Quote from: HinterWeltThis 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.
Bill

You're going a bit to extremes though--a rules set can support assumptions of the setting for example, a rules set may support that magic can be gathered (that its is a concencrated substance that can manifiest in location or objects) and that substance may be tied to certian aspects of the setting such as a castle of such age that needs magical spells to thwart its crumbling. this actually is similar to an event in Ars Magica btw...

More finely: If the system mechanically say presents a rule where falling off a cliff will not kill a character under any circumstances (no matter the cliff's height) you create a feel, this feel may be cartoon like in tone if the outcome is that the character un-killed can then recover enough to walk away. If the setting is supposed to be brutal, then obviously this rule, is not supporting that feel and needs to be fixed. (and it is like your own an extreme example.)

Quote from: SilverlionYou're going a bit to extremes though--a rules set can support assumptions of the setting for example, a rules set may support that magic can be gathered (that its is a concencrated substance that can manifiest in location or objects) and that substance may be tied to certian aspects of the setting such as a castle of such age that needs magical spells to thwart its crumbling. this actually is similar to an event in Ars Magica btw...

More finely: If the system mechanically say presents a rule where falling off a cliff will not kill a character under any circumstances (no matter the cliff's height) you create a feel, this feel may be cartoon like in tone if the outcome is that the character un-killed can then recover enough to walk away. If the setting is supposed to be brutal, then obviously this rule, is not supporting that feel and needs to be fixed. (and it is like your own an extreme example.)

Oh, definitely. In later posts I tried to refine and further explain my point. I am not saying a system should not support the setting or it is poor design to do so but I do believe that it is poor design for setting to be tied to system. It is a fine distinction but one I believe strongly in.

Bill

I like rules to be independent of setting. In fact, it seems to be a common preference in the RPG field. I'm surprised more game designers haven't picked-up on that.

After all, how many times have you heard a gamer talk about "using X Rules for Y Setting?" You'd figure that more writers would want to facilitate that by not tying X Rules too-closely to Z Setting in the first place.

Quote from: YamoI like rules to be independent of setting. In fact, it seems to be a common preference in the RPG field. I'm surprised more game designers haven't picked-up on that.

After all, how many times have you heard a gamer talk about "using X Rules for Y Setting?" You'd figure that more writers would want to facilitate that by not tying X Rules too-closely to Z Setting in the first place.

Outside of RPGnet I don't think I've ever heard it.  I'll put forward that most people play what they pick up, and the idea of using X rules for Y setting is actually rather rare.  Careful, you're starting to make my pine for King Stannis...

Quote from: MaddmanOutside of RPGnet I don't think I've ever heard it.  I'll put forward that most people play what they pick up, and the idea of using X rules for Y setting is actually rather rare.  Careful, you're starting to make my pine for King Stannis...

Agreed. Most gamers run with games as-written, and hack what they need to with houserules. What you are talking about is like model kit-bashing, and is only true for the bleeding edge of gamers - those who have lost the ability to take thigs at face value.  

RPGnet is a thing unto itself, and has little to do with the larger world of RPG playing. I love RPGnet for its many virtues, but RPGnet is jaded, hypercritical, and self-referential. It's also rife with in-jokes, attitude, and one-upmanship. This is a really nice place, and doesn't need to be another RPGnet. We already have one.

-mice

Quote from: MaddmanOutside of RPGnet I don't think I've ever heard it.  I'll put forward that most people play what they pick up, and the idea of using X rules for Y setting is actually rather rare.  Careful, you're starting to make my pine for King Stannis...

Actually, I very much doubt that. If "most gamers" had been using Champions for superheroes, I doubt HERO System would have ever seen the light of day.

If "most gamers" hadn't immediately started trying to hack Mutants & Masterinds to work for everything from D&D fantasy to Star Wars, I doubt True20 would have ever seen the light of day.

Then there's BESM > SAS > TriStat dX.

If you go back far enough, even GURPS gew out of Fantasy Trip.

Games evolve this way all the time as fan response alerts companies to the fact that they've shortchanged a great set of rules by associating it too closely with a single setting or genre.

