TheRPGSite

Don't give me some fence-sitting answer and say "both". Think really hard and pick which is more important.

If you need help deciding, simply ask yourself if you'd ever play your favorite setting in a different system. Yes I realize that some systems are tied irrevocably to a setting, but are those mechanics what define what is cool about that game or is the setting itself what drew you in and spent your hard-won gold to buy it?

Gold is at stake here people. GOLD.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:07:26 PM
Don't give me some fence-sitting answer and say "both". Think really hard and pick which is more important.

If you need help deciding, simply ask yourself if you'd ever play your favorite setting in a different system. Yes I realize that some systems are tied irrevocably to a setting, but are those mechanics what define what is cool about that game or is the setting itself what drew you in and spent your hard-won gold to buy it?

Gold is at stake here people. GOLD.

I don't quite think it is fence sitting. I tend to find both genuinely important. I wouldn't want to play the Ravenloft setting using Runequest, but I also wouldn't want to play Glorantha using the Ravenloft and 2E rules. That said, if I had to give it a percentage, 60% setting, 40% system. Ultimately I can't deny that what drew me to Ravenloft was reading knight of the black rose, and the setting is what caught my interest. But if the setting didn't have stuff like powers checks and all those rules and advice for customizing monsters, I might not have stayed as long as I did there.

Mechanics.

Good mechanics can carry a weak setting. But a good setting can't carry weak mechanics.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:07:26 PM
Don't give me some fence-sitting answer and say "both". Think really hard and pick which is more important.

If you need help deciding, simply ask yourself if you'd ever play your favorite setting in a different system. Yes I realize that some systems are tied irrevocably to a setting, but are those mechanics what define what is cool about that game or is the setting itself what drew you in and spent your hard-won gold to buy it?

Gold is at stake here people. GOLD.

Mechanics.

However I judge mechanics by how well they emulate the genre of the setting. I prefer Traveller/Cepheus Engine mechanics because they emulate the literary science fiction that I read. I can't see myself playing any other anime style giant robot game without using the Mekton rules because they emulate the genre so well. Star Wars has got to be d6 system because in play it just feels like the right mechanics for the science fantasy genre.

Likewise, mechanics will turn me off of a game for the same reason. I tried to love d20 Star Wars, but every time I played it was like D&D in Spaaaaaaace.....Same thing with Stars Without Number and host of other OSR SFRPGs that try to be Traveller with a D&D type character and combat system, actual play again feels like D&D in Spaaaaaace.....because of the mechanics and how they interact with the genre emulation.

In my mind, the D&D based mechanics are only fitting for D&D style fantasy gaming.

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 10, 2022, 12:40:39 PM

Likewise, mechanics will turn me off of a game for the same reason. I tried to love d20 Star Wars, but every time I played it was like D&D in Spaaaaaaace....
.

I played d20 star wars for years and had the same reaction. I think with Star Wars especially it was an odd fit. I tend to have less of a reaction like that with the post 2010 OSR stuff, but games made in that d20 boom really had a feel that sometimes pulled me out (I did like d20 Cthulhu though, despite initially thinking I wouldn't). Personally I do like having lots of different systems that are fit to the setting

Quote from: Itachi on January 10, 2022, 12:37:28 PM

Good mechanics can carry a weak setting. But a good setting can't carry weak mechanics.

I don't think the mechanics to the setting are weak, but I love HARN and have almost never played it using the actual mechanics (I have played it using different systems). Generally I tend to agree with you. But I think there are settings that are so compelling on their own, or fit such a niche, that they are worth using with other games (I ran HARN modules using both AD&D and my own system and it has always been a blast; and I had a GM who ran a HARN campaign using 3E---I believe, it could have been another system as it was some time ago--- and it still worked wonderfully).

Setting sells to me.

I've been known to buy games based on setting alone, without even knowing what the core mechanic is.

The main reason is that I don't really know how the mechanics will really work until I play or run the game a like dozen times. Even if I know the core mechanic, how it meshes with the setting and how all the sub-systems work are hard for me to visualize without playing the damn thing a few times. So, when in the market for a game, I don't spend too much time worrying about mechanics. That said, if I'm familiar with the core mechanic and I hate it, then that kills the sale.

Mechanics for me.  I usually supply my own setting.   ;)

Mechanics. 

It is a rare setting that I like as much as something else that I do myself.  Plus, it is very difficult to hit the sweet spot of enough setting to be useful to a wide variety of people without dumping a lot of filler into it.  Not least because everyone wants something slightly different.  In this age of constant rewrites, it seems crazy to say it, but people can see that a system is "done" and stop tinkering with it substantially.  The temptation to keep tinkering with a setting when it ought be to done is at least an order of magnitude greater than system.

Setting gets my attention initially, but mechanics are the decider for me. I've walked away from cool settings that have crap mechanics (like Polaris) and I've flatly dropped a cyberpunk game when the GM decided two weeks in that he was going to switch from CPR to GURPS.

Setting.
Mechanics can be handwaved if needed but if I don't like the feeling of where the game is being played, Full Stop.

Both.  :-*

But also this...

Quote from: Itachi on January 10, 2022, 12:37:28 PM
Mechanics.

Good mechanics can carry a weak setting. But a good setting can't carry weak mechanics.

,,.but then gain, if System > Setting, that means setting is still a viable alternative for purchase, since you could just get a game for setting alone (assuming it's an original setting and not a licensed IP you could just get from film/TV shows or fandom wikis) then use the setting and swap the system with one of your preference. So...

Both (or either?).  8)

Mechanics always matter to me.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 10, 2022, 01:26:49 PM
Setting gets my attention initially, but mechanics are the decider for me. I've walked away from cool settings that have crap mechanics (like Polaris) and I've flatly dropped a cyberpunk game when the GM decided two weeks in that he was going to switch from CPR to GURPS.

This.

Settings /game play concepts get my attention, but if the mechanics look naff, I walk.

This is why although I love the setting conceits; I don't own the new Conan game.

Nor will I buy the One Ring 2e. And it just doesn't matter what the new people do with the Star Wars RPG if it keeps using funky dice.

The setting needs to get my attention first and I've bought plenty of games for the setting material alone.  Some of them despite the mechanics attached.  I don't think I've ever said "Well the setting here sucks, but those mechanics... woo baby! Come to daddy!" ;D

Keep the answers coming - because I will definitely have some follow-up questions.


Edit: There is a very interesting Venn Diagram emerging here.

At first glance I wanted to say setting. But I then I thought about the settings I have given up on.

I bought everything I could for the Modiphius Conan game because the company made a promise to remain true to the source materials in the beginning. I loved almost all everything about the game until I tried to play it. All the metacurrencies and the dice mechanics completely killed it for me. And killed my interest in trying out any other 2d20 games completely.

Quote from: rgalex on January 10, 2022, 03:32:13 PM
The setting needs to get my attention first and I've bought plenty of games for the setting material alone.  Some of them despite the mechanics attached.  I don't think I've ever said "Well the setting here sucks, but those mechanics... woo baby! Come to daddy!" ;D

I've actually bought games for either reason. Sometimes a game has mechanics I want to dissect for homebrewing, and I'll get it for research purposes, even if I know I'll never play it as is. Champions comes to mind. I also bought all the early White Wolf game core books just for the setting concepts (though, I didn't exactly hate the system, but never got around playing them).

Mechanics, but, as they say, it's complicated.  I want mechanics that support the genre conceits, which one could probably call setting.  To be clear, that's only one thing I want out of the rules.

