I understand that it might be a bit risky to ask about this, but I'd like to hear an opinion. By default, AW Engine comes with no specified setting, it's up to the players to create one, which, depending on whom you ask, might be perceived as one its strongest selling points, or one of major flaws (or both - we're, after all, quite complicated beings).

I'd like to learn whether an established setting makes the experience somehow better for all you people, who don't like the game in its default "blank state". Not "instantly good", mind you, just "enough to consider playing it".

My point of view: I can only say, that I don't like *.World games very much. I find no fun in "building from the scratch", perpetual defining some elements I usually expect to be already established, so if I'm welcomed to play a game and there's a setting included, I find it quite helpful.

Sagas of the Icelanders has an established settings: Iceland as portrayed in the myth (I will not call it Mythic Iceland because that is the title of my friend Pedro's RPG book about Iceland). And it is a good AW hack.

I have always wondered how Sagas would fare if transported to Glorantha, with a Sartarite clan instead of an Icelandic one. In this case, the "build the setting from scratch" refers only to "build the clan from scratch", that is an interactive discovery of the character's specific relationship with the world, not the world itself. This is not incompatible with traditional gaming style, IMHO. You would usually work out with the GM the details of your clain at the start of any game including barbarian characters. Here, the rules are there to guide this process that is mostly freeform in more traditional games.

A few things on building the setting as you go. Established settings are there to help provide a framework to hang stories and character concepts. There are some established setting that are extremely daunting to get in to, I am not a fan of Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms for this reason. Others are open enough that there is breathing room for new stories, like the Champions or Fading Suns (At least from the core rule book) settings. To go back to D&D though, the only setting included core book has been the deities from Greyhawk, not counting 4 or 5e. This put the onus on the players, primarily the DM, to create the world.

Apocalypse World embraces the notion that people use home grown settings and bakes that into the rules. Following the character creation process the players will answer questions about the setting essential to their characters. This allows the players to take ownership of a portion of the world and helps to create a greater level buy in from the players.  While not everyone may know everything about the setting each player becomes a subject matter expert on things relating to their character.  This has the added effect of taking strain off the MC allowing them to focus more on the flow of the story and keeping things interesting. Remember, the MC shouldn't come with a story prepared just have some things queued up in case people start to get complaint.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886295I understand that it might be a bit risky to ask about this, but I'd like to hear an opinion. By default, AW Engine comes with no specified setting, it's up to the players to create one, which, depending on whom you ask, might be perceived as one its strongest selling points, or one of major flaws (or both - we're, after all, quite complicated beings).

I'd like to learn whether an established setting makes the experience somehow better for all you people, who don't like the game in its default "blank state". Not "instantly good", mind you, just "enough to consider playing it".

My point of view: I can only say, that I don't like *.World games very much. I find no fun in "building from the scratch", perpetual defining some elements I usually expect to be already established, so if I'm welcomed to play a game and there's a setting included, I find it quite helpful.

Not all AW Engine games come with no setting.  Saga of the Icelanders has the implied setting of, well, Iceland during the Viking era.  Blades in the Dark has a really detailed setting.  Even AW itself has an implied setting -- the psychic maelstrom and nature of the opponents and everything basically posits as much as a world as Basic D&D does.  

With that said, to answer your question, a detailed setting or a self-designed setting's merits all depend on a) how much the detailed setting matches what I want out of the game, and b) whether my players come up with something cool. I really, really like Blades in the Dark's built-in setting because it's got a weird Georgian spiritualist-steampunk thing going on that I don't see anywhere else.  At the same time, I look forward to my players building corporations with The Sprawl.  

It all depends on the game, really.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;886309Not all AW Engine games come with no setting.  Saga of the Icelanders

Quote from: RosenMcStern;886298Sagas of the Icelanders has an established settings:

Guys, guys, I appreciate the input, but I'm not asking for an example of an established setting, but whether it helps to have one. Emphasis on people who don't like *.World games.

Well, it is not so easy to have a good reply. You should find someone who disliked one or more of the *World games that are without setting, and later had a good experience with Sagas or other games with a setting. That is, someone who knew he did not like *World games but nevertheless took the risk of playing another one, only to find it "clicked" better for him. Anyone here who did this?

Personally, I do not mind having to build the setting interactively in a short narrative arc, but I like the setting to be more established when it comes to long duration games (longer than a *World campaign). I think you will benefit from an established setting in a *World game, if you are a trad roleplayer who prefers to not have such details under player control. The point is: why do you ask? Do you want to give *World a try, or what?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886328Guys, guys, I appreciate the input, but I'm not asking for an example of an established setting, but whether it helps to have one. Emphasis on people who don't like *.World games.

Theses kind folks are pointing out what seems to be a flaw in your premise.  Games built on/hacked from AW engine are not necessarily without setting. And even in the ones that don't offer a setting, it's certainly not the case that when there is no setting that it is always up to the players to create it. Dungeon World is the first example that comes to mind.

It sounds like you want to ask if people who have played, and didn't like, an AW hack game where they participated in world building, would they have liked it better if they hadn't had to participate in world building?

Quote from: RosenMcStern;886334Well, it is not so easy to have a good reply. You should find someone who disliked one or more of the *World games that are without setting, and later had a good experience with Sagas or other games with a setting. That is, someone who knew he did not like *World games but nevertheless took the risk of playing another one, only to find it "clicked" better for him. Anyone here who did this?