Quote from: Yamostuff

Yeah, but I disagree that this is a common thing.  The hardcore gamers, the ones who have their heads all in game design, they do this kind of thing.  Most gamers don't.  If you went to any of the groups I've played with and wanted to do something like run Star Wars with HeroQuest or whatever, they'd look at you like you were on crack.

Quote from: MaddmanYeah, but I disagree that this is a common thing.  The hardcore gamers, the ones who have their heads all in game design, they do this kind of thing.  Most gamers don't.  If you went to any of the groups I've played with and wanted to do something like run Star Wars with HeroQuest or whatever, they'd look at you like you were on crack.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagee. My own anecdotal experience confirms my view, but yours clearly doesn't.

Quote from: YamoActually, I very much doubt that. If "most gamers" had been using Champions for superheroes, I doubt HERO System would have ever seen the light of day.

Wrong.  After the initial success of Champions, Peterson and Macdonald realized the potential of the system and made plans to expand it into other genres, which became games like Fantasy Hero, Danger International, and Justice Inc.

Quote from: Lisa NadazdyWrong.  After the initial success of Champions, Peterson and Macdonald realized the potential of the system and made plans to expand it into other genres, which became games like Fantasy Hero, Danger International, and Justice Inc.

And they didn't notice at all that people were already doing this?

Don't buy that.

Quote from: YamoAnd they didn't notice at all that people were already doing this?

Don't buy that.

You don't have to buy it.  However, when I first started playing it (waaaaaaay back in 1981), even I had thought "you know, this is a great supers game, but I can see potential to use this for fantasy and other types of gaming".  If had those kinds of thoughts, I'm certain it crossed the minds of the original creators, too.  I mean, what makes you think they didn't realize the potential for this at the start?  Those guys are at least as creative as I am, so why do you sell them short?

I like systems that can be adapted to other setting, such as Unisystem, although there are some exceptions (the Toon rules may not adapt well to other genres, but they're great for playing cartoon characters.

Quote from: YamoActually, I very much doubt that. If "most gamers" had been using Champions for superheroes, I doubt HERO System would have ever seen the light of day.

If "most gamers" hadn't immediately started trying to hack Mutants & Masterinds to work for everything from D&D fantasy to Star Wars, I doubt True20 would have ever seen the light of day.

Funnily enough in the PLAYTESTING stage for my superhero game one of the testers decided to use it for High Fantasy. (Guess what, it worked fine.. )

Given the wide range of supers around, a good supers game makes a pretty good foundation for a generic game. The main issues that could pop up would be a lack of resolution at the lower end of the scale (e.g. the original Marvel game only had five Strength levels available for normal humans).

Quote from: DackeGiven the wide range of supers around, a good supers game makes a pretty good foundation for a generic game. The main issues that could pop up would be a lack of resolution at the lower end of the scale (e.g. the original Marvel game only had five Strength levels available for normal humans).

That's not really an issue though "only five strength levels" is a matter of taste really (D6 uses very similar spread, Savage Worlds, Unisystem, Even D20 fundamentally uses only 0-5 scale , its just hidden by a 3-18 meaningless subgradiation after all only the bonus matters to /actual/ resolution)

This gets into a lot of what people mean by granularity though--Hero for example has a Huge possible spread of numbers, but for some things (OCV, DCV, dice damage from strength ) derived from primary stats the break points were pretty specific meaning a lot of those points really mean nothing different than all the points around it. To the actual mechanical effect of the game. After all if you have +5 attribute  added directly  to a d20 roll, that matters a lot more than 200 point attribute that adds only +1 to the d20 roll.

To take it a bit back on target a game whose traits fit the scope and scale of things (or even the purpose and theme, because some games aren't about doing at all, or describing the acts of doing.) is important. After all if you sat down to play a fantasy rpg about killing things and taking its stuff, and one of the cheif stats was "Fluffybunnyness" this might perhaps strike you as wrong...(unless its about fluffy bunnies with swords and mail delving into lost warrens of elder things...but I digress.)