Quote from: Pierce InverarityBill, 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.

Yes, you've got it Pierce!

-clash

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBill, 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.

And I am not arguing that at all. I am challenging the idea that Acoutrements is a separate and equal part to System and Setting. I believe it to be a part of Setting. How much or how big a part is whether it is an implied setting through the definition of Acoutrements or a (for lack of a better word) discrete setting where there is a lot of explanation and some Acoutrements.

Also, I would go as far as to say you can make a setting that is all about Setting and have little or no Acoutrements. I do not think that would be...very successful but I would put it out that it could just have System for defining Acoutrements. I am doing something very close to this with Chevalier and to be honest, play testers have really dug it. Essentially, you can define 4 categories on your weapon (for instance), damage, to hit, to damage, and number of attacks. I will most likely have a weapons list as a basis but it will be small.

So, for sci-fi, it really seems to be a blind spot for a lot of players and designers. They cannot imagine a sci-fi setting without Acoutrements. I am working with one guy on the ship rules for Nebuleon. He was shocked, shocked I tells ya! when I explained that Nebuleon is not about the ships. They are just a means to get from one place to the adventure. He still has trouble with it. That said, I am not trying to downplay the usefulness of Acoutrements as a part of Setting. I think an equally important aspect would be Character as in what a character is and does in the grander sense. There are many elements, imo, that play a part in both System and Setting that eventually can be rolled into one or the other.

Now, as far as the element (Acoutrements/Equipment) defining a setting, sure, look over my first example. You could describe a setting nicely with just equipment. That is a design choice and I sometimes do it my self, however, it is not the only way to do an implied setting. Leaving the right areas open to exploration and definition will go a long way to setting a reliable stage for players and GMs to base their adventure tot he unknown/implied parts. For example, write a detailed description of Rome, less about the main enemies and just mention kingdoms in Africa and India. Leaves plenty for the GM to work with. Better yet, know when to quit and define the provinces enough to enable play but leave room for the GMs fav barbarian tribe.

So, not trying to refute only to refine.

Bill

HI Bill:

Whether or not Accoutrements are part of and/or equal to the Setting is not important, really. What is important in my opinion is what one can do with the concept as a tool to make one's games better. They can be used:

• To frame and define an implied setting


• As example code for futher group-level development


• To support and delimit an explicit setting


• As an interface between the PCs and the setting


• To define the roles the PCs are expected to play within the setting

Any more?

It's a bit of game design craft that gets short-changed in view of its vital importance.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a bit of game design craft that gets short-changed in view of its vital importance.

Geoff Grabowski seemed to understand this from the outset when writing Exalted, which positively teems with accroutrements-- most of which have unique subsystemic mini-games of their own. From the humble Daiklave to the essence-fueled factory cathedrals of the First Age, the setting is brimming with artifacts that not only operate as empowering trinkets but as signature flourishes for the binding theology of the setting.

Like or loathe the game, I'm certain this approach was a major factor in it's subsequent popularity.

Quote from: DrewGeoff Grabowski seemed to understand this from the outset when writing Exalted, which positively teems with accroutrements-- most of which have unique subsystemic mini-games of their own. From the humble Daiklave to the essence-fueled factory cathedrals of the First Age, the setting is brimming with artifacts that not only operate as empowering trinkets but as signature flourishes for the binding theology of the setting.

Like or loathe the game, I'm certain this approach was a major factor in it's subsequent popularity.

An excellent example! That's one guy who knows how to use Accoutrements!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHI Bill:

Whether or not Accoutrements are part of and/or equal to the Setting is not important, really. What is important in my opinion is what one can do with the concept as a tool to make one's games better. They can be used:

• To frame and define an implied setting


• As example code for futher group-level development


• To support and delimit an explicit setting


• As an interface between the PCs and the setting


• To define the roles the PCs are expected to play within the setting

Any more?

It's a bit of game design craft that gets short-changed in view of its vital importance.

-clash

Point taken. Sorry if I seemed pedantic.

Just so we are clear, basically, we are talking equipment lists right? I ask since the items I see in your list could be applied to a much wider range of things you have said are outside Accoutrements. For instance, "Defining roles the PCs are expected to play within the setting" could easily be assigned to Descriptive Setting or Monsters.

As to what equipment can be used for:
- As pure environment, beyond "its sci-fi because you have ships" it can be the setting "We live in a hollow world and I have touched the sky".

- As objective goals.

- As active enemies, "the intelligent sword has got it out for me"

In the broader sense, if we constrain ourselves to setting elements, I think you have covered the big ones. I would add that they can also be a means for players to connect and understand the setting. As with my example of the dead pirate ont he beach, you can impart vast amounts of information based on a good listing of equipment and items found in a setting. More so, you can draw a reader's preconceived notions and use them for a better understanding of the elements of the game.

Or, I am still not getting it and am full of shit.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltPoint taken. Sorry if I seemed pedantic.

Just so we are clear, basically, we are talking equipment lists right? I ask since the items I see in your list could be applied to a much wider range of things you have said are outside Accoutrements. For instance, "Defining roles the PCs are expected to play within the setting" could easily be assigned to Descriptive Setting or Monsters.

Now that I've thought about it, not just equipment, although that was what was most on my mind. Monsters, animals, spells, vehicles - I think all that could fit under Accoutrements, so long as it is described mainly in terms of mechanics. That's where Accoutrements differ from (the rest of) Setting, which is described mostly in prose.

Quote from: HinterWeltAs to what equipment can be used for:
- As pure environment, beyond "its sci-fi because you have ships" it can be the setting "We live in a hollow world and I have touched the sky".

- As objective goals.

