I read a lot that gamers have a tendency to get books with great settings and then adapt it to their favorite system. If a book had a very good setting, but no game mechanics associated with it. . . perhaps only suggestions of things like skills or attributes and whatnot, would you be interested in it? Would it be more appealing this way?

Yes and no, depending on who you are trying to market it to.  Your hardcore gamer, who is comfortable with jiggering with games, might prefer it.  Your casual gamer would probably be annoyed.  If it was printed, your typical game owner would not know where to stock it and buyers may not notice it.  

Rather than systemless, it might be nice to be multisystem.  Mostly fluff but what mechanics are there are provided for multiple systems.  There was a release for Thieves World like this.

It would have to be a really special, really appealing setting.

RPGPundit

I'd get a settingbook if it was grabby and had imminently useful content for games. I bought "GURPS: Traveller: Far Trader!" because, although I play neither GURPS nor Traveller, I was ready to mine its setting-stuff for my homebrew space opera.

(Did it work? I couldn't tell you, b/c some hippy stole my backpack with the game in it.)

Quote from: NicephorusRather than systemless, it might be nice to be multisystem.  Mostly fluff but what mechanics are there are provided for multiple systems.  There was a release for Thieves World like this.

As an alternative I think it might be good to go with a really, really, really simple system. This is basically how Talislanta 1st/2nd looks to me.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt would have to be a really special, really appealing setting.

Yes. Again, Talislanta 1st/2nd.

I've done this with the Roma Imperious setting (which has the Iridium rules, but system/setting are separate in HinterWelt books), which I've run with several systems.
 
Aside from that, yeah, I would be interested in it.  I'd be interested especially in a product that has a Serenity/Traveller feel to it, but is just a ton of different sectors described and ampped out for use with several different systems.  Man, would I love that product.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs an alternative I think it might be good to go with a really, really, really simple system.

The Fudge stats seem like a good baseline because, unless you care about the resolution system, you can just read it as "This was a Great Emperor, he was a Average mechadog-rider, etc."

Quote from: Rick HersheyI read a lot that gamers have a tendency to get books with great settings and then adapt it to their favorite system. If a book had a very good setting, but no game mechanics associated with it. . . perhaps only suggestions of things like skills or attributes and whatnot, would you be interested in it? Would it be more appealing this way?

It would have to be really fantastic. There are TONS of settings out there. If your setting doesn't offer me something that the dozens of settings already statted up for my system of choice (d20, natch) have, then that certainly puts your choice at a disadvantage when I weigh it in my criteria.

Of course, that's not to say it hasn't happened. I have many old Flying Buffalo Citybook books and consider them jewels of my collection.

Well, of course if a book was done like this it would have to be very unique as far as subject matter, I have no doubts a generic setting would be pointless.

So, if no game mechanics are presented in the book. Would descriptive text be enough to fit things requiring stats into your game of choice?
Would something like:

- X is both intelligent and charming.
- X are typically skilled with daggers and crossbows.
- X only stands about 3ft tall.

I would assume that would be simple to convert.
How about introducing information that isn't standard to all games?
What if a book like this mentioned something like psionics? If your game of choice doesn't have rules to govern psionics, would that turn you off?
(psionics is just an example, you could substitute firearms, magic, etc.)

One problem you're likely to run into, without mechanical benchmarks, is comparison. So X is intelligent and charming, eh? Is she more intelligent than Y, who's described as "clever and discerning"?

Some game systems will handle this more easily than others. (I'm thinking Heroquest, maybe, or Fudge as Dev says.) GMs using others will have a lot of work and decisions ahead of them in adapting the setting.

This is another argument for either a very simple system, or presentation of data in a few third-party formats. It offers placeholders for data and how it interrelates that can then be translated into a system of choice.

I would, if the source material interested me.  Skull Island is on my short list of books to buy because of these threads.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=235392&highlight=skull+island

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=267983&highlight=skull+island

What I would want from a book like that: evocative illustrations (no problem at all for you), maps (preferably side-angle view), in-depth and interesting setting info, and scenario ideas sprinkled throughout the text (as opposed to given in a list at the end of the book).  

I wouldn't care about game mechanics so much (I can stat and equip a pirate, if I need to), however, the descriptive text you listed above would be fine and probably make it more appealing to a lot of casual gamers.  

As to introducing info that is not standard to all games, it really depends on the setting.  If I'm buying a "traditional" fantasy setting book I don't mind psionics (I can always convert it to magic), but I don't want to see firearms unless they're crucial to the setting, and at that point I wouldn't consider it "traditional" fantasy anymore.    

Note that every "nonstandard" element you add potentially tightens the noose on the number of people who are going to buy a niche product like this.  I would guess there are more people willing to buy "systemless setting/fantasy" than "systemless setting/fantasy/firearms" and even less that are willing to buy "systemless setting/fantasy/firearms/spaceships." (no arguments, please---yes it actually does sound kind of cool, but I'm talking about potential sales market here which doesn't always equate to coolness, unfortunately).

Personally, I would like to see more systemless settings, but I don't think there's much of a market for them at this point.  I _do_ think people would be more interested in detailed systemless locales or scenarios though---something written for a "traditional" fantasy game or modern game that could be easily dropped into an existing setting.  

Just my thoughts,

Pete

Quote from: Rick HersheyIf a book had a very good setting, but no game mechanics associated with it. . . perhaps only suggestions of things like skills or attributes and whatnot, would you be interested in it? Would it be more appealing this way?

Yeah. I'm more of a settings guy anyway. I mean, sure I could just adapt regular fiction/non-fiction, but a game setting without rules, if it looked liked something I'd dig, sure, I'd be interested.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Caesar SlaadOf course, that's not to say it hasn't happened. I have many old Flying Buffalo Citybook books and consider them jewels of my collection.

QFT, the Flying Buffalo universal stuff rocked. The only downside was some power creep, but that could easily be toned down.

Thanks for all the feedback everyone, very helpful so far.

Another quick question. Since using descriptive text could possibly cause a problem in the mind of readers, what about a simple number system. . . like 1-10, 5 is average. Something simple that expresses a range of ability or quality.

Quote from: Rick HersheyThanks for all the feedback everyone, very helpful so far.

Another quick question. Since using descriptive text could possibly cause a problem in the mind of readers, what about a simple number system. . . like 1-10, 5 is average. Something simple that expresses a range of ability or quality.

I think you're heading into homebrew system territory with that.  What would you be statting?  Classes?  Attributes?  Skills?  It seems like a lot of extra writing for something that's seldom going to be used.  If you're going that route why not just tack it onto a very simple generic rules-light system (or are you purposely trying not to associate it with one system in order to appeal to the broadest number of people?).

Pete