Quote from: Elliot WilenYou're not off base, I just think there's another way, viz.

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

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.

I will have to disagree unless the goal of the setting is to be implicit. Perhaps a better way to word the first point is to always remember your setting goals. If the goal is to produce an implicit setting then you needn't concern your self with what you will not write. But, to define setting, which I believe we are on different definitions, since I consider the elements of setting to include Accoutrements, then remembering your setting becomes important again. For instance, writing your implied setting you may wish to have a fantasy setting. It does not work to stat blasters and spaceships then, you send a confused message about the setting then.

I will admit, I have a serious bias for setting. To me, everything flows from it. Whether it is something floating around in the back of your head as you write the rules, or it is canon laid down in the core. From that, your Accoutrements will be constrained and defined. You may decide to include blasters and spaceships in your fantasy setting, but then you will have to leave the implied part of your setting behind because you must explain that element. Why? Because you will be violating the assumptions of the reader. You cannot, to my knowledge, do this and maintain an implied setting.

All that said, I acknowledge fully that this is merely my way of doing it. There is no doubt in my mind that my way is not "The One True Way". As I have said, I really am looking forward to others listing their methodology for setting/system generation.

Bill

Well, I won't belabor the point, Bill, except to say that I think we're having a disconnect. It stands out most clearly here:

QuoteFor instance, writing your implied setting you may wish to have a fantasy setting. It does not work to stat blasters and spaceships then, you send a confused message about the setting then.

What I'm suggesting is not a method where you think of a setting and then indirectly adumbrate it. E.g. to counter your example, one does not wish to have a fantasy setting and worry about "confusing" it by having blasters and spaceships. Instead one decides there will blasters and spaceships...and magic...and then the players make of that whatever they like.

(And I agree there's far more than one way to do things. What I like about this method, though, is that it puts the concrete elements of play up front and then lets the players handle them "freely" without needing to conform to a lengthy background which may be abstract from the perspective of actual play.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, I won't belabor the point, Bill, except to say that I think we're having a disconnect. It stands out most clearly here: What I'm suggesting is not a method where you think of a setting and then indirectly adumbrate it. E.g. to counter your example, one does not wish to have a fantasy setting and worry about "confusing" it by having blasters and spaceships. Instead one decides there will blasters and spaceships...and magic...and then the players make of that whatever they like.

(And I agree there's far more than one way to do things. What I like about this method, though, is that it puts the concrete elements of play up front and then lets the players handle them "freely" without needing to conform to a lengthy background which may be abstract from the perspective of actual play.)

See, and I admit I could be wrong here, but you (collective) seem to be skipping an important point. When you make your Accoutrements, you do have setting in mind. I will admit that you do not have to, but then you are creating noting more than a system. Look at my ISCR, it has a list of weapons for several genres but no setting information...except what is in those weapons lists. It is not a setting though. It is not even implied. You could go and write your own and pull weapons from those lists to fill it but it is little more than a core rules. This is not bad but it has little to do with setting, implied or explicit.

Let's take an example of what I mean from this thread. It has been said that you just come up with "Laser Sword" and "Blaster" then through some creative process end up with Star Wars. What I am simply saying is that you have a metric ton of assumed setting in that combined with a fair amount of explicit setting. By assumed setting I am not meaning implied as it has been used here. I mean you are assuming:
1. Sci-Fi
2. Detailed entities that are pure setting (Jedi, the Jedi Council, conflict between good an evil, etc.)
3. A galaxy spanning Empire

You can try and convince me, and I really am open to it, that you can add "laser sword" + "blaster" + the equipment list from the game = Star Wars but there is really so much more than that.

So, to come back around. I do believe you can make setting-less system manuals, I have done it. If that is what we are talking about, sorry, cause I apparently missed the note. However, if you are trying to convince me that you can make a coherent implied setting with no concept or idea of the setting in your head...well, I need more info before I will believe it. Don't get me wrong, you can stat a +1 sword, a blaster and a starship in your game, with no setting information whatsoever but I am confident that people will not walk away with a clear idea of a setting. And, perhaps, that is your point. In which case, I would suggest you are making an SRD-like system reference.

Now, before anyone thinks I am poopooing Clash's idea, I am not. I think I have stated my approach clearly to Accoutrements and their role in game design, and briefly, they are very important in either implied or explicit setting. So, implying a fantasy setting means having that concept, loosely or not, in your head as you write up your Accoutrements.

And I apologize to Clash if this is a derailment of your intention for this thread. I am just trying to clarify my approach.

Bill

Actually, Bill, it's been great to bounce this idea around with you, it helps bring into relief different ways of looking at things. But I think I should let someone else post before I write anything more. (And if they don't, that's okay too.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenActually, Bill, it's been great to bounce this idea around with you, it helps bring into relief different ways of looking at things. But I think I should let someone else post before I write anything more. (And if they don't, that's okay too.)

Just to be clear, likewise. I hope I have not come off as a "One True Wayist". It was not my intention. Just some observations from a very traditionalist game designer.

Yeah, let's hear from Clash and Mike at least.

