Prompted by Reasons Planescape sucks and Sell me on Eberron...

Not really a debate, so much as an observation, but it seems to me that sometimes people look for applications for their medium, and sometimes they look for media for their application. Neither of these is wrong per se but the two approaches seem to lie behind some clashes I've observed

For example we see it in the Planescape discussion, where some people say (or are quoted as saying...or accused as saying in effect) that the setting really isn't well-matched to the system and would be better served with something else...and then others take them to task but still, basically, agree that the setting and system don't match well--it's just the setting's fault.

Examples:

Quote from: Melan (about Planescape)It mostly seemed to attract people who loved only Planescape, hated A/D&D, and wanted to make the latter conform to the former. The result was just like the sickening back-and-forth we see now about
"I dislike about D&D, and it should conform to my expectations instead."
"But you don't like D&D, look, D&D is the game with levels, classes, hit points and Vancian magic and carnivorous gelatine. You hate all of this stuff. Maybe you should try something else if you plainly dislike it so?"
"No, I like D&D. But isn't it time to ditch archaic stuff like levels, classes, hit points and memorisation? That's just nostalgia and rose coloured glasses. What D&D could use is some good social contract rules, and a stunt/action point system."
":suicide:"

Hoo bloo gloo, and so on, except "back then" the same debate featured slightly different points of argument.

And as exhibit A, practically, for Melan's gripe:

Quote from: silvad&d (or any d&d by the way) really dont fit the setting at all.

A setting grounded in abstract themes (belief shapes reality, meaning of the universe, philosophical conflict, post-life questioning, etc. ) with a system grounded in structured-martial-tactical-heroism-and-power-progression. (or in other words, a system that dont promotes/supports the setting main themes. )

A setting that inspires your imagination, inciting you to be anything you want, the way you want - an undead hero, a god wanting to be mortal again , the clerig of a abstract concept (lust), a modron gone rogue, a cranium rat splinter cell, a signer painter that paints realities...

...and a system thats totally about "balance" (!!!), that says you to be pick a "class" - that is nothing more than a martial specialization ( fighter, mage, thief, clerig, monk ), set some "martial" stats (Thacos/BaBs, Armor Class, feats, talents, weapons, etc. ), and you are good to go (gaining XP by the measure of monsters stomped!!!! ).

WTF??? Planescape is the most archetypical example of bad marriage between setting and system. Or bad design, if you prefer.

and

Quote from: silvaAbout my previous statement of Planescape´s bad design issue (system <> setting):

Its worth to mention that in Planewalker Handbook there is an mechanic of Belief Points, made to address the issue a bit. Its a bit lame, but is a step in the right direction.

ps: Thinking better, I think the Unknown Armies system would be much more fitting to Planescape, than D&D. Just link the Adept/Avatar mechanics to the Faction Philsophies, and you have a system that really supports the theme "Belief Shapes Reality".

And then

Quote from: SettembriniThe stuff you said regarding D&D could have been directly copy & pasted from a certain bunch of posters on RPG.Net and some other places that Pundit ingeniously started calling swine.

The only thing mor like them one could have said would have been:
"Planescape is SOO not served by AD&D, it should be run with Exalted."


I won´t go into why this is wrong or why it is offensive. I´ll just say "we" ridicule people like that.

So, to be taken seriously:

Discuss AD&D settings as being made fir AD&D. BTW, Planescape is as D&D as it´s gets, the planar alignment struggle is embeded and has served as springboard for adventure since OD&D (Wilderlands e. g.). It´s just not done too well in Planescape. But don´t say "Fad of the month" wanker game would be better than AD&D, or that AD&D can´t do XYZ.
That´s just not helping.

I don't really mean to shake the bottle, on the contrary, I just find it interesting that many people are very well served by the presentation of different settings for their favorite system; they may accept ad hoc rules extensions that bring out one aspect or another of the setting, but mainly as fans of, oh, let's say, D&D, they're looking for a "flavored" version of D&D, not an entirely different game. Meanwhile other people get so excited by a given setting that they expect something like a blank sheet design.

I suppose the real conflict comes when someone wants to marry a system and setting that are so incompatible that people begin to question the point--yet they refuse to acknowledge the need to separate. Of course this is a matter of perspective but I'd even extend this critique to efforts to do "everything" via the medium of RPGs, and end up with something that either doesn't work very well, or which isn't even recognizable as an RPG as such.

Ultimately there's a tension I suppose between being a fan of a given medium or set of tools, and being a fan of certain "messages". This tension can lead to innovation on both sides: new D&D settings, for example, or new ways of conveying or enjoying various "messages", but on the other hand it can also be restrictive and frustrating by hampering the possibilities of the medium and dampening the essence of the message.

