To paraphrase: "Good mechanics will get you through bad settings better than good settings will get you through bad mechanics."

I can always make a better setting.

I usually end up converting settings I like to some old school version of D&D.  So TOR 2e will likely become Swords & Wizardry set in Middle Earth with a few flavor tweaks.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
Okay - for people that buy for mechanics.

Does this mean that you use those mechanics outside of the published settings? And do you GM? Do you ever convert other settings to these mechanics?


For people that buy for setting.
Do you ever play that setting using other mechanics? Or do you only stick with the mechanics of that published setting.

What I'm trying to figure out here is this: There are a LOT of settings out there, and a LOT of game-systems. "D&D" has multiple versions of its system which supports various settings in their own way, but not everyone agrees on "which system" is best, but there is a "general" consensus on the better settings within D&D. Likewise, there are settings that a LOT of people like, Shadowrun, Torg, Rifts, that people constantly complain about the system, whenever these threads come up.

The heart of the question is - how many people WOULD mix-and-match their favorite mechanics to their favorite setting? Or do you stick with what is delivered?

Those of you that homebrew your settings, how often do you change mechanical systems? I don't mean tweak what you use, i'm talking major task-resolution changes. Moving from d20 to d100 or something, as an example.

In both cases I mostly use it for inspiration for my own stuff. Though, I would consider playing settings with systems I don't like using another system if I get the chance. I did a bunch of homebrewed stuff for RIFTS back in the day, and considered using another system for it a bunch of times. And I might consider using certain D&D settings (like Dark Sun) to test my own system at one point when I get around to it.

The same cannot be said about games I get for the system, though. I only ever get those for research purposes when working on my own systems. I might have considered trying certain universal systems at one point (like Champions/HERO), but at this point I'd probably just go with my system, specially since it already does what I look for in universal systems better (at least for my purposes) or more simply (looking at HERO) than they do.

Mechanics for the game, settings for the art.

I have homebrewed my own settings since the beginning, lifting mostly from literature (as opposed to other settings), and I will gladly "update" my setting with a port of my favorite mechanics. Usually, but not always (this seems relevant to your query), such an update would entail starting a new campaign.

These days, I homebrew my own mechanics as well, which have changed over time while much of the setting through those games remains consistent (or rather, has evolved as actively played settings do).

Ultimately, for me the best case is where the mechanics are both excellent, and inseparable from the setting, in which case I wouldn't be able to say which motivated the purchase. I'm not travelled enough to give specific examples off the top of my head, but it's what I shoot for in my own creations.

So, as a setting-first guy, I'll say that homebrew-tweaking a setting is a lot harder for me. In a well written setting, each aspect has tendrils intertwined with other aspects. E.g., The Plaid Paladins engage in ritual homosexuality due to their age old animosity with the Tree-folk, who are at war with the feral elves because the feral elves have historically taken too much grown wood from the Okie-Dokie Forest, a place that the paladins hold sacred but never dare to tread because of the blah blah blah. If I decide that this is dumb and the tree-folk and paladins should be allied, it has a lot of ramifications that will need a lot of other changes to the setting and I don't have the time for that; I might as well make my own setting. Mechanics on the other hand are easy to drop, replace, or modify. E.g., The game I'm running now has hit locations and localized crits. It would be trivial to convert that to a simple HP system.

As for changing things up, I have dropped and simplified mechanics in settings that I like. I have never propped up a bad setting with my own work just because it had great mechanics. If that were to happen, I would steal the mechanics and use my own setting.

tl;dr: I would play my favorite settings with almost any mechanic, but I wouldn't play a crap setting with God's own mechanics.

Plus, if we're talking about reasons for buying, a lot of mechanics are free anyway, more so than setting books.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
For people that buy for setting.
Do you ever play that setting using other mechanics? Or do you only stick with the mechanics of that published setting.

I prefer to try playing a setting with the mechanics that it comes with at least once.  If the rules don't click, but the group like the setting, I've got plenty of other game systems I can port it over to.  I've done that on a handful of occasions.  Hellas to Savage Worlds was one.  Alternity's StarDrive using WEG d6 was another.

More often what happens if we don't like a system is that it'll go back on the shelf and I'll cannibalize parts of the setting for use in other games.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
For people that buy for setting.
Do you ever play that setting using other mechanics?

Yes - I'll use the setting I like + the mechanics I like.

  Mechanics if we are talking me running a game.  If playing...I can make some concessions.  For buying purposes...if the book is interesting, has an interesting setting, I will buy it just for ideas towards mechanics I like.   Mechanics are the most important, but I have bought alot of stuff I know I will not play or run.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
Okay - for people that buy for mechanics.

Does this mean that you use those mechanics outside of the published settings? And do you GM? Do you ever convert other settings to these mechanics?

Mechanics go into my toolkit for building custom rulesets for any setting I run. I strongly prefer rulesets tailored to the setting and find generic rulesets often quite lacking outside of whatever they were originally written for.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
For people that buy for setting.
Do you ever play that setting using other mechanics? Or do you only stick with the mechanics of that published setting.

If the mechanics are crap, but I like the setting enough, I'll build my own system to run it.