Thanks,
Bill

Since we're all talking about how we use Accoutrements in order to share techniques, there is no question of one true way, just what works for us.

I always have a setting in mind, whether or not that setting is actually constructed or just left implied, but it's just a concept until after the accoutremants have firmed up. That way if the accoutrements I come up with have interesting setting implications, I can work them in. In the StarCluster 2 design notes, I explained how certain things work in certain ways to "create" the setting - the way Jump drive prevents fleets from working and always gives the advantage to the defender gave rise to voluntary associations rather than empires.

OTOH, I can see where not having a setting in mind could work - sort of like the way random table can act as a spur to your creativity. Throw these accoutrements together and see what they imply for setting, then make sense of it all. That might really rock!

-clash

I'd just like to pop in and

• Thank you guys for the discussion.
• Wonder how this dove-tails, if at all, with the discssion in the Color As Rules thread.
  

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: James J SkachI'd just like to pop in and

• Thank you guys for the discussion.
• Wonder how this dove-tails, if at all, with the discssion in the Color As Rules thread.
  

Thanks,
Jim

1: You're welcome!

2: I don't know. The Color as Rules thread left me far behind, wandering blindly through dark alleys. I'm not really much on this theory thing... practical applications are more my speed. The Color as Rules thread reads like quantum mechanics - Shroedinger's Accoutrements - to me.

-clash

My thought is that you you must have some basic setting in mind to use accoutrements. They key is that it doesn't have to conform to any genre trappings (after all SW is really half fantasy, half Sci-fi) and you may have only a very general idea of the setting. Then you start throwing around accoutrements and by time you're done you have most of the setting done already.

I think that accoutrements are determined by what the PCs do. An example:

PCs in a new game play the parts of samurai warriors who typically go into battle on chariots and are a part of the senate.

how this game turns out is highly dependant on the accoutrements. Lets say that we take the concept as a not so literal idea.

the Samurai warriors is changed to Samurai like. They have a code of conduct similar to samurai, but instead it is geared more towards personal wealth.  Instead of a traditional sword, they actually carry MMWs (molecular manipulation weapons, they look like an axe). The chariot is actually an glasstail, a flying motorcycle (yes, very similar in looks to say a Harley) that is powed by gasser crystal. The senate, in this case, is actually The Court of the 7 a religious sect.

accoutrements are bolded.

I consider some things that are not objects to be accoutrements.

Quote from: McrowI consider some things that are not objects to be accoutrements.

And I guess that is where I am getting hung up. If you define the term Accoutrements widely enough, yes, there is no need for setting since it will be included in the Accoutrements. It is a small thing on the surface but fundamental to understanding what you are doing that you define the Elements of setting correctly. Those definitions may very, the borders move, but in the end, they are still there.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAnd I guess that is where I am getting hung up. If you define the term Accoutrements widely enough, yes, there is no need for setting since it will be included in the Accoutrements. It is a small thing on the surface but fundamental to understanding what you are doing that you define the Elements of setting correctly. Those definitions may very, the borders move, but in the end, they are still there.

Bill

I think the difference is that accoutrements are generally things that are very much the essence of the game.

Like in my example code of conduct, personal wealth, and The Court of the 7 are major components of the game. All would have some mechanical influence. Accoutrements, by my definition, all have some mechanical affect on the game when they are in play where setting materials typically don't.

If it were pure setting, typically it's not going to be a constant influence in the game at all times.

Quote from: McrowI think the difference is that accoutrements are generally things that are very much the essence of the game.

Like in my example code of conduct, personal wealth, and The Court of the 7 are major components of the game. All would have some mechanical influence. Accoutrements, by my definition, all have some mechanical affect on the game when they are in play where setting materials typically don't.

If it were pure setting, typically it's not going to be a constant influence in the game at all times.

See, and this is just my view and not saying you are wrong, but then you are talking about Elements of the game. Accoutrements are items. Again, let's not go down the road of using words that have other meanings for our own special lexicon. So, Elements can be all the things you say, and I would agree, they have influence throughout the Setting. I would say Accoutrements have aspects of what you mention but are specifically item-objects within the setting. So, I would agree that we could stretch it to include monsters but not abstract items like "Wealth" or even more so the concept of "Desiring Wealth". These are Elements. So, Setting entails Elements which include Accoutrements and Goals (plus more).

So, if we can work from this, what are other Elements to setting? We have
1. Accoutrements - Items and Monsters that the players use to interface with the Setting.

2. Goals - concepts presented in the setting that allow the Players to gain direction from the setting.

3. Description - Explanation that allows the player to understand the context of the setting and other Elements within the Setting.

Others?

Bill

well, I wrote an article about accouterments on my blog (see my sig), let me know what you guys think.

Awesome article, Mike! This is exactly what I had in mind for Accoutrements - choosing your Accoutrements can define your setting, and define what your system needs to do. Beautiful!

-clash

Here's some Accoutrements. Let's design a setting out of them:

Iconic: flying saucers, ritual magic, atomic bombs

Romantic: military-grade personal weapons, astronomy

Valence: ice, submarines, secret societies

-clash