System is interchangeable, like a motor in a car.  Sometimes you need more effort to get the motor mounted, sometimes it's a smooth fit.

Either way, the thing that makes me love the car is the way it looks, feels and handles (more a function of the body and the frame, with a small factor from the motor).

If the motor sucks, I can always swap it out.

If the body sucks, I can always put my motor into a new frame/body.

Bottom line, though, is that the setting has much more "eye appeal" and initial interest. I'm not discounting the motor, I just think it's a much less significant element than the bodystyle and frame.

Even though I don't care for D20/D&D, I'd be willing to play CoC D20 because the setting is cool and appealing.

I honestly don't care what mechanic is used for Clash's In Harm's Way, but the detail is solid enough that I can port the setting to any mechanic I desire.  (Very well done, by the way, Clash!)

Thanks, Ian!

-clash

Almost always it's the setting with its little sparks of inspiration which draws me to a game, unless there's something exceptional in the mechanics that I'd like to examine further. All in all, I have no interest whatsoever in generic systems.

I like mechanics.

I've got my own ideas about setting. A universal system with a couple of settings is good so I can take those setting elements I like and leave behind those I don't.

For example, I don't play Eberron, but since reading it I can't play a DnD game without lots and lots of robots.

For me, it's the setting. Artwork is nice but not necessary because it's always about the writing. I'm hooked if the author can create/sustain mood/tone/atmosphere.

Regards,
David R

Setting, though if it's a system I don't like, I rarely get around that fact.

For me it is setting. This is the common opinion held by publishers. At one point, during the height of the d20 craze, it was a case of "put out a d20 product, and they will buy it". I honestly think that was an aberation. Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of gamers that buy their "brand" of game only but I think a setting concept (assuming it is well communicated) will get people to buy.

That said, I truly believe keeping customers has more to do with the implementation. Is there an index, TOC and decent crossreferencing? Is it well written and illustrated? Is it a system that suits your play style? For me, the last one is most and least important. It often comes down to whether I enjoy making up characters as towhether I keep the book and play it. However, I have also taken a setting a converted it to my Iridium System.

Bill

I'm a setting guy. System doesn't matter much to me as long as it won't make the game less fun to play.

For my own personal interests, I skew toward "genre" rather than a strongly developed setting. In essence, I'm far more likely to pick up another "apocalypse" themed game, but not so much one that carefully maps out every bit of the post-apocalyptic world.
System is normally secondary to these considerations. I'm pretty comfortable with a wide range of systems.

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat I mean to ask is if, when you approach a game book, is it the setting that catches your interest or is it system first?

Setting; I want game rules to be a decent physics engine with a mild meta-game layer. I can get that with any number of popular generic systems.

The setting is where the IC is, IMO.

I'm not opposed to special rules for specific settings (e.g. spell lists for setting-appropriate magic) in any way, but games that try to link a core mechanic to a setting seem to limiting to me.

Cheers,
-E.