I stumbled with this in a rpgnet review of an old RQ 2 supplement..

Quote from: Lars DanglyI think the Gloranthan Runequest material generally does not translate into non-Gloranthan settings very well because the cults, magic, monsters, items, geography, etc. are so intimately tied together. Perhaps there is some principle here: The better your setting, the less well it translates. I've noticed a related problem with great fictional settings that are tough to translate into 'typical' RPG campaigns (e.g., middle earth).

What do you guys think ? Does it make sense ?

Also, I wonder if this relates somehow to the “classic vs generic” discussion we had – would a “classic” setting be more difficult to translate to other systems, or to gaming in general, than “generic” settings ?

Quote from: silva;652692What do you guys think ? Does it make sense ?

That'll depend what one wants out of an RPG world.

Basically, what the guy is saying here is predicated on something left implicit: that Glorantha is a great setting for him personally because of all its detail, unique flavor, and specificity as a world.

Now that's a fine reason to like a setting, but not everybody's like that. Some people like very loose settings that lets them breathe, and doesn't get in the way of their imagining. For some people, the more stuff you have to learn for the setting to make sense internally, the more "work" that becomes, a bit like those people who find comprehensive rules system to be a bore and "work". Some of these people might prefer something very light and non-specific, like say, the Greyhawk Folio of the 70s, as opposed to a huge world with hundreds of pages of background and cults and factions they'll never truly use. For these people, the statement you quoted isn't true. Whereas for those who just love stuff like Glorantha and Empire of the Petal Throne out there, that same statement will ring very true. To them.

Hence, not objectively true. It depends.

Yeah he seems to be saying that a tightly interwoven and more importantly interdependent setting doesn't work well in other settings, because if you take one part out, bits start falling off the rest, and if you just bring the whole setting over then you basically have the original setting.

Implicit in this is the idea that the more interwoven and complex a setting is, the better it is. As Ben elaborated, it's a matter of taste. For myself a well envisioned and illustrated setting is more important than deep complexity, a good example would be the original three Star Wars movies versus the last three. The first ones were clear, straightforward, and very enjoyable, the last were... less so.

Of course the perfect setting is both deep and well envisioned, I guess the LotR would fall under that category, but that's a very rare type of work indeed.

I agree. The more tightly woven together a setting may be, the more challenging it will be to integrate stuff from another setting.  Unless you are running a crazy multi-dimensional kitchen sink like Rifts.

I love Planescape, but the Factions would be challenging to take to my non-planar OD&D game "as is", but I could be inspired by a particular Faction to create a secret society and maybe take pieces and ideas. But that involves me doing some legwork to make the translation work in the new setting.

Agreeing with Ben and Traveller here. I was going to post the same thing, but why bother? They said what I wanted to say.

-clash

Quote from: Spinachcat;652698I love Planescape, but the Factions would be challenging to take to my non-planar OD&D game "as is", but I could be inspired by a particular Faction to create a secret society and maybe take pieces and ideas. But that involves me doing some legwork to make the translation work in the new setting.

Interesting that you cite Planescape, as I think it doesn't work even with its original game system (AD&D 2e). In fact, I find it one of the worst matches of system-setting ever. (a setting whose high points are its incredible conceptual freedom and abstraction, matched with a system that shoehorn characters within restricted classes and don't cares for abstraction at all).

Better is a very subjective word, one I don't think works very well in this context. Sure elements of a well developed setting may not translate well to other settings or systems, but I don't think that makes that setting a better setting some how.

I do agree with the idea that a very well developed setting is likely not going to translate its elements as well as a more generic setting. I personally prefer my settings to be well "sketched" out with lots of interesting ideas and hooks left undeveloped. Otherwise I feel like I have to sit down and rewrite whole chunks to make minor changes. I think for gaming in general a setting that has interesting elements but that is not to throughly developed is ideal.

I also whole heartedly think some settings don't translate well to certain systems or even to gaming in general. I have yet to see a system do middle earth in a fashion I am content with, though admitedly I have not read my copy of The One Ring. I actually think literary settings as a whole are a pain in the ass to game in.