To make something practical about this: when a setting is really "off", I think it's a good idea to make the game system simple even while including the necessary elements to capture the essence.

I need a bit of clarification. A storm is rolling in and it is giving me a migraine.

Is your point, at least partially, that people can have fun with their favorite system regardless of setting?

Further, is it that some people cannot divorce setting from system? This making a link in their mind between what the setting requires and the system supports?

Sorry if I am just being dense here.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI need a bit of clarification. A storm is rolling in and it is giving me a migraine.

Hope you feel better.

QuoteIs your point, at least partially, that people can have fun with their favorite system regardless of setting?

I'm sure some people can, but the bits I quoted suggest that some people can't

QuoteFurther, is it that some people cannot divorce setting from system? This making a link in their mind between what the setting requires and the system supports?

Absolutely. We see this all the time with arguments about whether, by mechanically representing X, a system gets in the way, or discourages Y, etc. (See the Fute quote on mechanics and cultural norms here.) But that's very airy stuff. I'm talking more about nuts-and-bolts like how D&D combat, spell rules, and experience progression produce a certain "feel", and if you graft them onto say Glorantha you're either going to alter the "feel" of that setting to a degree that would be intoleratble to some fans, or you're going to have to tweak the system quite a bit...and still probably fail to fully capture the essence, while also bringing in some "inclusions" (a term from mineralogy) that are "foreign" to the setting.

Ultimately, to the group, which is what's really important, this doesn't matter. If it's fun, it's fun. But I think it's a clash of mindsets--though many people probably aren't completely in one camp or the other. To give an example from outside of RPGs, it's like the difference between film and stage, or film and books. When you see voiceover in film, I'd say that's a strong indication that you've got an adaptation from a book, and a lot of the time it works rather clumsily. (Viz: Blade Runner, Lynch's Dune. The Two Jakes while not an adaptation emphasizes the point even more strongly.) Sometimes it seems that the demand for a film treatment is such that it obliterates the fact that the source material just isn't suitable; you end up with something that's a travesty of one or the other, or both.

O.k. this will be an interesting discussion because we have different enough views of this subject so as to stimulate a healthy discussion.

My basis is that system does not matter, in the sense that it can be crafted to suit a specific setting and only a specific setting. So, DND is thought of as a fantasy system. Why? Really, step back and ask yourself why. Chances are, it will have much more to do with perception and branding than mechanics. More importantly, it will have to do with people's perceptions, either of what like in the system they play for that genre/setting or what they believe such a system needs. In truth, most systems will have a form of task resolution that will work regardless. At this point, I should note that I do not count equipment lists in "system" the way most folk might.

See, I believe that people play systems for certain Elements like how combat works or equipment is defined or skills resolved. There likes of a system are at odds with their expectations of the setting. Some folks need those expectations met. Others would rather stick with the system they know.

Me personally, I am a big believer in universal systems. There is no reason you can't use ADND for sci-fi. I have done it. It worked because my group enjoyed ADND at the time.

In the end, I may not be the best for this discussion. I see such distinctions as superficial. No one has been able to show me yet how a system is tied to a setting mechanically. It usually comes down to a preconceived attachment that a system somehow is attached to a setting. This is perfectly valid though, just not empirically true;i.e. "DND cannot support sci-fi" or "DND is made for fantasy only".

Of course, all just my take on it.

Bill

QuoteTo make something practical about this: when a setting is really "off", I think it's a good idea to make the game system simple even while including the necessary elements to capture the essence.

That's why eg HQ is a good fit for many applications.

I think that what system a user wants usually says more about the user than the setting. Sure, some concepts need mechanical support, but snarky little retorts like silva's fall beneath that threshold, because (as in your example), AD&D obviously mechanically supported elements of the planescape setting.

I would say it is fair to say that some settings do have facets for which there really isn't fair coverage, but I think that those authentic cases of need are in the minority of cases that are groused about.

Nice discussion here.

Just to clarify a point though: what I think the D&D system do NOT supports is what I perceive as being central to the Planescape setting. (fortunately, the Planewalker Sourcebook addressed this with the Belief mechanic - a proof that the very authors perceived this too? ).

Planescape is a peculiar case, I think, as its wide enough in scope to accomodate a number of styles, themes, ...and systems. hehe

QuoteI think that what system a user wants usually says more about the user than the setting

True.

Quoteit seems to me that sometimes people look for applications for their medium, and sometimes they look for media for their application. Neither of these is wrong per se but the two approaches seem to lie behind some clashes I've observed

Interesting observation.

 Ive seen myself on both sides. Some time ago I would play the Shadowrun system with any setting - from cyberpunk to high-fantasy, to horror, etc. "why play another system?" I would say.

