Do you like it when game rules are designed specifically around a particular setting?  Or would you rather have generic rules that can be tweaked to fit any setting.

I'm sort of in between.  I like rules designed for a particular genre.

I'm usually not crazy about rules specifically designed to work with one particular setting and no other.  For example, someone yesterday mentioned L5R and 7th Sea as having a good ruleset, but I'm not really interested in the setting of either, so I will probably never take a look.

Tied to setting.  The setting, if it's at all interesting, will have its own uniqueness that the system should reflect.  I think you can get away with having a system tweaked to the setting though - you don't need an entirely new way to roll dice with each setting.  But the tweaking and adjusting should be done thoroughly, not just as an afterthought.

Unique rules for a setting are cool if they're not hugely obtuse.  

I don't mind general rulesets.  But serious thought should be given on the quality of the fit and adjustments should be made to get the feel of the genre.  

And no ruleset will work with every setting/genre.  Some times it's better not to try than to have a really lousy fit.

I think either is cool. Though when I think about it, most of my favorite games have a somewhat generic system with modifications to fit the genre/setting:

D&D: There are plenty of non-fantasy d20 versions out there.

Exalted: Heavily modified World of Darkness, though the modifications to the rules core seem to have more to do with speeding the game up rather than adapting it to Creation specifically. The Creation-specific stuff is in the stuff bolted on to the system, like charms.

Mutant: Swedish RPG based on Basic Roleplaying (same one as in Call of Cthulhu). Again, the tweaks can be pretty clearly separated into system tweaks and setting-specific stuff. The main one that I can think of that crosses the line is the rules for Reliability of equipment (it's post-apocalyptic, so most hi-tech stuff is in pretty bad repair).

TORG: Rather heavily tied into the cross-genre setting, with mechanics that reflect that (rules for what happens when you try to fire an M-16 in stone-age-land). However, it clearly can be de-settinged, as shown with Masterbook.

Eon: Swedish low-fantasy game. It wouldn't be hard to use it with another setting than Mundana (the default one), though it would make almost all the support material useless. Would be harder to make it into a high-fantasy game though.

I don't care about the game being tied to a setting as the setting. What I do think is important are game mechanics that are tied to a specific Genre.

Take D&D and Warhammer, both fantasy settings, similar races similar types of characters can be generated.  But the genre's they handle are drastically different and the rules reflect it propperly.

I buy rules, not so much for the setting but for the type of feel they give to a game.

I tend to go with Kryst on this one.

Quote from: kryystI buy rules, not so much for the setting but for the type of feel they give to a game.

Well put. For me I prefer a rule set that is optimized for a particular type of play, that may be a genre, a sub-genre, and so on--it may be even finer than that and have information (not just rules) on running games of a certian type. Like a space exploration SF game that gives information on handling first contacts--not "rules" so much as "This is how to do this and make it feel like so for your players"--these things make for better games to em. Too few games address such needed points, (and some try and seem to miss the target but at least they tried.)

Either suits me.  I like complete games--the fewer books I have to purchase the better, and I may not always feel like using my homebrew world for a campaign.  In that case, I like it when a default setting is included so I have the option of using it without leaving that book.  I can always separate the rules from the setting if I don't like it.

The system is the setting. They can't be separated. Using wrong system shapes the setting in unwanted ways.

Quote from: ThanuirThe system is the setting. They can't be separated. Using wrong system shapes the setting in unwanted ways.

No, I don't think so.

I can name a few systems and settings I've put together for some great games:

d20 & Roma Imperious

True20 & Forgotten Realms

Traveller & Serenity

HARP & Earthdawn

In each of these, I put a system and setting together with a minimum of difficulty.  If I want to use Thayan Wizards or Drow, but am using Rolemaster, it just isn't difficult to port that concept over.  Nothing breaks, nothing is verboten.  It's just another system in which I choose to express a gaming/setting concept.

In short, as long as you have any sort of flexibility, you can generally divorce system from setting, and vice versa.  Granted, some systems might require a little extra conversion, but there it is.  It's a bit of a blanket statement you have there, and perhaps could use a few qualifiers.

Quote from: ThanuirThe system is the setting. They can't be separated. Using wrong system shapes the setting in unwanted ways.

Unwanted to who? Seems to me if someone puposefully mixes system and setting from different games, they most likely know what they are looking for.

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceUnwanted to who? Seems to me if someone puposefully mixes system and setting from different games, they most likely know what they are looking for.

-mice

Indeed. Some game systems whole purpose is to craft a feel, that are background assumptions which  a variety of settings can be laid onto--only one must examine the base genre assumptions but as long as the setting doesn't contradict those assumptions they can work together.

Quote from: SilverlionIndeed. Some game systems whole purpose is to craft a feel, that are background assumptions which  a variety of settings can be laid onto--only one must examine the base genre assumptions but as long as the setting doesn't contradict those assumptions they can work together.

This is a very personal opinion of mine, but if someone writes the setting in such a way that it is tied to the system, this is poor setting design. Now, do not get me wrong, system can affect setting but to purposely do so seems...artificial.

For instance, if you have a system that uses spell points and those points can be stored, you could have the Holy Order of Spell Point Gatherers. Described in setting, they are dedicated to gather spell points and hording them towards the upcoming Apocalypse.

Alternatively, you can have an Order of Terminus, an order dedicated to the gathering of magic and magical power to combat the upcoming, forordained end of the world. In meta discussion of the group you can describe that they are gathering spell points and magic items for the Final Battle. Armed with this knowledge, should you desire it, the GM can customize the setting for any system. For example in D20, they gather spell scrolls and other items. Easily done and the setting is unharmed since the concept of the Order is not tied to the system.

All that said, it must be noted that I am a fan of universal systems and settings. So, not trying to say anyone is "wrong" just pointing out that settings can be universal.

Bill

I have to disagree with you Hinterwelt.  The rules affect the setting in far more subtle ways than what you are talking about, if the setting is at all consistant.

The GM and his stories are not really affected by the rules.  The GM is going to do whatever the hell he wants anyway.  The players *are*.  The rules they follow determine what is a good idea and what will get you killed.  Indeed, how easy it is to get killed.  I would actually say that the 'game' is a summation of the system and setting, so if you use a setting with a different sytem you are playing a different game.  Not that this is good or bad, but playing my Buffy game I've been going on about would be totally different if we were using say, d20 modern or HERO.

Universal systems can work, you just have to be ready to do some heavy tweaking to get the feel that you want.  Otherwise you can get inconsistant settings - problems like the material saying that 'most combatants prefer light armor to stay mobile' but the rules giving huge benefits to those in heavy armor.

Most times I prefer the generic approach (I use HERO for most things), but sometimes certain games are intertwined with the rules, like say, Pendragon.  I cannot picture Pendragon using any other system other than the one that was tailor-made for it.