- As active enemies, "the intelligent sword has got it out for me"

In the broader sense, if we constrain ourselves to setting elements, I think you have covered the big ones. I would add that they can also be a means for players to connect and understand the setting. As with my example of the dead pirate ont he beach, you can impart vast amounts of information based on a good listing of equipment and items found in a setting. More so, you can draw a reader's preconceived notions and use them for a better understanding of the elements of the game.

Or, I am still not getting it and am full of shit.

Bill

You've got it.

-clash

If I get this right:

PC===>Accoutrement====>Setting====>Actions===>system====>Resolution of actions taken.


So basically, as an example. Grog (PC)has a blaster(Accoutrement) and is in a cantina and while there threaten by another patron (setting). Grog decides to pull his blaster and blast the dude threatening him (action),makes the proper rolls according to the rules(system). The thug is killed(Resolution).

So, in my mind, they are all intertwined. You cannot seperate them or a game won't work. You can change the order or how many time each of the above happen, but you cannot seperate them.

Quote from: McrowIf I get this right:

PC===>Accoutrement====>Setting====>Actions===>system====>Resolution of actions taken.


So basically, as an example. Grog (PC)has a blaster(Accoutrement) and is in a cantina and while there threaten by another patron (setting). Grog decides to pull his blaster and blast the dude threatening him (action),makes the proper rolls according to the rules(system). The thug is killed(Resolution).

So, in my mind, they are all intertwined. You cannot seperate them or a game won't work. You can change the order or how many time each of the above happen, but you cannot seperate them.

Right, Mike! The patron (Setting) could pull his own blaster (Accoutrement) fire (Action) and miss (Resolution) first, for example; but that changes nothing in essense...

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceRight, Mike! The patron (Setting) could pull his own blaster (Accoutrement) fire (Action) and miss (Resolution) first, for example; but that changes nothing in essense...

-clash

Exactly. Yeah, you can have any number of setting, accoutrements, actions,mechanics and have them in any order, but they all have to be there for the game to work.

so yes, accoutrements are very important since they are required for good game design.

I might say that accoutrements are actually more important than mechanics and setting because the facilitate both.

Quote from: McrowExactly. Yeah, you can have any number of setting, accoutrements, actions,mechanics and have them in any order, but they all have to be there for the game to work.

so yes, accoutrements are very important since they are required for good game design.

I might say that accoutrements are actually more important than mechanics and setting because the facilitate both.

I think we are all seeing the same thing now.

Now how do we use the concept to gain insight into making better games?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI think we are all seeing the same thing now.

Now how do we use the concept to gain insight into making better games?

-clash

Well, IMO, if the above is true then we need to find some signature accoutrements and build a setting and system around them.

Like for SW: Lightsaber, The force, Blasters (for a few)

Even if you didn't know anything about SW, these three things would get your interest. Then you decide what exactly "the forces" is and who knows what about it and how it affects the setting. The based on how the Force affectst the setting you determine the proper mechanical use for the force.

By time you get done doing that for a hand full of accoutrements you have the better part of a playable game.

Quote from: flyingmiceI think we are all seeing the same thing now.

Now how do we use the concept to gain insight into making better games?

-clash

And see, this is something I have been waiting for in this thread. I already do ths but from a different approach that what has been described.

For instance, take Squirrels Ahoy. This is fresh in my mind. I have an effect (think spell but it can be applied to equipment too) which is Firearm Pegleg. It is for a Portuguese Water Dog named Peg Leg Pete who lost his leg and had it replaced with this effect. Now, he can shoot his peg leg. Cannonball Jones is a squirrel with the Cannonball effect. This allows him to be shot out of cannons and firearms and be invulnerable until he come to rest. None of this would make any sense if they were broken down and separated from System And Setting. The effects enhance the system and setting giving it context and meaning as an interface to interact.

So, how to make it better? These are my rules of thumb and feel free to, again, tell me I am off base.

1. ALWAYS remember your setting.
2. Remember the context that such items will be used by players and facilitate that action.
3. Remember the actions the players should be encouraged to perform in the setting and use the items to enable those actions.
4. Not everything needs to be about combat. Remember the magical frying pans and magical dancing shoes. These can often be more important than the Sword +2000 Bunghole slayer.
5. Where possible, consider the effect of these items on the logic and consistency of your setting. I still have issues with a spell in Iridium called Inorganic to Inorganic...essentially a means to make any material gold. It can wreck havoc with the local economy.

In essence, as both you and Mike pointed out, it can be used to shape a setting.

BTW- Mike, Linda and i are planning a possible outing to Minneapolis in September. Any interest in meeting up?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltBTW- Mike, Linda and i are planning a possible outing to Minneapolis in September. Any interest in meeting up?

Bill

Possibley, we are pretty busy that month. Birthing classes, remodeling and what not. Kim will be out of town the second week for work. If nothing else, We (or me) could meet up for dinner or something. What dates are you looking at?

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, how to make it better? These are my rules of thumb and feel free to, again, tell me I am off base.

You're not off base, I just think there's another way, viz.

Quote1. ALWAYS remember your setting.[2][3]

Forget the setting. Setting is whatever grows implicitly (or inductively) out of accoutrements and the way the players & GM use them.

Quote5. Where possible, consider the effect of these items on the logic and consistency of your setting. I still have issues with a spell in Iridium called Inorganic to Inorganic...essentially a means to make any material gold. It can wreck havoc with the local economy.

Don't worry about logic and consistency, the accoutrements or "stuff" will generate their own in the hands of the players. The main exception to this is if someone finds a way that a certain piece of "stuff" will dominate all other stuff. Then it needs to be cut down, modified, or deleted.