And I will have to admit there are books I've bought just to read (not play) because I enjoy the setting, frex Shadowrun and Blue Planet.

I mainly value the setting. Ideally I want the rules to emulate the genre and I want it rules light at the same time. In practice I mostly run a setting with another system than the official/latest. I do think that rules matter for the setting, but I also hate learning new complex systems. And most people I play with don't  care what system I run for which setting.

Both.
I played RuneQuest 2 because of the Mechanics but didn't particularly like Glorantha.
I loved Harn as a setting but not Harnmaster.
RuneQuest homebrew on Harn was a nice mix.

Usually mechanics. I usually handle setting on my own.

Setting, I guess. I'll buy games for the setting and ignore the mechanics.

Setting might get me to buy, but mechanics determine whether I'll end up playing it.  Bad mechanics can destroy an interesting setting in a heartbeat (f'ing Torg...).

Quote from: Jaeger on January 10, 2022, 02:26:51 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 10, 2022, 01:26:49 PM
Setting gets my attention initially, but mechanics are the decider for me. I've walked away from cool settings that have crap mechanics (like Polaris) and I've flatly dropped a cyberpunk game when the GM decided two weeks in that he was going to switch from CPR to GURPS.

This.

Settings /game play concepts get my attention, but if the mechanics look naff, I walk.

This is why although I love the setting conceits; I don't own the new Conan game.

Nor will I buy the One Ring 2e. And it just doesn't matter what the new people do with the Star Wars RPG if it keeps using funky dice.

I agree.  Setting is the main draw card and on the other hand it does not mater how good your setting is if you want me to try and make sense out of rolling a triangle.

Setting isn't that important. I tend to make my own.

I agree with those who say Setting is the initial draw (more accurately, how the Art depicts the Setting), but Mechanics determine how much I'll invest in it or if I'll ever play it.

I haven't built custom systems for practically everything I run for no reason. Usually it's because I find their mechanics garbage (ex. every attempt at a Battletech RPG ever*), but love the setting enough to build a custom ruleset for it. Other than WEG Star Wars and Mutants & Masterminds (and I houserule the damage mechanics on it) I've not met a system I haven't basically built my own game engine for. I houseruled 4E so hard I've got two 360 page books written as my own vision.

* Their latest attempt; Mechwarrior - Destiny; is leagues better than any previous attempt (though still falls down on their streamlined Mech combat) and once you run their jargon through a translator it actually a pretty conventional opposed 2d6+mods system. A specific example of the jargon... "your narration" is literally just jargon for "your turn" right down to such awkward phrases as "take your narration." Its so consistent that I'm pretty sure some marketing mook just ran a word replacer macro on someone's conventional RPG ruleset to replace traditional terms (ex. "turn") to make it sound more like a storygame without actually understanding what the heck a storygame even is.

Mechanics first. 
Flavor second.   
Setting Third.   

A setting can sell a game to me in that it can make me buy the book to mine the setting material because I can adapt a setting to a different game system.

In general, however, a good game tends to make me the most interested because the mechanics of a game are what keep it engaging so if I had to pick one I'd pick mechanics. It's far easier to tailor a setting to taste than to change the moving, mechanical parts of a game.

QuoteDon't give me some fence-sitting answer and say "both". Think really hard and pick which is more important.

Then probably setting more. But if you do not play games RAW... dunno if there is need to pick really. It's not like you're obliged to keep them together.

QuoteBad mechanics can destroy an interesting setting in a heartbeat (f'ing Torg...)

Keep setting, replace mechanics.

Bo-

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:07:26 PM
Don't give me some fence-sitting answer and say "both". Think really hard and pick which is more important.

-ldly, I will declare Setting. After struggling with the Palladium system to play Rifts, I can't say otherwise.

Mechanics mechanics mechanics.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 10, 2022, 08:58:27 PM

QuoteDon't give me some fence-sitting answer and say "both". Think really hard and pick which is more important.

Then probably setting more. But if you do not play games RAW... dunno if there is need to pick really. It's not like you're obliged to keep them together.

QuoteBad mechanics can destroy an interesting setting in a heartbeat (f'ing Torg...)

Keep setting, replace mechanics.

Can be a ton of work, though. I have done Robotech for Mekton and the Silhouette system, but damn, that's a lot of mechs to stat up, especially if you do a campaign where all three "Chapters" can intermix.

Setting over mechanics 80/20.

That said, I find myself less and less enamored with the amount of labor a full rip-and-replace job required.

Mechanics, unequivocally. 

As an example I absolutely love Tolkien & the Middle Earth setting but AiME and TOR were absolute trash mechanically so I never played them.  In a moment of weakness I backed the TOR 2e KS hoping they'd make some positive mechanical changes since they talked about streamlining.  Not so much as it turns out.  Reading the PDF it's still an overly convoluted system with lots of unnecessary mechanics that try too hard to simulate the experience of reading The Hobbit or LOTR rather than just giving you a framework to game in Middle Earth.  So now I need to decide if I want to just flip the books or convert everything to a system I like.

I think a good GM can adjust settings to mechanics easily enough so it's not worth the effort to master mechanics you (or your players) don't like.

It feels like a incomplete question.

Im more likely to read a setting for fun (and thus buy it), but im less likely to get a bunch of supplementary material and play it if the mechanics suck.

Quote from: Dropbear on January 10, 2022, 04:24:18 PM
At first glance I wanted to say setting. But I then I thought about the settings I have given up on.

I bought everything I could for the Modiphius Conan game because the company made a promise to remain true to the source materials in the beginning. I loved almost all everything about the game until I tried to play it. All the metacurrencies and the dice mechanics completely killed it for me. And killed my interest in trying out any other 2d20 games completely.

I feel your pain there.  They amazingly found a way to take the fun out of Conan.  Hell, character creation took 90 minutes.  And then it turns out that their promise to remain "true" to the source materials was total BS.  First, they added a ton of material that wasn't in anything Howard wrote, including tons of Lovecraft material.  (Yeah I know there were exchanges between the two, but Modiphius went beyond the pale there).  Then they went SJW with the later releases.

Quote from: Persimmon on January 10, 2022, 10:53:18 PM
I feel your pain there.  They amazingly found a way to take the fun out of Conan.  Hell, character creation took 90 minutes.  And then it turns out that their promise to remain "true" to the source materials was total BS.  First, they added a ton of material that wasn't in anything Howard wrote, including tons of Lovecraft material.  (Yeah I know there were exchanges between the two, but Modiphius went beyond the pale there).  Then they went SJW with the later releases.

Yeah the Lovecraft threw me off big time. Nothing at all to do with the source material. Just the writers jizzing all over themselves to add something "new" to the setting, since Lovecraft's ideas are public domain. Kinda like Evil Hat, spewing their dumbass trigger warning cum all over Fate of Cthulhu.

I could have blown off Modiphius' changes to their content of Wanderer as not a big deal until they had to loudly signal the changes in language used in the revision vs. the original manuscript. It would not have hit my radar really if they had shut up about it and just done it. And it did not help matters of my impression of the new direction they wanted to take with the materials moving forward when key writers walked out on the project, either.

But as much as I love Howard, and wanted to love this game, the key foul on it for me was all of the metacurrency management. I struggle enough to enjoy games I really like a lot, like Deadlands and SW, when I have to deal with metacurrencies. I just don't care for the vast majority of games that have a dependency on their use. Fate just turns my stomach.

