Fuck system.

Sure, one or two mechanics emulating the setting and genre you are attempting can aid immersion, but ultimately, it's the setting as laid out by the GM/DM that is the primary source of immersion.

The sense of a world beyond your character, meaning they are a part of something bigger. That is a better aid to immersion than a squillion systemic doo-dads.

Setting isn't enough. It takes a game masters that is able to make the game world seem alive instead of on some static path towards whatever he came up with before the beginning.

Quote from: Cranewings;327945Setting isn't enough. It takes a game masters that is able to make the game world seem alive instead of on some static path towards whatever he came up with before the beginning.

"Canon lawyers" and lazy DMs who always play railroad type campaigns, can destroy the excitement for a setting very quickly.

Quote from: One Horse Town;327943Fuck system.

TBH, Ii think the divide between the two is greatly overblown.

If you have a game system where you require multiple sword hits to take anyone out, then that fact *is* a part of the setting.

Quote from: One Horse Town;327943Fuck system.

Sure, one or two mechanics emulating the setting and genre you are attempting can aid immersion, but ultimately, it's the setting as laid out by the GM/DM that is the primary source of immersion.

The sense of a world beyond your character, meaning they are a part of something bigger. That is a better aid to immersion than a squillion systemic doo-dads.

I'd go one step further and say its the setting and the participation in that setting of all of the players at the table that achieve immersion. No amount of effort and genius by the DM is going to work when the other players are talking about boobs, Mountain Dew, and making Charlie the Unicorn cracks the whole session.

Quote from: ggroy;327947"Canon lawyers" and lazy DMs who always play railroad type campaigns, can destroy the excitement for a setting very quickly.

This is also true.

I think that system should try not to contradict setting, and possibly make certain things easier, then get out of the way. I do agree that setting it more important. The system can screw up the setting though.

For example, if the setting says that something is common- say artificers, but the system makes it hard for them to exist because of onerous crafting rules, then there's a problem with the system.

In my opinion, setting and system are equally important. I tend to put more attention to systems than to settings, but that's me, a personal preference. And the more the system supports the setting, the better.

Quote from: jadrax;327949TBH, Ii think the divide between the two is greatly overblown.

If you have a game system where you require multiple sword hits to take anyone out, then that fact *is* a part of the setting.

Yes and yes.

Quote from: ggroy;327947"Canon lawyers" and lazy DMs who always play railroad type campaigns, can destroy the excitement for a setting very quickly.

And this is one of reasons (but there are others) why I think that, even more important than setting and system, the cornerstone of roleplaying fun is people, that is, a good GM and good players. You can have your favorite system and setting, but if the people you play with suck, the game will inevitably suck. The opposite is not inevitably true.

True immersion is something I've rarely been able to achieve as a player. The few times I experienced it, it was because of the people involved in the game. Most of the time any immersion I might achieve is broken by the other players at the table.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;327964True immersion is something I've rarely been able to achieve as a player. The few times I experienced it, it was because of the people involved in the game. Most of the time any immersion I might achieve is broken by the other players at the table.

I tend to achieve moments of what I would term true immersion at least a few times a session, although it is rare it will last a considerable amount of time.

When I GM, its trickier, as you always have to basically multitask to a far greater extent.

Quote from: jadrax;327968I tend to achieve moments of what I would term true immersion at least a few times a session, although it is rare it will last a considerable amount of time.

When I GM, its trickier, as you always have to basically multitask to a far greater extent.

That hadn't occurred to me. I was thinking more along the lines of immersion maintained over a significant period of time. Moments of immersion do happen a lot more often.

Quote from: One Horse Town;327943Sure, one or two mechanics emulating the setting and genre you are attempting can aid immersion, but ultimately, it's the setting as laid out by the GM/DM that is the primary source of immersion.

One could run a game set in the era of The Three Musketeers using AD&D plus the setting book A Mighty Fortress, but the fencing rules in Flashing Blades do a much better job of capturing the feel of swashbuckling swordplay.

So those "one or two mechanics" can actually make a big diffence in bringing the setting to life.

Quote from: Claudius;327961In my opinion, setting and system are equally important. I tend to put more attention to systems than to settings, but that's me, a personal preference. And the more the system supports the setting, the better.


Yes and yes.


And this is one of reasons (but there are others) why I think that, even more important than setting and system, the cornerstone of roleplaying fun is people, that is, a good GM and good players. You can have your favorite system and setting, but if the people you play with suck, the game will inevitably suck. The opposite is not inevitably true.

Yes, a good GM and good players trumps everything. But that isn't a very useful direction for the conversation unless it is followed by " and this is how you can become a good GM and a good player" as it leave us average to mediocre roleplayers out in the cold.  

As for the orignal topic, they both matter. As a player I guess setting matters more as long as the GM is willing to take care of the rules for me. On the other hand if I don't care for the setting, the best rules in the world are not going to help.  

When I GM I want rules that support my play style. Even if I am drawn to a setting but don't like the system I just won't bother, I know from experience it is simply not be sustainable. If I am really keen I might try converting it to FUDGE although to be honest even that never quite works either. There is something about conversion rules that just takes the shine out of the game.

Yes.

• People
• Snacks
• Setting
• System

in that order.

Quote from: Soylent Green;327980Yes, a good GM and good players trumps everything. But that isn't a very useful direction for the conversation unless it is followed by " and this is how you can become a good GM and a good player" as it leave us average to mediocre roleplayers out in the cold.

You become a good GM or player the same way you become good at anything: by dedicated practice over time where you push your abilities and are willing to fail, and by caring about how well you do.


If you make little or no effort and don't really give a shit, then yes, the session will be crap as a game session. As mentioned earlier, if the players are talking about boobs and Mountain Dew - well, that's neither effort nor caring. So they're crap as gamers, just as a tennis player who sits around drinking beer and won't go on the court is a crap tennis player.

People, snacks, setting, system.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;327957The system can screw up the setting though.

It can screw up immersion in the setting if the system is constantly in your face. Which is why fancy doo-dads and little gimmicky mechanics get in the way of playing the game.