The actual factor is that the more DIFFERENT your campaign is from mine, the less stuff is going to fit in as if made for it -- because it wasn't made for it!

You can make a rule for yourself that this makes our campaigns 'better' than those of folks who easily exchange characters and whatnot. You can make any arbitrary rule about what's 'better' and have a chance that someone else on the InterWeb will agree!

Quote from: Benoist;652695That'll depend what one wants out of an RPG world.

Basically, what the guy is saying here is predicated on something left implicit: that Glorantha is a great setting for him personally because of all its detail, unique flavor, and specificity as a world.

Now that's a fine reason to like a setting, but not everybody's like that. Some people like very loose settings that lets them breathe, and doesn't get in the way of their imagining. For some people, the more stuff you have to learn for the setting to make sense internally, the more "work" that becomes, a bit like those people who find comprehensive rules system to be a bore and "work". Some of these people might prefer something very light and non-specific, like say, the Greyhawk Folio of the 70s, as opposed to a huge world with hundreds of pages of background and cults and factions they'll never truly use. For these people, the statement you quoted isn't true. Whereas for those who just love stuff like Glorantha and Empire of the Petal Throne out there, that same statement will ring very true. To them.

Hence, not objectively true. It depends.

Yup, that makes sense. I wonder though, if we´re not talking 2 different subjects here:

1. translating settings between game systems, and

2. translating settings from a literary source to gaming systems.

I think for the first case your response is spot on, in that its really a subjective thing. But for the second case Im not so sure. It seems to me the great/"classic" literary settings tend to have such a richness or internal consistency or strong vision or originality (or all of it) that the more generic ones lack, and that makes ´em really harder to translate to a gaming format. I think Middle Earth is a obvious example here.

The problem with Middle Earth is that it's an epic, not a game world. Everything of importance is DONE. If you take an "alternate history" approach, then obviously it's not the same as The Story; the deviation may not satisfy those who love The Story (while maintaining the fatalism of predestination may not satisfy those who love a good game).

A case in point, not even involving gaming, is Jackson's movie supposedly of The Hobbit. By spending -- some would say wasting -- so much footage on stuff that's either irrelevant to the story in the book or directly contradicts it, he disappoints those of us who hoped for a movie version of the classic tale.

One friend of mine who had no acquaintance with the book found it simply a bore, while another watched it several times.

Different strokes for different folks, then; but generally, what's wanted in a game campaign is quite different from what's wanted in a novel.

Quote from: silva;652715Yup, that makes sense. I wonder though, if we´re not talking 2 different subjects here:

1. translating settings between game systems, and

2. translating settings from a literary source to gaming systems.

I think for the first case your response is spot on, in that its really a subjective thing. But for the second case Im not so sure. It seems to me the great/"classic" literary settings tend to have such a richness or internal consistency or strong vision or originality (or all of it) that the more generic ones lack, and that makes ´em really harder to translate to a gaming format. I think Middle Earth is a obvious example here.

I was talking about the former, to be clear.

Quote from: Benoist;652695Hence, not objectively true. It depends.

Ah yes, the fear of judgment. Nothing is objectively true, and the only thing objectively false is those that would claim otherwise.

Quote from: silva;6527152. translating settings from a literary source to gaming systems.

I was going to say that it's no problem, and that I've done Middle Earth for decades.

But then I remember I had to write my own system to do that. And then from that I remembered that all the mainstream game systems are rather horrid at recreating literary sources.

So in the end I must agree that it is difficult, and for most impossible.

Bad Settings meanwhile... well no cares if a game system screws those up. Can they really be made worse? Likely not.

I don't really agree with that at all.

If anything, I think the more detail a setting requires players to learn, and the more of that detail is set in stone, the worse it is for actual play.

Quote from: gleichman;652718Ah yes, the fear of judgment. Nothing is objectively true, and the only thing objectively false is those that would claim otherwise.

I'm going to indulge once, just to tell you this: you don't know me at all. You just make up stuff and go about fighting an image of me that just exists in your head. You might think this guy is a relativist or something, but this is not me.

Now I'd appreciate if you'd stop trolling and baiting and stalking me in every thread I post in. Thank you.