Either, but that's because I'm a mix-and-matcher from my earliest days--I spent much time in my youth converting Ravenloft over to Rolemaster 2E (never used it, alas), and used the SAGA Rules System from Dragonlance: Fifth Age for Ravenloft, Dragon Quest, and Final Fantasy.

Obviously a difficult question, but ultimately I'd say setting.

I would, and did, play the same setting with different mechanics, and I also write my own mechanics. And, while I DO write my own settings sometimes, I like to change settings more often than I like to change mechanics.

GURPS Dark Sun works pretty well, and if I were to play Star Wars to day I'd probably use some form of D&D.

I feel that people saying "setting, because I bring my own mechanics" is missing the point?

I mean, if you always use mechanics you like than it's not a proof that a good setting carry poor(ly perceived) mechanics. The proof would be if people accept using poor mechanics with a good setting, which I'm not seeing here.

Or I'm overthinking the matter?

Well the question is what "sells" a game to you. So people who bring their own mechanics are deciding whether or not to buy a game based on setting or other factors.

Unless "sells" was intended to be figurative.

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.

Quote from: Itachi on January 11, 2022, 08:53:12 AM
I feel that people saying "setting, because I bring my own mechanics" is missing the point?

I mean, if you always use mechanics you like than it's not a proof that a good setting carry poor(ly perceived) mechanics. The proof would be if people accept using poor mechanics with a good setting, which I'm not seeing here.

Or I'm overthinking the matter?

Some people like "FATE" system. And they play in settings that they can easily overlay the FATE mechanics on. The degree to which they're successful in making the setting live up to their ideal is irrelevant since the premise of their creation was mechanics-first.

They do it because they *like* the mechanics and believe they can do whatever they want with them.

Some people like 5e D&D. It's an idiosyncratic system that is designed to do one thing: play D&D-style fantasy ostensibly in their D&D settings. Yes you can re-work it to play other things, it's pretty rare by the population that consumes 5e. In other words, generally people that use 5e D&D mechanics vastly only play 5e D&D with it.

I'm trying to figure out where people would buy, for example, FATE D&D. (and this is JUST AN EXAMPLE, I personally do not like the FATE mechanics, I'm using it strictly as an example) - would this attract D&D players to come try it? Or would a Shadowrun player play Shadowrun in a published version of say Interlock?

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.

Personal example.

I will use Mekton Zeta to run FASATrek in preference to FASA's own rules. FASATrek is my favorite version of the Trek setting, but I never liked the mechanics.

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.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 10, 2022, 01:26:49 PM
Setting gets my attention initially, but mechanics are the decider for me. I've walked away from cool settings that have crap mechanics (like Polaris) and I've flatly dropped a cyberpunk game when the GM decided two weeks in that he was going to switch from CPR to GURPS.

This for me as well.

It's why Shadowrun tops the list of great setting, bad mechanisms a lot of time. Sometimes the setting is good enough, and fun enough, to play in even if the rules are not the best.

Setting, no question. I have more systems than I know what to do with. And only a smattering of them are truly novel, let alone helpful, to me running a game (or especially a campaign).

I hated the d20 glut, but I understood it. But then I got everything I thought I wanted from AD&D 2.5e wishlist in D&D 3e... until I played it. Then I hated it and went back hard to find out why I missed all those "warts."

Part of it was actual threat, stakes, you could not "win at chargen" because the setting pushed back harder. Further was ease of use; I thought I hated soggy cereal until Cap'n Crunch made a water resistant cereal so crunchy it cut up the roof of my mouth. White Wolf splatted the known ansgty universe and then granted ever increasing nut-punching in the name of self-tortured roleplay... and then I realized that wasn't truly my bag.

I loved ideas in youth that as an adult I found taxing in practice. Sometimes getting what you want is the best curative medicine. Disillusionment reminds you how fragile the magic of imagination really is -- it can bear only so much weight! Like sugar sculptures, you can take it to seriously great heights, but realize it is still just sugar in the end. Bloated or over-involved mechanics, or high-concept worlds, can both crush, but I find mechanics pops the dream faster, hence my system favortism yet setting exploration.

(edit: This means I am open to buying splats for system I know I will rarely use. /looks at my GURPS pile and sighs

The big stopper for me is bothering with system conversion math. But mechanical conversions for adventures are probably less of an issue than restructuring adventures into something sandboxy or even just coherent. If I have enough system mastery, and enough light & frothy enthusiasm, conversions are typically not so much of a problem.

As for a business... not riding the 5e train is gonna be a challenging sell at its best, even with my longstanding antipathy to WotC. If I was your money, I'd bandwagon AND provide conversion cheat sheets in the back  -- as much as I love small indies and support following your bliss. I guess I have less of an entrepeneur's risk taking sense. )

I rarely use the default setting for a particular game. I might crib a detail or two, but I don't have the time/attention to hold the mechanics from the ground up. At least, not a level that is creates a satisfactory result. I should mention that I have been my group's GM for the past 4 years.

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?

Usually no.  As I mentioned, it's important to me that the mechanics support the setting.  Though I could see maybe using the same mechanics for multiple settings in the same genre, tweaking as necessary.

A big part for me with mechanics or setting is how much "accounting" they take to adapt in any way.  That includes adding your own custom stuff to the setting in place.

Let's take the 5E monster development section in the DMG.  However well it works or doesn't, it's big drawback is that it is a lot of accounting for relatively little return. With a little experience, you can eyeball the monster's stats and simply write them down, given you something that will work a lot faster--that may even be more accurate to what the guidelines are trying to do.  As a "show your work during long division" kind of exercise, that subsystem may have some value in teaching people new to the system, but the faster you drop it, the happier you'll be.  It's biggest flaw however is that its over-complicated in pursuit of a mechanical answer substituting for GM judgment.  Someone more confident in the GMs would have produced a better system. (Not that any WotC game has been good at this particular thing.)

It's harder to provide a clear example, but involved settings can produce a similar effect.  The most valuable thing the setting author can do is get to the heart of the matter, as concisely as possible.  Then details need to radiate out from that as examples and/or things the GM can use until they get the hang of it.  So often, the critical parts are implied or buried in irrelevant detail.  It becomes a kind of accounting to master the setting in order to change it. 

None of that is to say that every thing needs to be simple.  There can be substantial mechanic or setting details, but they need to be key and deliver something if they are there to absorb.

Obviously like many I started out in basic D&D and it will always loom over me in terms of my tastes, though not so much any more.

I've played tons and tons of RPG's of different systems, tons of different settings - and I've come to like what I like, but I'm always looking for new ways both mechanical and narratively (setting concepts etc) to elevate my games.

Sometime around D&D3e I got into writing published material and I really dug deep into it, and kept hitting these mechanical walls that just did not make the game scale well. I tried many ways to fix it - and found some good ones, but after the d20 glut of that era post 3.x I really got tired of the mechanics bloat. I rediscovered the glory of MSH with my new group. Talislanta as well. It was a reframing of my views that you could get more with less. It kinda got me down this path of trying to figure out the scaling "Holy Grail" in a system that was "out there, somewhere".

Obviously very few games "do this" natively. But I kept looking at MSH, convinced (and I remain convinced) that it needs some tweaks but it could do down-and-gritty D&D-style fantasy, and scale up to crazy-town Exalted RPG levels of play (and beyond).