Some time later, I was introduced to systems that supported the setting "messages". I remember seeing the "social" atributes in Vampire: the Masquerade the first time and saying "appearance? cmon... what a ladies thing!", and then seeing it supporting the social-political tendencies of the setting well.... and I liked it.

Yet, sometimes I just want play some furious combat with pools of dice (Shadowrun) with any setting, or some epic battles (D&D) with any setting, or some very rules-light system like Heroquest with any setting, or... you got it.

  I function by seasons, I think.

ps: I remember the english version of Engel being horribly disconnected rules-setting wise.

I think it is conceivable that many systems could be serviceable for most genres. Although, many would need to be tweaked and adapted to fit the genre/setting they are trying to emulate more than others....

It would be hard to adapt HERO or GURPS to run, say, a Toon game... But I guess it could be done if you strip away enough of the original core.. Much like how Action!System had been stripped down considerably for usage for "Monster Island" or "Cybor Gladiators"

I truly believe system does matter but also I believe that systems can be molded and shaped to better depict their intended subject matter.

I dunno, really. I ran Tiwesdaeg with three different systems (GURPS, FATE, and then HarnMaster) and I didn't notice much difference in the campaigns as a whole. It made a difference in moments in sessions, but the end result was about the same.

The biggest difference was the mix of players at the table.

Or another example: using GURPS. I know one group that took two and a half sessions to defeat a dozen gargoyles; in my game we fought a battle that decided the fate of the entire Roman Republic in half an hour. Same system, very different results.

It's mostly about the people. Doesn't mean the system is irrelevant; but the people are much more important, whether they're well-organised, know the rules, get along, what they're aiming for, and so on.

So that's a game session's style and the system, what about setting and system? I dunno, really. I think it's about evoking a mood more than anything. I mean,

   James the Warrior [GURPS]
ST 14 [40], thr 1d, sw 2d
Broadsword (A) DX+1 [4]-11

and

   James the Warrior [FATE]
Strong as an ox [][]
Blade-bearing warrior []

are in their different systems more or less the same; but they feel different.

Quote from: LancerI think it is conceivable that many systems could be serviceable for most genres. Although, many would need to be tweaked and adapted to fit the genre/setting they are trying to emulate more than others....

See, it all depends on what you mean by tweaked. Would the system fail? Or do you mean new skills, equipment or the like? One is what I call external extension and the other internal. In external extension, you need to bolt a mechanic, underived from anything in the core system, to the side in order to accomodate an element of the setting. So, if you were running a setting that needed a Spiritual component with DND. You could bolt one on the side from something like WOD. Internal would be taking the WIS stat and using it as a base fo spiritual checks vs a target number. To me, this is what would distinguish a system that could or could not support a setting. No possibility of internal extension.

Quote from: LancerIt would be hard to adapt HERO or GURPS to run, say, a Toon game... But I guess it could be done if you strip away enough of the original core.. Much like how Action!System had been stripped down considerably for usage for "Monster Island" or "Cybor Gladiators"

I truly believe system does matter but also I believe that systems can be molded and shaped to better depict their intended subject matter.

Well, see, this is the problem I have with quips (mine not yours) about system not mattering. I do believe it matters, but not to the setting. It is more about group preference. Do they like their usual system? Can they see how to adapt it? Maybe yes, maybe no. It is a matter of liking how the system does things then you will naturally try to export it to a new setting. Say, for instance, I like Robotech (I do and did as a kid). My group REALLY liked AD&D. I suggested Palladium and they were familiar with the system but wanted AD&D Robotech. No prob, whipped up an internal extension with one external subsystem for mecha combat. Done.

In the end, I think we need to ask what "support" means. Does it mean without modification or does it mean you can run the game with mods? Possibly a third option of does the system meet your perceived needs for the genre?

Bill

System doesn't matter if you accept as true that the system can be modified endlessly to support settings other than it's intended.

For example, I would argue that you can't run a sci-fi game with the AD&D 1st Edition rules as written, despite the inclusion of a few sci-fi weapons in the DMG, and the adventure Expedition to Barrier Peaks.

It's true that you could remove large elements of the AD&D games as written, and write a large amount of material to run plausible sci-fi.  It'd be easier if you were aiming for "sci fi" in the sense of John Carter of Mars, or Star Wars.  It would work less well if you were trying to do something more like David Weber story.  But with enough effort, you could completely change the rules and make it work.

Assuming there actually are rules, of course.  Some DM's take DM Fiat to the point where there literally are no meaningful rules.  In such cases system doesn't matter if by system you mean the rules-as-written, but system is highly relevant if you mean "the system in the DM's head."  Using such a system, one could certainly run any setting using any rule book as a springboard.

