TheRPGSite

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. :D

-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.:D

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

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! :D

-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! :D

-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 (http://therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=119636&postcount=84) = "accoutrements".

And then jarcane started a thread on "implied setting" (http://therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7024) 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 (http://therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=119636&postcount=84) = "accoutrements".

And then jarcane started a thread on "implied setting" (http://therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7024) 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.

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! :D

-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. :D

-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. :D

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. :D

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. :D

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.

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. :D 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  (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7005)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  (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7005)thread.
  

Thanks,
Jim

1: You're welcome! :D

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

Quote from: flyingmiceHere'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

That's easy:

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41QDT2K6BPL._AA240_.jpg)
Hex (http://www.amazon.de/Hex-Kai-Meyer/dp/3612275135)



Needless trivia: This book (http://www.amazon.com/Die-Engelskrieger-Kai-Meyer/dp/3453171950) by the same author was the major inspiration for the Engel RPG (Feder & Schwert, English edition by White Wolf).

Never heard of it, but it sounds cool! Is it available in English yet?

-clash

Well, I was hoping someone would come up with something of their own, but that's cool too! Anyway, the point is it worked. I described a setting using just accoutrements. Anyone else want to try? List some accoutrements and let others assemble them into a cool setting.

-clash

Iconic: Totemic Magic,Light Riders

Romatic: Six-Guns,Winchester boltgun, Enchanted weapons,Mythic stories that come true  

Valance: chained cuffs, polysteel dusters, genetically altered horses,float trains, energy magazines,slipwagons, sweat lodges, ghost catchers

Quote from: McrowIconic: Totemic Magic,Light Riders

Romatic: Six-Guns,Winchester boltgun, Enchanted weapons,Mythic stories that come true  

Valance: chained cuffs, polysteel dusters, genetically altered horses,float trains, energy magazines,slipwagons, sweat lodges, ghost catchers

Oh! I LOVE this! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOh! I LOVE this! :D

-clash

The idea (accouterments) seems to work.:D

It's a game idea I had floating around in my head this morning, which is a a more sci-fantasy version of another more historical game idea I have.

Quote from: McrowThe idea (accouterments) seems to work.:D

It's a game idea I had floating around in my head this morning, which is a a more sci-fantasy version of another more historical game idea I have.

What I get from the Accoutrements is a SF-Western, with "Indian" magic. A frontier world with automated factories from the first settlement still running, churning out fool-proof low/no power tech items; gravitic trains pushing the settled frontier further out, with gravitic slip wagons pulled by horses genetically altered to better suit the planet. The "Indians" may actually be real Indians, come along with the settlers, but I think a low tech/high psi humanoid alien culture would be better, and better yet humans from a previous, abandoned colony who went native to survive and developed their psi from that experience and isolation.

Awesome!

-clash

Added: Oh! The planet is 'alive', though not concious. The dreams and myths are reinforced by collective, remnant psi, and this makes myths eventually come true, though never exactly.

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat I get from the Accoutrements is a SF-Western, with "Indian" magic. A frontier world with automated factories from the first settlement still running, churning out fool-proof low/no power tech items; gravitic trains pushing the settled frontier further out, with gravitic slip wagons pulled by horses genetically altered to better suit the planet. The "Indians" may actually be real Indians, come along with the settlers, but I think a low tech/high psi humanoid alien culture would be better, and better yet humans from a previous, abandoned colony who went native to survive and developed their psi from that experience and isolation.

Awesome!

-clash

Added: Oh! The planet is 'alive', though not concious. The dreams and myths are reinforced by collective, remnant psi, and this makes myths eventually come true, though never exactly.

yes, you pretty much nailed it and added in some cool stuff too. Sounds like a good concept.:)

Here's another:

Iconic: Accellerated personal evolution, Living gloves, Parasitic tech

Romantic: Skates, Crecent-shaped knives, Biological power-packs, Low G acrobatic fighting

Valence: Thick cloaks, Flexible metal, Branding, Human leather

Note: I am just throwing out Accoutrements - I have nothing actually in mind.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's another:

Iconic: Accellerated personal evolution, Living gloves, Parasitic tech

Romantic: Skates, Crecent-shaped knives, Biological power-packs, Low G acrobatic fighting

Valence: Thick cloaks, Flexible metal, Branding, Human leather

Note: I am just throwing out Accoutrements - I have nothing actually in mind.

-clash

Sounds something like a cross of the matrix,texas chainsaw,and Hellraiser.

Quote from: McrowSounds something like a cross of the matrix,texas chainsaw,and Hellraiser.

Naybe a little more explanation would help:

Iconic:
Accellerated personal evolution - people with this can burn resources to adapt their bodies to new situations.

Living gloves - developed out of skin cells. They fit perfectly, literally molding to your hands, and have different fingerprints.

Parasitic tech - bio-implants that live off of your energy. The more implants you have, the less energy.

Romantic:
Skates - frictionless foot blades that allow you to move very fast

Crecent-shaped knives - like choppers, thin, half moon blades with the handle on the flat side.

Biological power-packs - temporary external power sources that plug ito your body to supply you with energy.

Low G acrobatic fighting - Like wire-fu on acid.

Valence:
Thick cloaks - to keep you warm.

Flexible metal - Bend it easily, but release it, and it strongly retains that shape until another human bends it again.

Branding - People are branded with their affiliation.

Human leather - A common item.

-clash

Quote from: McrowSounds something like a cross of the matrix,texas chainsaw,and Hellraiser.

...with a sprinkle of Air Gear.