This thread serves exactly this purpose.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;886334The point is: why do you ask? Do you want to give *World a try, or what?

Call it "a professional curiosity".

More seriously: from my experience it is easier to persuade people to play a game they initially dislike, when faced with a possibility to step into a well developed, interesting world (bonus points if it resembles some specific work of fiction they already are in love with). While it works for more "traditional" games, I'm curious whether it's the same for more modern inventions like *.World products.

I think it comes down to GM-trust. There are a *lot* of GM's that think their home-brewed settings are really good, but in fact are just heartbreakers, but that doesn't stop them from attempting to see it realized in their favorite system.

As a Player, you have to believe that this GM is going to 1) create something of interest that you'll find enjoying 2) they will run it in a way that engages your imagination and of course 3) it will all be fun.

As a GM it's hard to cultivate that kinda trust in veteran players, in my experience. Especially if the system is an unknown factor. I fully understand the reticence of players when they hear their GM give their spiel about some setting they crapped out of their head unless that GM has earned some trust that they can produce. And of course all it takes is one botched attempt to lose all that political capital.

Toolkit systems are for those GM's wanting to go "to the next level". It's not easy (as you know). But from a player's perspective I generally say, just be patient and ask to pitch in. Because the best way for you, as a player to get out of a settingless system is to actually have a hand in pitching ideas for the setting you'll be playing in with the GM.

I don't know of *any* GM that wouldn't like that. And the plus side is it becomes your group's setting, not just the ambitious GM who *will* make mistakes or omissions if left to their own devices.

TL/DR - Settings matter if only to sell a certain concept to the players. Settingless systems require trust of your GM. A corollary of that is - help pitch in with building the setting WITH your GM. That way you all get what you want.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;886336Theses kind folks are pointing out what seems to be a flaw in your premise.  Games built on/hacked from AW engine are not necessarily without setting. And even in the ones that don't offer a setting, it's certainly not the case that when there is no setting that it is always up to the players to create it. Dungeon World is the first example that comes to mind.

By default, and I spoke specifically about it, *.world game features no setting. I know a few *.World based games, been playing some in the past (with varying results) - I'm not looking for any specific setting, or anything like that.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;886336It sounds like you want to ask if people who have played, and didn't like, an AW hack game where they participated in world building, would they have liked it better if they hadn't had to participate in world building?

Pretty much, yes.

Having a pre-established setting in PbtA games is not a problem in my experience.

Just calibrate the players creative input to conform to the setting you're using. Ie: instead of asking "what's there behind that mountain ?", you could ask  "See, acording to our pre-established setting, behind that mountain is the Pict lands, home to barbarian clans and wild beasts. Why don't you tell us which clan you grew up, how life was like in it, and who do you care for that still lives there?"

What's important, in my (small) experience with the engine, is, specially during the first session, to let players establish fun facts and elements in the world that they (and her characters) care for (so the MC can poke at them later ). But they don't need to create whole chunks of "reality" for it, no. If they come up with, say, just a couple elements and why they're important to the character, that's enough.

Quote from: tenbones;886339As a GM it's hard to cultivate that kinda trust in veteran players, in my experience. Especially if the system is an unknown factor. I fully understand the reticence of players when they hear their GM give their spiel about some setting they crapped out of their head unless that GM has earned some trust that they can produce. And of course all it takes is one botched attempt to lose all that political capital.

Ain't that the truth...

While I agree that it works n general (been there, done that), I simply wonder whether it applies to *.World games too.

Quote from: Itachi;886345Having a pre-established setting in PbtA games is not a problem in my experience.

Is it an advantage?

Quote from: Itachi;886345(...) What's important, in my (small) experience with the engine, is, specially during the first session, to let players establish fun facts and elements in the world that her characters care for (...)

That's legit piece of advice and it's not only applicable, but also relevant to pretty much every game there is.

TBH, I find it problematic when players don't begin to tinker with the world at least on some very basic level. It's not that they need to redefine whole World of Darkness, or force the GM to accept that it's not the Emperor's carcass that's sitting on the Golden Throne of Holy Terra. It's just that it proves their dedication, confirms they have fun and that they feel "at home", when they discuss what kind of beer is the best one in-game, or which city features best brothekls & stuff. ;_

You're curious because Kult: Divinity Lost will be using a *.World type system, aren't you?

I wish I could contribute to the thread, but I'm not familiar enough with *.World stuff.
I played Blades in the Dark once, liked it.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886342By default, and I spoke specifically about it, *.world game features no setting. I know a few *.World based games, been playing some in the past (with varying results) - I'm not looking for any specific setting, or anything like that.



Pretty much, yes.

In my experience, the folks who didn't like the various games said their biggest beef was the "loosey goosey" nature of moves and the PC/NPC asymmetry. To a one, nobody griped about their ability to contribute to the setting.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;886355You're curious because Kult: Divinity Lost will be using a *.World type system, aren't you?

You dirty, little... But how did you... Daaaayum... Ahem

Just joking. Yes, no denying that it's partially because of KULT's reboot, but also because it seems that people agree that it's often better to play one of FATE's derivatives, than "pure" FATE. I'm genuinely curious whether it's applicable to *.World games too.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;886358In my experience, the folks who didn't like the various games said their biggest beef was the "loosey goosey" nature of moves and the PC/NPC asymmetry. To a one, nobody griped about their ability to contribute to the setting.

I see. So, the existence of a predefined setting might be of little/no importance at all. Thanks.