Somehow I got sidetracked - Deadlands. I'd owned Fudge, never thought much about it, I dibble-dabbled looking into FATE, came to not like it. But Deadlands was my very late introduction to Savage Worlds. And I'm still diving deep into it. It checks off a lot of the issues I have - that GURPS also fills (which is something I need to get deeper into) in that it's designed to work with any genre, and designed to be tuned up/down with fidelity.

I've also been looking at WEGd6, Mythras, Genesys, and a few others systems that can be "universal" in their expressions. What I find kinda odd is the reticence of many players from engaging with these systems either in a Homebrew unless it's some official version. I know Savage Rifts has definitely pulled in a lot of classic Rifts players, and the same with Savage Pathfinder.

But would anyone actually play a Forgotten Realms WEGd6 edition? Or Mythras Darksun? Genesys Ravenloft?

Specific combos is where it gets difficult to answer.  I'd run a Star Wars Toon game, because it is impossible for me to treat Star Wars as anything but a cartoon parody.  I can't take it "seriously" even on its own terms.  I like Toon a lot (mechanics and setting), can't stand Star Wars, but I'd run that combo.

I also like Lord of the Rings, but wouldn't run it with any mechanics.  I don't think it makes a good RPG setting (or rather, what you'd use as a setting isn't the part that appeals to me). 

Love Vance's Lyonesse, but had my doubts about the new game even before they decided to virtue signal on the initial launch.  Don't think an RQ style game is a good fit for what makes that setting interesting.  I can see doing it in a highly modified Ars Magica. 

Dying Earth is a terrible RPG setting--as is.  Marrying it with a story game like the latest did is even worse, since it's not playing in Dying Earth.  It's playing at being in Dying Earth.  However, I use Dying Earth inspired elements in my D&D games all the time.  They fit great when the setting is your own. 

Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2022, 11:35:57 AMI've also been looking at WEGd6, Mythras, Genesys, and a few others systems that can be "universal" in their expressions. What I find kinda odd is the reticence of many players from engaging with these systems either in a Homebrew unless it's some official version. I know Savage Rifts has definitely pulled in a lot of classic Rifts players, and the same with Savage Pathfinder.

But would anyone actually play a Forgotten Realms WEGd6 edition? Or Mythras Darksun? Genesys Ravenloft?

I don't know about this board or how many would do it back in the real world, but over at the Pub I saw someone mention they've played Ravenloft using RQ or something to that effect just a day or two ago. The guy who loves Mythras even posted his Mythras Dark Sun notes (I was gonna check em out, but I think I misplaced them :P). I also mentioned I'd try Dark Sun with my own homebrew, a couple posts ago, also RIFTS (which I did heavy homebrewed stuff with ages ago). I would consider Spelljammer or Planescape as well, though, I'd probably try one of my own settings for world-hopping stuff, instead, since I have a couple of those on the works. WEDd6 would probably rock all those settings as well (it's one of the more versatile systems, really).

Question is: would players go for it? Some players won't touch stuff unless you show'em official books with flashy pictures on them. Granted, that depends a lot on the player and the GM's presentation. Savage Worlds seems to have opened the door for system hopping a bit, so that's hopeful.

Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2022, 11:35:57 AM
But would anyone actually play a Forgotten Realms WEGd6 edition? Or Mythras Darksun? Genesys Ravenloft?

Honestly? Probably not.

But then I consider Forgotten Realms to be a horror show of unfortunate cosmic implications that people mostly only play because it's the most supported by non-rpg material and is the default setting for 5e and generally the most supported setting from 3e forward.

Similarly, I find nothing about Ravenloft as a setting that couldn't just as easily be done (and likely done better) in a horror themed campaign using actual Dracula and other literary/classic film horrors. If I'm not using the D&D game engine I may as well use the originals for a home game instead of off-brand expys.

I might try Dark Sun using a different system, but then again, I actually really like 4E and consider it's version of Dark Sun to basically be the high point of its design life cycle (themes were finally added and those in Dark Sun were highly thematic for the setting, inherent bonuses were in full effect to make magic items not required to make the game's math work, and the monster math had been fixed so the monster book for Dark Sun was loaded down with interesting threats that weren't the "padded sumo" of the MM1 & 2).

I think the main issue for me is that I've never found generic systems to work for anything other than rather generic settings.* The more thematic the setting (such as Ravenloft or Dark Sun) the more it benefits from a custom system (in addition to the above, 4E's more survivable starting characters slotted nicely into the original Dark Sun's better stat rolling and starting at higher than level 1 options).

Basically, none of those are particularly unique enough settings for me to want to both play them whole cloth and want to put in the effort of conversion rules or building a custom ruleset.

About the only table-top game property that's actually had my interest enough to want to build a custom ruleset is Battletech (because every RPG add-on they've done sucks... they're currently on their 5th attempt and each one was a "from scratch effort" rather than iterative refinements) and World of Darkness (because I find their dice pool mechanics rather clunky).

Everything else I've really desired to make custom rules for has been a media property of some kind; Robotech and Star Trek primarily... if Star Wars didn't have the WEG ruleset it would probably be on this list as well.

* also, many generic settings... aren't. They often carry the assumptions of whatever the first genre it was built to emulate with them into other settings; which is why d20/3e has always struggled outside of fantasy, why the HERO System and True20 have always worked best for emulating superheroes and why every Palladium game ultimately feels like a subset of Rifts (which itself is really just a refinement of Kevin's actual gonzo Palladium Fantasy campaign that he toned down into Palladium Fantasy 1e).

QuoteBut then I consider Forgotten Realms to be a horror show of unfortunate cosmic implications that people mostly only play because it's the most supported by non-rpg material and is the default setting for 5e and generally the most supported setting from 3e forward.

What do you mean exactly by "horror show"?

QuoteSimilarly, I find nothing about Ravenloft as a setting that couldn't just as easily be done (and likely done better) in a horror themed campaign using actual Dracula and other literary/classic film horrors. If I'm not using the D&D game engine I may as well use the originals for a home game instead of off-brand expys.

Well but with actual Dracula, really any sense of mystery would be sooner gone. I mean presumably nowadays Strahd is in top 10 of recognized vampires, so you'd like to re-vamp them again I guess ;)

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 13, 2022, 05:10:09 AM
What do you mean exactly by "horror show"?

The short version is that the supreme god, Ao, elevates extremely flawed mortals into gods then demands that people worship these ascended mortals on pain of eternal torment. Note: as written this includes every child who dies before the age of reason.

So the true god of the setting demands you worship lesser false gods (they only have power because Ao wills it) and even the supposedly good-aligned gods are okay with throwing children and those who refuse to worship ascended mortals as gods into a wall of eternal torment.

Throw in on top of that is that, best case, if you do go to your ascended human's divine realm your soul and identity lasts maybe a hundred years before your essence dissolves into the realm (so your essence becomes a tree... or a brick in the god's new palace wing) or, if you're really "lucky" gets used to make a new celestial servant (which does not carry your memories or identity... it's just been assembled out of your spirit-stuff).

Throw in on top of that that the wicked; murderers, rapists, etc.; just need to pick the right ascended mortal as their patron god and they get the same rewards as the virtuous who pick the ascended mortal with the portfolio of mercy and compassion. So do whatever the frak you want because there's a patron for it who will reward you in the afterlife for doing it (until you end up as a lawn chair just like the virtuous man).

And yet this setting is supposed to run on the same basic echoes of Christian morality that the West has been running on for the last hundred years (though we're finally seeing the Left embrace the logical end points of abandoning it... i.e. if there is no God, then might makes right... instead of pretending that Western morality is somehow intrinsic to humanity).