Ultimately though, I have to agree with the perspective that argues that system does matter, if only because having a system already written that does what you need the setting to do beats the hell out of having to write that yourself.  And different system do have very different "feels."

Friday Night Firefight plays very, noticeably, different than AD&D 1st Ed., especially if you're playing a well-seasoned and experienced character.  Because in FNF one shot can kill you dead, no matter how good you are.  In AD&D (rules as written), it's inevitably possible to have enough hit points to make guns a minor threat at best.

So if you have a setting that calls for gritty realism and the ever present threat of deadly gunplay, like say you're doing something set in William Gibson's vision of the future, then a system like Friday Night Firefight works much better at capturing that in gameplay than, say, the D20 System.

And I would tend to agree that Planescape would have worked better with a different system.  The Storyteller System, as an example.  It is TSR's attempt to capture that audience back afterall.

For me, there's three areas where system and setting really need to be in agreement:

- Metaphysics. If you are running a game in D&D then, by golly, clerics had better pray for their spells, wizards had better need to memorise things from musty old books, and Paladins had better be goody-two-shoes. To my mind, Planescape actually did a good job of this - right down to keeping the alignment system tied to the structure of the planes (to the point where if a region of a plane shifts its alignment, it's physically shifted to the appropriate plane).

- Grittiness/Realism (or the lack thereof). Don't give me a high-flying swashbuckling setting coupled with a system which would kill characters attempting high-flying swashbuckling tricks by the score, for example; similarly, don't try to be brutal and low-fantasy and realistic when we're playing a system where the player characters can end up kicking seven flavours of ass.

- Background. The events in the world's background should broadly fit the system; naturally there can be some leeway for mythic dreamtimes or the actions of gods, but in conventional "history" (as opposed to epic prehistory) the action should be broadly in-keeping with the setting. If you have a scruffy orphan attacking a fully-armed warrior-king and killing him with a lucky shot, this had better be the sort of system where that can happen. I don't mind NPC wizards using spells unavailable to PCs - especially in magic systems which allow for wizards homebrewing their own spells - but they should have written the things down somewhere (though in the case of wizards from the game's background their books could always have been burned by angry peasants following the sorcerer's downfall or something). This is where campaign settings fall over a lot of the time. (I don't think I've ever seen a D&D campaign setting which has really thought through the implications of Raise Dead - sure, the people who can cast it are probably very, very rare, but at the very least the heads of the major churches, and perhaps the kings of nations supported by them, should remain in place until they die of old age, unless they are kidnapped by their assassins and their bodies hidden until Raise Dead and Resurrection will no longer work).

QuoteAnd I would tend to agree that Planescape would have worked better with a different system. The Storyteller System, as an example. It is TSR's attempt to capture that audience back afterall.

True. The authors said they took inspiration from Vampire: the Masquerade to create Planescape (I think its very obvious that philosophical Factions are inspired by V:tM philosophical Clans).

Much like Elliot's original post, I think it matters from which direction you come at the problem. Do you have a hard and fast idea of how the setting works, or do you have a favorite system in mind? If it's the former, there might be setting details which lend themselves to specific mechanics. For example, I was a big HERO System player until I started designing a world with a magic system and spells I just couldn't get to work in HERO without tweaking the point costs to where I was uncomfortable. Now, if I had started with the idea of playing HERO, I think the world would have turned out differently because I would have designed the world with the mechanical assumptions of HERO in mind.

That's not to say you can't run any setting in any system and have fun... but I think there will be certain concessions (tweaks) made to accomodate one or the other. So how far can we tweak a game before we have made a whole new game?

Generic systems with universal resolution mechanics might solve this dilemma, but I have one issue there. Often in games, I like having various subsystems that feel (simulate?) an important aspect of the setting. If I am running a game about WWI pilots, and dogfighting is going to be a large part, I would really like a detailed system for resolving dogfights... that feels like a dogfight. If I have some abstract resolution system underneath, it may have the advantage of being universal and easy to resolve, but runs the risk of feeling more like a Euro-Boardgame than what I wanted.

I ran into this once when designing a system for starships. One of my players suggested that the ships could be written up exactly like characters and the same combat rules apply. While I thought this was amazingly clever, I ultimately ditched the idea... not because it didn't work, but because the resulting conflicts felt exactly like combats between characters and lacked the feel I had envisioned for starships.

Quote from: silva(I think its very obvious that philosophical Factions are inspired by V:tM philosophical Clans.)

Strictly speaking, the clans in old Vampire were generally based on the heritage of the bloodlines more than anything else: except perhaps in the case of the antitribu, the membership wasn't something to choose or disregard as you wished, as you were effectively "born" into one of the clans. The sects like the Camarilla and the Sabbat, on the other hand, had their basis in philosophy and ideology.