Quote from: Benoist;652724I'm going to indulge once, just to tell you this: you don't know me at all.

Everything I know about you, *you* wrote.

Quote from: Benoist;652724Now I'd appreciate if you'd stop trolling and baiting and stalking me in every thread I post in. Thank you.

I think if you look at all your posts, you'd find very few that I've replied to or commented on over the last few months. In this case for example I replied to you because you were the first reply and you called 'moral relativism' on the question. The second or third poster would have worked as well for they did the same thing, and if they had beaten you in replying- it would have been them.

You're not worth stalking, or even taking much notice of to be honest.

If we are so unworthy of your presence gleichman, why don't you just leave?

You hold nothing but spite for us, and vice versa.


As for the original topic - first of all, I'd not call this better. The more the mechanic is intertwined with the setting, of course  the less universally it will translate. However, the more complicated/vast setting does not equal "better". Gonzo settings are usually pretty vast in content, but I dislike them and I find the whole love of "gonzo madness" that's so common here something that's not for me.

I think a good setting brings its own tone and conflicts which are hard to translate into other settings.

The design of a setting is important for those reasons and I would suggest that it's incredibly difficult to mish-mash settings together. Even in kitchen sink settings, you have neat little boxes where "gothic" adventure is and where "nautical" adventure is.

It was worth a try.

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

No.

About 80% of D&D is material developed for specific, coherent fantasy worlds that were then ruthlessly genericized into the goulash of D&D's "generic" fantasy.

It's a game of hobbits, palantirs, balrogs, and ents with the trademarks stripped off. Incredibly specific characters like Conan and Aragorn are genericized into character classes which are then used to populate entire worlds.

Quote from: silva;652692I 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 ?

As a setting hacker, no. You could take the cults books and use them to replace the Greyhawk deities. You can use the D&D system with the maps. You can pull UZ and put them in Forgotten Realms. You could easily use RQ to play in Harn. Any of the bits can be cut out and pasted into a different setting. I like Glorantha and Harn and Talislanta and Jorune, but what I like from each is different, and eminently hackable. Harn's maps with early Glorantha's cults and (N)PC races from Tal and Jorune (+ Uz and Gargun, cause I loves them both) would work out just fine for me.

Now doing so won't result in as coherent a whole, but that's only a drawback if you're committed to the whole in the first place, and I'm not.

Translating great fictional settings into an RPG is a different matter entirely. A lot, if not most, of what makes a great fictional setting great is the fiction, and that's much harder to capture the feel of in an RPG. Using Tolkein's maps, history, and languages is easy; capturing the feel of the books at a table isn't.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;652795It's a game of hobbits, palantirs, balrogs, and ents with the trademarks stripped off. Incredibly specific characters like Conan and Aragorn are genericized into character classes which are then used to populate entire worlds.

Don't forget Holger Carlsen, and I'm pretty sure the level-attacks-per-round-against-less-than-1HD-creatures rule is from Corwin and Bleys' ascent of Kolvir.

I'm going to dispute the "all you need is internal consistency" argument, though, because if nothing else, virtually all fantasy RPG settings have humans in them, and there are certain laws of biology and human nature that have ripple effects throughout the rest of the setting as a result of that.  Most supposedly internally consistent settings fall apart in a heartbeat as soon as you ask the simple question "what do these people eat?"

The Sub-Creator school of fantasy setting design is both nigh universal and also sharply limited; I'd personally like to see a school of thought based on setting-as-metaphor.

Quote from: daniel_ream;652838Don't forget Holger Carlsen, and I'm pretty sure the level-attacks-per-round-against-less-than-1HD-creatures rule is from Corwin and Bleys' ascent of Kolvir.

I'm going to dispute the "all you need is internal consistency" argument, though, because if nothing else, virtually all fantasy RPG settings have humans in them, and there are certain laws of biology and human nature that have ripple effects throughout the rest of the setting as a result of that.  Most supposedly internally consistent settings fall apart in a heartbeat as soon as you ask the simple question "what do these people eat?"

The Sub-Creator school of fantasy setting design is both nigh universal and also sharply limited; I'd personally like to see a school of thought based on setting-as-metaphor.

Actually living habitants are part of consistency of the setting. That's what was great in Fallout - the first village you entered, you had the mutated growth right in the middle of the village. Admittedly though, yes, we usually will have some conceptions of our physiology and our physics into the setting. Then again, there's something interesting to be done, for example, in a setting where all the food literally comes from the gods.

What do you mean by setting as metaphor?

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

Makes sense to me.

Many campaign settings came with their own sub-classes/prestige classes/whatever templates, domains, religion specific cleric spells, to improve immersion, without really replacing mechanics. Its the compromise we make to keep using a familiar set of rules.

Quote from: silva;652692I stumbled with this in a rpgnet review of an old RQ 2 supplement..



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 ?

I don't see how; 'better' isn't an objective quality.

Roleplaying games with a strong implied setting can be more challenging to adapt to other settings. D&D has a strong implied setting, and therefore the most useful game-worlds for D&D, in my experience, are designed with that implied setting in mind.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652736I would suggest that it's incredibly difficult to mish-mash settings together. Even in kitchen sink settings, you have neat little boxes where "gothic" adventure is and where "nautical" adventure is.

That sounds great to be honest - across the Sea of Fallen Clouds forever sail the clans of the sea gypsies on baroque ships covered in once-colourful murals, now faded and peeling in the everpresent mists to reveal the deep mahogany beneath. Stir in cloistered elders, a terrible secret at the heart of the families, a doomed love and you're good.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;652847I don't see how; 'better' isn't an objective quality.

Well it can be, a bulldozer is objectively better measured by tons of earth moved per hour versus a shovel or spoon. In artistic terms though, yeah almost everything is subjective.

The more a thing requires players to modify their current expectations, the more difficult those things are to translate, and it applies to both rules and setting.

Quote from: Benoist;652745It was worth a try.

What was worth a try? Telling me to go away? Or were you trying for something more worthwhile?

I'm willing to bury the hatchet if you are, same deal I made with BedrockBrendan. A new clean slate between us although it will not alter my opinion of D&D and the wider OSR.

Interested?

Quote from: gleichman;652900I'm willing to bury the hatchet if you are, same deal I made with BedrockBrendan. A new clean slate between us although it will not alter my opinion of D&D and the wider OSR.

Interested?