So it's not only a cosmic horror show, it's an illogical cosmic horror show.

So, basically, your default choices are eternal torment in the Wall of the Faithless or complete annihilation so your essence can be used as raw material for some ascended mortal's whims. If you are someone who seeks truth and refuses to worship another flawed and limited being as your deity, you are punished for it.

It is thus a setting where becoming undead and converting as many willing mortals as possible into undead to evade either option is actually one of the more ethical paths and escaping via Spelljammer with every family member and friend they can convince to a more sane universe ASAP (stear clear of Eberron, it's almost as bad, but another topic) is what any sane being who has studied the Realms' metaphysics should be doing at the earliest opportunity.

Now it should be stressed that it's likely none of this was intentional.* The whole thing proceeded in stages and it's basically the unfortunate implications of a system of metaphysics set up piecemeal by multiple writers with basically no understanding of actual metaphysics and only a surface-level understanding of religion... but nevertheless for those who do have a deeper grounding in those things; the Forgotten Realms are basically a Hell Dimension.

At least that's my take on it.

* Eberron's while not piecemeal is basically the result of the same type of failures... specifically, in trying to devise an afterlife based pre-Christian understandings they didn't look beyond the grey mists of Hades and so didn't bother to include the Elysian Fields or Tartarus in the mix... everyone just ends up a disembodied spirit wandering without memories through an endless grey dimension... so again, zero moral structure to encourage goodness among mortals instead of indulging your every whim while you live (and every horror you commit to extend your life rewarding you with no metaphysical downside for your eternal soul) other than the generally proved false by human history belief that most people are intrinsically good (some surely are, but again... the logical end point of any moral system without just rewards the righteous and punishme for the wicked is going to end up with the majority following an ethos of "might makes right/whatever I can get away with").

You will always have the divide between people who primarily want to enact the novels or source material versus people who primarily want to play in the world.  Setting material designed for one is bad for the other.  Mechanics designed for one is bad for the other.  There's a certain amount of the natural divide between those who favor style over substance and those who favor form over function, too.  It will frequently but not always have a strong correlation with the enact source material versus play in the world. 

There's a reason why we have the idea of some players don't really care about playing in the setting with appropriate mechanics as long as their character can wear a trenchcoat, carry a katana, and spout dialogue.

Setting. I may not buy a game if it uses a mechanical system I don't like, but I wouldn't even be reading the product description if the setting didn't sound good.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 13, 2022, 07:22:13 AM
You will always have the divide between people who primarily want to enact the novels or source material versus people who primarily want to play in the world.  Setting material designed for one is bad for the other.  Mechanics designed for one is bad for the other.  There's a certain amount of the natural divide between those who favor style over substance and those who favor form over function, too.  It will frequently but not always have a strong correlation with the enact source material versus play in the world. 

There's a reason why we have the idea of some players don't really care about playing in the setting with appropriate mechanics as long as their character can wear a trenchcoat, carry a katana, and spout dialogue.

This pretty much nails my critique of The One Ring.  The very framework of the game with its "Council," "Fellowship," & "Journey" phases essentially shoehorns you into replaying The Hobbit & LOTR over and over.  Then they bake in lots of other mechanics for flavor that again seem to prioritize roll playing over actual roleplaying like having the Loremaster (GM) make a bunch of rolls before the game starts to figure out how the party "feels" during their journey, which in turn has mechanical effects.  And of course party members must take specifically defined roles for the journey and again roll to see how they performed their role.  Even the combat is clunky with all kinds of stances, etc.  This despite thye fact that it's not supposed to be a particularly combat heavy or tactical game.

Now clearly some people really like this, judging from the huge success of their last KS.  But to me it strips away a lot of freedom and agency.  I know the setting well enough that I can evoke the mood I want without resorting to endless rolls and contrivances.  Just get me to Middle Earth and I'll find some orcs to kill and undead to rob of whatever.

Also, I appreciated your "Highlander" reference.  Remember that pseudo-Highlander RPG "Legacy: War of the Ages?"

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 12, 2022, 05:50:40 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2022, 11:35:57 AMI've also been looking at WEGd6, Mythras, Genesys, and a few others systems that can be "universal" in their expressions. What I find kinda odd is the reticence of many players from engaging with these systems either in a Homebrew unless it's some official version. I know Savage Rifts has definitely pulled in a lot of classic Rifts players, and the same with Savage Pathfinder.

But would anyone actually play a Forgotten Realms WEGd6 edition? Or Mythras Darksun? Genesys Ravenloft?

I don't know about this board or how many would do it back in the real world, but over at the Pub I saw someone mention they've played Ravenloft using RQ or something to that effect just a day or two ago. The guy who loves Mythras even posted his Mythras Dark Sun notes (I was gonna check em out, but I think I misplaced them :P). I also mentioned I'd try Dark Sun with my own homebrew, a couple posts ago, also RIFTS (which I did heavy homebrewed stuff with ages ago). I would consider Spelljammer or Planescape as well, though, I'd probably try one of my own settings for world-hopping stuff, instead, since I have a couple of those on the works. WEDd6 would probably rock all those settings as well (it's one of the more versatile systems, really).

Question is: would players go for it? Some players won't touch stuff unless you show'em official books with flashy pictures on them. Granted, that depends a lot on the player and the GM's presentation. Savage Worlds seems to have opened the door for system hopping a bit, so that's hopeful.

It's not players that I'm interested in per se - GM's are who drive games. They're the ones that drop the most gold. They're also the ones that sell their campaigns at the table for their players.

I'm interested in people here (and the Pub when I used to post there) because I'm curious about what drives people to purchase AND use games to what degree. I'm very aware that the RPGSite is a very specific slice of the hobby - but I also think the 'Site probably has the largest array of actual diverse opinions on gaming and purchasing habits. A big part of this is because we skew much older and a lot of us have disposable income. I know if all this SJW bullshit wasn't infesting our hobby, and I was able to pick up games like in the 2e/3e era, there are *thousands* of dollars left on the table I'd otherwise have made gaming purchases on today.

So I'm interested in what people actually want vs. what they do in practice.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 13, 2022, 07:14:41 AM

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 13, 2022, 05:10:09 AM
What do you mean exactly by "horror show"?

The short version is that the supreme god, Ao, elevates extremely flawed mortals into gods then demands that people worship these ascended mortals on pain of eternal torment. Note: as written this includes every child who dies before the age of reason.

*snipped for brevity*

Yeah, the theology of Forgotten Realms is an idiotic mess that doesn't make sense from any religious or philosophical point of view. It's like someone who doesn't understand religion trying to force a mishmash of pseudo-polytheistic elements that don't work like actual pagan religions and pseudo-Abrahamic elements that don't work like Abrahamic religions either, and don't make philosophical sense. And if you go by the book your character is doomed to participate in that mess no matter what, cuz the setting doesn't give them an out, other than maybe becoming undead creatures or ascending to godhood themselves.

Plus I don't even like the setting that much (outside of video games and such based around it), so I'm not gonna go through the effort of emulating it either, outside of D&D. It's mostly just generic kitchen sink fantasy done bad, with more details than I need or would like to use in most instances, with few exceptions that don't even come to mind right now (maybe the Underdark?).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 13, 2022, 07:22:13 AM
You will always have the divide between people who primarily want to enact the novels or source material versus people who primarily want to play in the world.  Setting material designed for one is bad for the other.  Mechanics designed for one is bad for the other.  There's a certain amount of the natural divide between those who favor style over substance and those who favor form over function, too.  It will frequently but not always have a strong correlation with the enact source material versus play in the world. 