I don't use the same resolution mechanic each time either, but what will produce the best results for the genre. One of my used a success-counting dice pool system, another used additive dice pools, others used 2d6 or an exploding d10 for checks. My fantasy setting uses a d20 because it does a pretty good job in that genre. Some of them didn't even use attributes... everything in a couple were entirely skill-based. I've done levels, buying ranks with XP and "improve by use" for advancement.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
Okay - for people that buy for mechanics.

Does this mean that you use those mechanics outside of the published settings? And do you GM? Do you ever convert other settings to these mechanics?


For people that buy for setting.
Do you ever play that setting using other mechanics? Or do you only stick with the mechanics of that published setting.

What I'm trying to figure out here is this: There are a LOT of settings out there, and a LOT of game-systems. "D&D" has multiple versions of its system which supports various settings in their own way, but not everyone agrees on "which system" is best, but there is a "general" consensus on the better settings within D&D. Likewise, there are settings that a LOT of people like, Shadowrun, Torg, Rifts, that people constantly complain about the system, whenever these threads come up.

The heart of the question is - how many people WOULD mix-and-match their favorite mechanics to their favorite setting? Or do you stick with what is delivered?

Those of you that homebrew your settings, how often do you change mechanical systems? I don't mean tweak what you use, i'm talking major task-resolution changes. Moving from d20 to d100 or something, as an example.

To be honest, these days I don't want to do the work of converting a setting to another ruleset. That more often means I'll play a less ideal setting with rules I like than slog through terrible rules in a great setting. There's a lot of products out there though, and I don't need perfection in either system or setting, but if the mechanics can't hit 8/10 for me and the setting doesn't rate at least a 6/10, I'm likely to just shelf the game and move on. Yeah, I do have a lot of such things on my shelf these days thanks to the increased disposable income that comes from adulting.

I'm with HappyDaze. These days I don't convert anything. I play the package as is or I don't play it at all. No time to adapt stuff anymore.

In this mindset, I find it easier to wing setting details than rules/mechanics.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
Okay - for people that buy for mechanics.

Does this mean that you use those mechanics outside of the published settings? And do you GM? Do you ever convert other settings to these mechanics?

...

The heart of the question is - how many people WOULD mix-and-match their favorite mechanics to their favorite setting? Or do you stick with what is delivered?

Those of you that homebrew your settings, how often do you change mechanical systems? I don't mean tweak what you use, i'm talking major task-resolution changes. Moving from d20 to d100 or something, as an example.

Well, you said to pick one or the other, and mechanics is on top for me.  But mostly I don't buy either.  When I buy either, it's more for ideas than to run it straight, because I don't particularly think mechanics or settings are done all that well, in general.  Or at least not done well for the kind of games I want to run.  (For example, I think ACKS is a great rule set.  Doesn't fit what I want to do, though.) 

I also think the mechanics should reinforce the setting and vice versa.  I'm more than completely done with generic or universal systems.  I had fun running original FR setting in Fantasy Hero (4th edition).  I had fun running D&D 5E with my own setting.  Contrast that to my own systems that are some of my own mechanics work inspired by other mechanics, but tailored to a particular kind of setting I had in mind when building the mechanics.  Yeah, I'll adapt to more than one setting (because I tend to like variety in my settings), but they'll have a lot of points of similarity.  Whereas my Dragon Quest clone/adaptation implies a setting very different, because the source material is different.

Not sure if that really answers the question.

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
Okay - for people that buy for mechanics.

Does this mean that you use those mechanics outside of the published settings? And do you GM? Do you ever convert other settings to these mechanics?

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Why? Because System Matters.

For me, game mechanics are a way to find the right tool for the job, that job being bringing the genre fun to the table that keeps both Players and GM entertained. Traveller was originally created for literary science fiction, but if I was going to run something in the Deadlands setting, then I would rather use Rider (Cepheus Engine/Traveller for Westerns) to run it than Savage Worlds because the mechanics require less 'baggage' to run it. 'Baggage' as in I only need six-sided dice and the Core Rulebook without adding a deck of cards or every other polyhedral die in a bag just to play. "Baggage' comes into play when game mechanics add fiddly bits that do not necessarily increase the genre fun, but do raise the bar for newbie entry into that game.

Mechanics. I wouldn't for example want to play a Gumshoe or a Burning Wheel version of Rune Quest/Warhammer/Elric.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2022, 01:40:38 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2022, 10:50:09 AM
For people that buy for setting.
Do you ever play that setting using other mechanics? Or do you only stick with the mechanics of that published setting.

If the mechanics are crap, but I like the setting enough, I'll build my own system to run it.

Since some examples might help...

- Settings where I've used the provided rules mostly as is (house rules are inevitable); Mage the Ascension, Mutants & Masterminds (actually used their Freedom City for the campaign city), Palladium Fantasy, Rifts, Vampire the Masquerade (20th), WEG Star Wars.

- Settings I've enjoyed enough to build my own rulesets for; Mage the Ascension*, Star Trek, Robotech, Battletech/Mechwarrior and my own fantasy setting.

* This was c. 2004 when White Wolf dropped the Old World of Darkness and long before the advent of easily available pdfs. So to ensure all my newer players who might never be able to find a game book had everything they needed to play, starting from my house rules I rewrote the whole thing from top to bottom into my own system. When Mage20 came out I like its new take on paradigms and magical instruments enough that I started using it for my more recent campaigns.