapons, the standardized (Scout, Far Trader, etc.) ship designs, the immense amount of military and paramilitary gear, blade weapons used for combat, etc.

Quote from: estarNow I will say the fact that the Trade and Commerce rules are in there makes it way easier to run a merchant campaign than any other type of sf adventure.

I also want to point out that there may be a possible fourth category. I call it a Game within a Game. The canonical example would be Traveler's Trade and Commerce Rules. Some would say that it part of System. But I say it different as a "Game within a Game" could be run as its own game not as a RPG. Starship Combat often works like this. Basically it seems to be that "Games within a Game" are used as simulators to focus more detail on on aspect of a genre or setting.

That's also an interesting observation! I like games within games!

-clash

Marvellous! Nope, Clash you're not the first to think of this, just part of some kind of zeitgeist--not that there's anything wrong with that. Sett nailed a very important source of D&D's success, the building blocks = "accoutrements".

And then jarcane started a thread on "implied setting" that tied in.

The neat thing I see about this trend is that it dovetails with the highfalutin' concept of "bricolage" advanced by Chris Lehrich, which I read as saying that "old school" RPGs operate through an inside-out "tinkering" mode, as building blocks are welded onto the existing situation. In this mode of play, instead of asking "What is the best tool to accomplish X?", there's a greater emphasis on "What can I do with this tool?"

Anyone capiche?

Quote from: Elliot WilenMarvellous! Nope, Clash you're not the first to think of this, just part of some kind of zeitgeist--not that there's anything wrong with that. Sett nailed a very important source of D&D's success, the building blocks = "accoutrements".

And then jarcane started a thread on "implied setting" that tied in.

The neat thing I see about this trend is that it dovetails with the highfalutin' concept of "bricolage" advanced by Chris Lehrich, which I read as saying that "old school" RPGs operate through an inside-out "tinkering" mode, as building blocks are welded onto the existing situation. In this mode of play, instead of asking "What is the best tool to accomplish X?", there's a greater emphasis on "What can I do with this tool?"

Anyone capiche?

I'm a big fan of implied settings. I had read and enjoyed that thread, but skipped Sett's as it seemed to be D&D specific from the title. Having read it, it is D&D specific but implies some nice stuff about other games, so it's all good. I do think Sett's wrong about Traveller, which was originally entirely defined by Accoutrements, as there was no setting other than the implied one. The Third Imperium came along much later, as I was dropping out of the Traveller fandom.

In looking at my own games, I'm seeing:

Sweet Chariot and Book of Jalan - Detailed Settings developed from a mostly implied Setting (StarCluster)

Cold Space and FTL Now - Moderate Settings with further development extrapolatable from Accoutrements

StarCluster 2 - light, mostly implied Setting with tons of Accoutrements

Blood Games II, In Harm's Way, and Aces in Spades - all Accoutrements, no Setting

In designing them, I used Accoutrements in different ways. I stripped down the Accoutrements in the detailed Settings to match the Setting. I kept Accoutrements moderate and about equal with Setting in the moderta Setting games. I stripped setting down and built up Accoutrements in the Setting light games. It all makes sense.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceExcellent 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.
-clash

I guess my point would be that you still have System and Setting but an identifiable part of setting is the Accoutrements. I was wondering if you are saying it is a stand alone third element or as I have stated, an identifiable sub-component of Setting?

The reason I lump it with Setting is that you can have an Accoutrement without any System elements (An ancient vase of finely crafted Roman glass worth 100K Dinarii is the goal of your campaign). However, a setting-less accoutrement? It does not seem possible without becoming just a system rule.

Bill

I didn't completely grok what Sett was talking about re: Traveller.

If he's reading this I'd like to hear more about what he means when he writes "Kriegsspiel supplements." Sett, I gather you mean pre-generated coherent setting...world-building prior to play?

Quote from: estarUnless a RPG is about defining a genre and supports many different setting and styles of play. Then "accouterments" are definite an issue because otherwise the curve to get into actual play would be steep.

For example if Forward to the Adventure! had only a quarter of the items, monsters, and spells. Would it be considered a better product or a worse product?

The big pain of even the best of the generic system is the lack of "Stuff" in the initial book. (Hero and GURPS for example) Once you get going and have a few campaigns under your belt and have put together your library of stuff it becomes a lot easier.

Ah, but you cut me off. I am actually saying that accoutrements are a definitive aspect of the Setting but not an independent third item in System and Setting. So, yes, a generic system has many battles and it is one of the big reasons I think you see source books for successful generic systems come out so fast. Iridium (my system) is generic but I have never published (for pay) the core rules. Why? Because to me it takes setting to give any rules set a framework. So, Accourtrements are a compnent of Setting, a defining one.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltIridium (my system) is generic but I have never published (for pay) the core rules. Why? Because to me it takes setting to give any rules set a framework. So, Accourtrements are a compnent of Setting, a defining one.

The flaw I see is that GURPS + Fantasy + Magic. not equal a setting. If you want a GURPS Setting you buy Banestorm.

The same for HERO System + Fantasy Hero + Grimoire + Hero Bestiary. If you want a hero setting you buy the Turakian Age, or Valdorian Age, or Tuala Morn.

Sure Grimoire I believe mentions some Turakian Age background but all and all it works for any fantasy genre campaign that needs a spell list.

Bill, yes and no. If I understand this correctly, accoutrements are the medium through which PCs interact with the setting.

You can do Jump-2 with a Scout/Courier, your typical PCs' ship. There are no laser pistols. Marines get a cutlass when mustering out. A downport bar is where you usually hang out planetside.

Ultimately, yes, this stuff is probably setting, but it's infinitely more than "chrome"/"color"--it's the face the setting presents to the PCs.

BTW, I want to amplify what a couple people have said about accoutrements: they're not just building blocks, they're also "demonstration code" showing how to create new building blocks.

Bill, I think what you're sort of missing, or underemphasizing, is that "accoutrements" can exist somewhat independently of a coherent campaign history or geography. They're more like the entries in a dictionary: you can learn quite a bit about the Roman Empire with a good dictionary, but it still won't all fit together the way a history book would. By focusing on the accoutrements you let the play group fit it all together on their own, building their own seamless integretion from concrete to overarching structures.