There's a reason why we have the idea of some players don't really care about playing in the setting with appropriate mechanics as long as their character can wear a trenchcoat, carry a katana, and spout dialogue.

That's right. But at some point, you're putting gold on the table for a game. For example, I LOOOOVE the setting of Warhammer Fantasy, but I honestly am not a fan of the system. I could probably tolerate 2e, but it "feels" like it could be looser and should scale better for the conceits of the setting.

That's what I'm trying to squeeze out of people - what is it between those two poles that *really* tips you over the edge to plunk down the gold?

@Chris

I'm an oldschool Realms GM. For me there is Greybox, and that's 99% of it. You ain't wrong that the Realms is a horroshow. I just ignore it past 2e.

But I look at Golarion the same way. Pathfinder is a shitshow to me (especially now) but the Savage Worlds Pathfinder is nice and clean, and that's how I want it. I want a setting that gives me a palette to paint my own shit on.

Yep, I can definitely do my own - but this is where the whole idea of plunking down money for a system/setting comes in. Would you do it for an established setting on a different chassis? Realms was just an example - but you may be an outlier to the question, outside of Battletech, which I could think of some systems I'd like to run Battletech on (Mekton/Interlock!)

Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2022, 12:01:25 PM
That's right. But at some point, you're putting gold on the table for a game. For example, I LOOOOVE the setting of Warhammer Fantasy, but I honestly am not a fan of the system. I could probably tolerate 2e, but it "feels" like it could be looser and should scale better for the conceits of the setting.

That's what I'm trying to squeeze out of people - what is it between those two poles that *really* tips you over the edge to plunk down the gold?

Signal to noise ratio.  It's got to be "this tall" before I'm plunking.  That's first priority for me now.  Second is that the material is of interest, of course.  Since my interests are not usually aligned with what others want, then a lot goes out the window on that point.  Those priorities used to be reversed.  If the setting and/or mechanics appealed, I'd put up with the noise.  WotC fan fiction masquerading as game materials have tipped me over the edge so that I've lost all tolerance for noise in any product, not merely the WotC ones. 

Stonehell is an example of where those reversed priorities have come into play.  It's not a ideal fit for the kind of setting material I want, but not completely off the reservation, either.  It's signal is high.  So I got it, and I'm glad I did.  For me, signal is things I can use, in a good layout so that I can find them.  I don't need "inspiration" or background or vignettes.  Give me solid, substantial material, and I'll bring the other stuff myself. 

Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2022, 12:05:04 PM
Yep, I can definitely do my own - but this is where the whole idea of plunking down money for a system/setting comes in. Would you do it for an established setting on a different chassis? Realms was just an example - but you may be an outlier to the question, outside of Battletech, which I could think of some systems I'd like to run Battletech on (Mekton/Interlock!)

I am almost certainly an outlier. My only RPG purchases in the last decade were the Mage and later Vampire 20th Anniversary edition pdfs (both of which basically cleaned up and compiled the mechanics spread across umpteen splatbooks into a single bookmarked and keyword searchable volumes).

Everything else has been homebrew mechanics and, in the case of my fantasy games, a homebrew setting atop the homebrew mechanics. I didn't need an rpg setting book for Star Trek and there are some amazing sites out there with the technical specs for all things Robotech/Macross/Genesis Climber Mospeada (much more accurate than the 80's editions of the Palladium Robotech RPG). I still have my books from the 90's for running Star Wars.

So, like you said... maybe a proper Battletech RPG I'd be willing to drop money on, but it's Mechs are so damnably specifically NOT anime-mecha that I've found very few mecha-focused rulesets truly able to capture the feel well (ex. Mekton is much more focused on flight-capable mecha with very little differentiation in ground speeds using a couple of main weapons you use one at a time, protected by stsged penetration armor and limited mostly by actions per turn... vs. Battletech where Mech's have very different ground speeds and might, at best, clumsily jump a few hundred feet, use batteries of weapons you fire together at one or more targets while protected by fully ablative armor and limited primarily by how much heat they can dissipate during a turn).

It's ultimately why I finally just decided to build my own because everything I've looked into either leans too hard into the mecha angle or is otherwise too advanced in terms of setting technology (other than Mechs/Fusion Engines and Jump Drives the setting is remarkably primitive... barely past present day tech in most places).

Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2022, 12:05:04 PM
@Chris

I'm an oldschool Realms GM. For me there is Greybox, and that's 99% of it. You ain't wrong that the Realms is a horroshow. I just ignore it past 2e.

Most D&D settings splutter after a few releases and turn to crap with new editions. As far as I'm concerned the metaplot in Dark Sun doesn't exist beyond the death of Kalak (which is my go-to starting point for campaigns), maybe the war with Urik, and I ignore most of the material beyond the OG box and the first few supplements, like Dune Trader, Elves of Athas and such.

I shutter to think what they'll do to Planescape or Spelljammer if/when the get around rebooting them for 5e.

QuoteThe short version is that the supreme god, Ao, elevates extremely flawed mortals into gods then demands that people worship these ascended mortals on pain of eternal torment. Note: as written this includes every child who dies before the age of reason....

You know, as much as I consider Faerun theology to be unholy bloated mess, and I would simplify shit out of it, just to make it somehow coherent (goodbye 2000 gods, welcome like one pantheon, with multiple racial interpretations and masks), generally I think it fits kitchenk-sinkey pagan-pantheistic vibe (although as I said too messy). You say its not Western. Well yes. Or rather. Notion of Good is kinda Western, but because it's D&D then Good and Evil are equals, and Evil is not mere corruption. It stands in its own right. That's literally Hella difference.

I'm quite sure some aspects I remembered quite differently - Wall of Faithless is not eternal torment, you dissolve into Wall just like you dissolve in your chosen divine sphere. And since Kelemvor took over, while he was forced to keep the Wall by rest of pantheon, he made it AFAIR painless. Though well... boring.

Another thing is - divinities are not generally ascended mortals. They are few ascendants who replaced dead or retired gods, but even they took their power from ancient primordial spirits in proper sense. Shar, Selune, Tempus, Jergal, Mystral, Helm, Talos - they are all well definitely not-mortals. Though of course they are limited and flawed. Like you know pagan gods in mythologies, what I can say.

And while sure each soul of Faithful shall land in domain of their divinity... I'd say even though it's just for 100 years, there is vast difference in quality between landing in Celestia or landing in Abyss. I doubt Talos is nice host even to own worshippers. (And I mean forces of Hell are all over punishing damned they corrupted in first place, so go figure).

And AFAIK it was the same in other D&D settings so I think we can argue that overall D&D nature of soul is such it can contain mortal indiviuality only in limited time and it will return to soulstuff it was taken from in Great Cosmic Cycle of Recycling. Alas you can decide which part of eternal and equal forces you gonna help with this pinch of soulstuff, before ultimate demise (and whether this ultimate demise will happen in nice retirment home, or in hellhole full of angry and hungry daemon-bugs. So overall I think that dunno escaping to Greyhawk or other sphere won't help. Soul gonna do soul-thing. Alas among major religions of world is still Buddhism who believes into generally self-anihilation of self and impermanence of soul. So it seems on practical level human beings can survive with theology without promise of proper even after. From three great setting of D&D: FR, Greyhawk, Eberron - neither consider human soul to be immortal monad. So I'm gonna assume it's cosmic universal truth among Spelljamer spheres, and all worlds Planescape is linked for. (Honestly that's at least one cosmic consistent thing.)

Quote* Eberron's while not piecemeal is basically the result of the same type of failures... specifically, in trying to devise an afterlife based pre-Christian understandings they didn't look beyond the grey mists of Hades and so didn't bother to include the Elysian Fields or Tartarus in the mix... everyone just ends up a disembodied spirit wandering without memories through an endless grey dimension... so again, zero moral structure to encourage goodness among mortals instead of indulging your every whim while you live (and every horror you commit to extend your life rewarding you with no metaphysical downside for your eternal soul) other than the generally proved false by human history belief that most people are intrinsically good (some surely are, but again... the logical end point of any moral system without just rewards the righteous and punishme for the wicked is going to end up with the majority following an ethos of "might makes right/whatever I can get away with").

Well yes, but most people in history did not abandon wicked ways because of promise of divine reward. Most did it because society to function need to enforce some morale. Those that did not collapse into anarchy. Even warmongering violent societies had/have social rules to minimize infighting. That's matter of survival. And if we look at many non-Abrahamic religions in history - yeah they worshipped cool gods aside of asshole gods, and so on. Sure real human nature - and therefore most fictional ones - is Fallen, but is not total fall. "Might make right" can take you even on practical level only that far.

And even with greek Afterlife. Elysian Fields were like for 0,1% of famous heroes, and Tartarus was not simply for assholes (at least not eternal Tartarus) but for people who basically broke most holy taboos or insulted deities itself in grevious manner. Basically all examples of condemned to Tartarus are like WOAH. Common murder... come on, who cares. Definitely not Ares.
So yeah for most of faithful of pagan gods, be it Indoeuropean or Semitic religion, and many others, afterlife was slow dissipation in grey mist, unless you were great hero or supervillain.

Then of course my practical experience with Faerun - both by Baldur's Gate trilogy, and by practical roleplaying never gave me feel I play in anything resembling Western society in terms of faith and philosophy. There could be western technological trappings like knights in full armour - but that's technology. Economic necessity. Some sort of feudalism would probably arise in Germanic Europe even without baptism, as matter of necessity, and military evolution could very likely be simmilar. I mean what D&D did to paladin while grevious, it's still less they did with Celtic pagan - druid and bard ;) I mean where are my 400 sacred poems! But on ideological level? Nah. I mean all divine stuff, and religious cults were weird and more from Conan books than medieval Church, and that's probably proper.

So ultimately from human perspective (and bloat aside), I think most of mankind would generally accept reality, and live as they lived, because ultimately nature of most is centred on survival, and not on transcendence unfortunately. I understand your sentiment, I can even share it alas I don't think it would matter to actual human population if they were living in such world. Even most of theologically inclined - would probably accept this model as natural law. I mean many ancient philosophers did. So ultimately... for my Rasheman barbarian I don't think it matters much. What matter is glory to gain, as only glory is immortal.

QuoteBut I look at Golarion the same way.

Well at least in Golarion I think there is stronger assumption almost everyone (except NE) evolves into relative outsiders ;) (Who can still be destroyed permanently, but hey.)
And there were equivalent of Wall of Faithless, but they scrapped it because SJW atheists were butthurt. Of course.

Quote
Most D&D settings splutter after a few releases and turn to crap with new editions. As far as I'm concerned the metaplot in Dark Sun doesn't exist beyond the death of Kalak (which is my go-to starting point for campaigns), maybe the war with Urik, and I ignore most of the material beyond the OG box and the first few supplements, like Dune Trader, Elves of Athas and such.

I shutter to think what they'll do to Planescape or Spelljammer if/when the get around rebooting them for 5e.

Though let's be honest, most of them were unholy kitchensinks from very beginning.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 14, 2022, 02:11:41 AMAlas among major religions of world is still Buddhism who believes into generally self-anihilation of self and impermanence of soul. So it seems on practical level human beings can survive with theology without promise of proper even after.

In Dharmic religions the goal is to achieve complete unification with the One pantheistic divinity that is everything in reality, resulting in a state of permanent eternal bliss and becoming one with everything. Which isn't quite the same thing as getting stuck in a static wall that's worse than Limbo for all eternity. And it's a long, arduous process that involves achieving enlightenment numerous times across multiple lifetimes, and depending on how you lived your life you may get stuck in heavenly realms or hell dimensions in between reincarnations. So even Hindus and Buddhists believe in some notion of heaven and hell, alongside reincarnation and the ultimate goal of unity with the Ultimate Reality. Though, western Atheists that find Buddhism attractive tend to downplay that part and pretend that its just 100% philosophy with no cooky religious stuff mixed in it, even though it's there.

Reincarnation was also a common belief in Indo-European cultures, particularly the Celts. And even the Norse may have believed in reincarnation originally before Valhalla became equated with Paradise around the Viking Age. I think the Greeks floated the idea as well, though, most Indo-European cultures transitioned into more static religious beliefs the farther away in time and space they got from India. But they all originally had some notion of reincarnation and their gods were originally derived from more animistic forces before they got codified into religious strictures and turned into statues.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 14, 2022, 02:11:41 AMThough let's be honest, most of them were unholy kitchensinks from very beginning.

Maybe, but none of them started out as the unwieldy mess that FR has become. And any of the neat quirks that attracted people to them originally tend to get ironed out with every revision till you can barely recognize them anymore.

Mechanics takes it in the end for me.

SW is not my perfect example, but generally speaking, I see it as a solid set of mechanics supported by a variety of setting options. I picked up the SWADE Adventure System. Now if I liked it *more*, and I am going to run a few games to make sure I give it a fair go, future purchases will go into the different settings.

Free League is my counter-example. I do not like the mechanics of those games. While I picked up Vaesen, so far I have only used it for one-shots with a different system. They are not likely to get a lot of money out of me moving forward.

Mechanics will ultimately earn more purchases via settings. And yes, I primarily GM and have several times used mechanics across settings created for different systems (or even other mediums such as books or computer games).

Quote from: FingerRod on January 14, 2022, 09:16:49 AM
Mechanics takes it in the end for me.

SW is not my perfect example, but generally speaking, I see it as a solid set of mechanics supported by a variety of setting options. I picked up the SWADE Adventure System. Now if I liked it *more*, and I am going to run a few games to make sure I give it a fair go, future purchases will go into the different settings.

Free League is my counter-example. I do not like the mechanics of those games. While I picked up Vaesen, so far I have only used it for one-shots with a different system. They are not likely to get a lot of money out of me moving forward.

Mechanics will ultimately earn more purchases via settings. And yes, I primarily GM and have several times used mechanics across settings created for different systems (or even other mediums such as books or computer games).

Yeah, from what I've seen Free League's game mechanics are like Ikea furniture.  You either gronk it and love it, or you don't.

This is a personal note, but I find religion's with a focus on reincarnation, or not motive oriented to be more fatalistic and subservient to hierarchy's. That comes with its own good and bad. Generally more respect to nature, but also more a willingness to just take bad events without fighting back.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 14, 2022, 11:47:12 AM
This is a personal note, but I find religion's with a focus on reincarnation, or not motive oriented to be more fatalistic and subservient to hierarchy's. That comes with its own good and bad. Generally more respect to nature, but also more a willingness to just take bad events without fighting back.

Generally I agree with this assessment, though its worth noting that Buddhism (as one of the better known religions that has reincarnation as part of its doctrines) uses it not as its end state, but more akin to the Catholic concept of Purgatory. You are reincarnating not as a reward, but because you still have something important to learn/improve about yourself on the road to transcendence.

Quote from: Persimmon on January 14, 2022, 11:33:56 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 14, 2022, 09:16:49 AM
Mechanics takes it in the end for me.

SW is not my perfect example, but generally speaking, I see it as a solid set of mechanics supported by a variety of setting options. I picked up the SWADE Adventure System. Now if I liked it *more*, and I am going to run a few games to make sure I give it a fair go, future purchases will go into the different settings.

Free League is my counter-example. I do not like the mechanics of those games. While I picked up Vaesen, so far I have only used it for one-shots with a different system. They are not likely to get a lot of money out of me moving forward.

Mechanics will ultimately earn more purchases via settings. And yes, I primarily GM and have several times used mechanics across settings created for different systems (or even other mediums such as books or computer games).

Yeah, from what I've seen Free League's game mechanics are like Ikea furniture.  You either gronk it and love it, or you don't.

Yes, and it is a shame. Their production value on the books are really nice. And I do enjoy some of the setting material.

Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2022, 12:05:04 PM
@Chris

I'm an oldschool Realms GM. For me there is Greybox, and that's 99% of it. You ain't wrong that the Realms is a horroshow. I just ignore it past 2e.

But I look at Golarion the same way. Pathfinder is a shitshow to me (especially now) but the Savage Worlds Pathfinder is nice and clean, and that's how I want it. I want a setting that gives me a palette to paint my own shit on.

Yep, I can definitely do my own - but this is where the whole idea of plunking down money for a system/setting comes in. Would you do it for an established setting on a different chassis? Realms was just an example - but you may be an outlier to the question, outside of Battletech, which I could think of some systems I'd like to run Battletech on (Mekton/Interlock!)

I've mixed emotions about FR after 2e. The 3e books are a goldmine for maps, and the FRCs has a good mix of just-enough-info. 4e? Fuck that. 5e? Trying to recreate 3e and failing.

I'm more disgusted by how they've not done Greyhawk any justice. The boxed set, Greyhawk Wars, From the Ashes, and 3e products need a reconciliation to ensure consistency.

But, those settings are critical to D&D being D&D - Greyhawk for 1e, FR for 2e/3e.

I think that is the problem I have with a setting being good and then turning me off - the difficulty of understanding the geopolitical terrain changes.  Having products that concisely show before and after is the holy grail. Either that, or present the setting as-is and never make drastic changes.  That's kinda why I like World of Aereth (Goodman Games DCC campaign world before they went woke) and the Epic of Yrth from Dangerous Journeys.

Now, "real-world" games, the mechanics drive me more - I can do whatever I want to some 3rd world shithole during the game, but if the mechanics don't support the feel of modern combat, it turns me off.  My favorite mechanics are 3rd edition Twilight:2000 (Twilight:2013). d20 Modern? Forget it.

You ain't wrong.

Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2022, 11:35:57 AM
But would anyone actually play a Forgotten Realms WEGd6 edition?

Yeah, I'd play that. I ran Primeval Thule Mini Six for a year and it worked great. I can imagine leaning into FR-specific tropes and turning down the D&D-isms.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:07:26 PM
Mechanics or Setting - What sells a game to you?

The first thing I do is quickly read the chargen, skill check, and combat sections of a book before I decide to buy or not. If I don't care for the die mechanics, I'll pass on the thing no matter how great the setting may be.

What really sells a game to me is how it executes it's premise. I would give a chance to a silly premise that's realized in an interesting or evocative way by it's rules. Eg: Maid, Fiasco, D&D. But I would never give a chance to a game with awesome setting but rules that feel like generic ruleset number 237 (or worse). And no, I wouldn't adapt it to other ruleset either because these days I don't time nor patience for this.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on January 16, 2022, 02:48:23 AM

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:07:26 PM
Mechanics or Setting - What sells a game to you?

The first thing I do is quickly read the chargen, skill check, and combat sections of a book before I decide to buy or not. If I don't care for the die mechanics, I'll pass on the thing no matter how great the setting may be.

For you - and others that do this -

How often do find yourself getting close enough to not being sure - but buy it with the intention of giving it a test-run?

Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2022, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on January 16, 2022, 02:48:23 AM

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:07:26 PM
Mechanics or Setting - What sells a game to you?

The first thing I do is quickly read the chargen, skill check, and combat sections of a book before I decide to buy or not. If I don't care for the die mechanics, I'll pass on the thing no matter how great the setting may be.

For you - and others that do this -

How often do find yourself getting close enough to not being sure - but buy it with the intention of giving it a test-run?

I've done this several times. Sometimes to good effect, others not so good. I went into the 2d20 Conan KS blind, with  the examples from the KS as an indicator as to how the system worked. No prior experience with 2d20 mechanics at all...

Then I received the books. And hated the system completely after thoroughly reading it. But I received all of Wave 1 and had a ton of books that I wanted nothing to do with after reading the core.

So I got it in my head to keep the maps, sell the books, and use Savage Worlds for the system instead. Then SWADE came out and I'd really love to use that and am waiting for the Fantasy Companion update.

Edit: I was disappointed that the SPC was their first choice for an updated companion. Still got it, though.

Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2022, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on January 16, 2022, 02:48:23 AM
The first thing I do is quickly read the chargen, skill check, and combat sections of a book before I decide to buy or not. If I don't care for the die mechanics, I'll pass on the thing no matter how great the setting may be.

For you - and others that do this -

How often do find yourself getting close enough to not being sure - but buy it with the intention of giving it a test-run?

Sort of opposite for me: occasionally I spot or hear about a single mechanic that I'll buy a book to check out more fully for. I don't necessarily intend to test the system as a whole -- more likely just crib the one mechanic -- and I don't need the game's mechanics overall to be "close" to something I want to play.

Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2022, 05:59:51 PM
For you - and others that do this -

How often do find yourself getting close enough to not being sure - but buy it with the intention of giving it a test-run?

I'm nearly always a late adopter, even on things that I have reason to believe that I'll actively play.  For something that is somewhat iffy, that I might do a test-run with, I'll check reviews, previews, etc. first.  However, my default is "pass".

I'm not an early adopter. I used to be.

Now - I watch from a distance. A cool buzz about a setting will definitely get me to look. But if the system doesn't hold up that setting well or has silly mechanics that are too cooked into the game to ignore or easily fix - I'll ignore it.

Recent purchases that are not mechanically universal for me.

FFG Star Wars - I've got PUH-Lenty of threads on this forum with me sniffing around it, and eventually checking it out. To my utter shock it worked very well with me and my group, playing it RAW. I've figured out flaws with the internal mechanics (crafting is not quite what I want) - I've come to enjoy it for what it is.

Symbaroum - Really cool setting. Mechanics seem to support the game. But I'm not sold on them. I did pick it up though.

Alien - Setting is shockingly good - in fact I look at it as a near perfect synthesis (discarding a lot of the silly shit in the movies by giving it a nod and moving on to more interesting shit). The system looks much better - but it's an unknown as I've not executed on it yet. Free League is a company I'm keeping my eye on, I'm digging their style, but I'm not sure on their mechanical design.

CPRed - Disappointment. Their "streamlining" seems to have thrown parts of the baby out with the bathwater. It's not so much that they overdid it - but they underdid it. They went for low-hanging fruit that ultimately changed the flavor. No gun-porn? BOO. Fixable.