Quote from: Tommy Brownell;305431Yes, and my apologies if I didn't get that across well..=P  Thanks for the clarification.

No problem. Here to help

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;305241So...what's more important for you?  Having the rules bend to match the setting, or having the setting bend to match the rules?

If all else fails, I'm inclined to say bend the rules to match the setting because I'm more of a settings guy, but really, I think setting and rules should complement each other.  You wouldn't want to play Marvel superheroes using the Warhammer system, frex.  

Pete

Setting is most important, as long as you have rules that support the setting you are trying to craft.

I'm definitely a system kinda guy, but the system must match the setting, either by development for the setting, or adaptation to the setting.

-clash

Why this false forge-like dilemmas or dichotomies?

Rules or setting? Both are important! Which is more important? I don't know, nor need to know. And putting one necessarily above the other is counterproductive.

If you're designing from the ground up, it's a false dichotomy. But someone over in another thread mentioned Planescape, which sounds like an even better example where the the setting concept is ill-served by the rules. You could paint the surface details of a Porsche onto a Dodge Gremlin--the shape and engine are still the same.

Is having dwarves and elves and other D&D critters in Dark Sun really a function of system? Or was that just bad setting design?
I mean... the D&D system describes dwarves and elves but I can't see how it necessitates them...
The whole race/class/level thing yes... but it seems like the system would allow for whatever races would have better fit Dark Sun's setting.

BRP has managed to support lots of different settings without having to have Ducks on Ringworld...

Anyway, yeah, setting over rules.

Yeah, I admitted upthread that Dark Sun isn't a strong example. OTOH simply omitting D&D demihumans, or certain core classes that don't fit with a setting, may not be enough. For example demihumans have infravision, clerics offer healing; with those gone, other adjustments may be needed.

Quote from: Zulgyan;305832Why this false forge-like dilemmas or dichotomies?

Rules or setting? Both are important! Which is more important? I don't know, nor need to know. And putting one necessarily above the other is counterproductive.

What he says.  This is a false division.  Why you can seperate a cell wall and a nucleous and study them both intently, treating them as seperate things in for discussion and function purposes,  you need both - and the things that connect the both - for it all to come alive.  Games are the same way.  You need a system and a setting to make it all work.

Both are important. Rules are the engine that make the setting go. Is one slightly more important than the other?  It depends on what you are trying to do and what you have to work with.

Settings are important because they give you context for your adventures and fun.  Without a setting, a set of rules is nothing.

Rules help make the setting more real by allowing the players to interact with the world and the things in it.  The rules can be tailored to the setting or general and "mostly suitable" to every setting (requiring some tiny tweaking or direction on the GM's part).

Now rules need to support what is important in the setting and things the game is concentrating on.  The rules need to match all the various setting elements (I am looking at you "shoe horned in" magic system.).  If honor is important in your game, perhaps a mechanic that measures or utilizes honor in some way?  If testing yourself and your moral state is key to the game and setting (Pendragon), then you better have a mechanics for it.  If your flaws (and nemesis) are important to the campaign, you best have mechanics for that.  Do you see where I am going with this?  Good.

And just to make sure, you need to make sure you don't have mechanics hanging out there that don't make the setting and game work better.  (These are the appendix rules - I have Pendragon esks passions because I am using a pendragon based game systems, even through this is StarQuest and there will be no moral challanges. Why do we have Dwaves and Elves? They are in the rules? ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!??)  

So you need both setting and system and both need to fit each other well.

I agree, you need both. And yes, you also need both to be together, and in the right proportions.

RPGPundit

• People
• Snacks
• Setting
• System

All are important, you have to have some of each, but those are the things in order of relative importance, in terms of how much they affect how the game session goes.

I've had the same players, same snacks and setting, but with different rules - and it didn't make much difference. Some, but not much.

I've changed snacks, and the group imploded - different snacks, or lack of them, brings a different mood to the table.

I've had the same setting and rules but with different players, and things were entirely different.

I've had the same players and rules, but a different setting, and again things were different.

Quote from: Simlasa;305855Is having dwarves and elves and other D&D critters in Dark Sun really a function of system? Or was that just bad setting design?
I mean... the D&D system describes dwarves and elves but I can't see how it necessitates them...
The whole race/class/level thing yes... but it seems like the system would allow for whatever races would have better fit Dark Sun's setting.

BRP has managed to support lots of different settings without having to have Ducks on Ringworld...

Anyway, yeah, setting over rules.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at with the thread.

Boy, I'm usually much clearer in expressing my thoughts.

There are a handful of (for instance) D&D settings that I think would have been AMAZING under different systems...but the combat-heavy, kill-it-and-take-its-stuff mentality really kept some of them from breathing...like Ravenloft.  As I mentioned earlier on, there was some fan speculation when Eden landed the Buffy license that it was basically just going to get bolted on Witchcraft...which would have been an abominable eyesore, as basically nothing in Buffy functions like its equivalent in Witchcraft.  Instead, Eden took the core of the Unisystem and made large changes to it so it better matched the setting.

That said, I firmly agree that people and snacks are more important either way.

I think Ravenloft was very much a D&D setting, and you couldn't have taken it out of that without turning it into a crapulent pretentious piece-of-shit Swinefest.  Ravenloft was about being a fantasy hero in a horror story and going to kill the bad guy. It was Van Helsing.

Could it have been done better using D&D? Possibly, I think the 3e version was pretty good. But If the reason you want D&D "out" is because you wanted to get rid of the classes and races and the magic items and the other standard D&D-tropes, then you're just wrong.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;306796I think Ravenloft was very much a D&D setting, and you couldn't have taken it out of that without turning it into a crapulent pretentious piece-of-shit Swinefest.  Ravenloft was about being a fantasy hero in a horror story and going to kill the bad guy. It was Van Helsing.

Could it have been done better using D&D? Possibly, I think the 3e version was pretty good. But If the reason you want D&D "out" is because you wanted to get rid of the classes and races and the magic items and the other standard D&D-tropes, then you're just wrong.

RPGPundit

Except it wasn't about being the fantasy hero in a horror story and going to kill the bad guy.  Because most of the bad guys were either plot-protected or outright unkillable.

Heck, in 3.5 they tried to go a step further and making killing ANYTHING a slippery slope to darkness, especially if you were a fighter.

Van Helsing got to toast Dracula.

Ravenloft, as written, meant you maybe (maybe!) got to toast Dracula's (Strahd's) flunkies.

Classes and races never bothered me...running it in a system geared towards "killing things and taking their stuff" when the setting explicitly stacks the deck *heavily* in favor of the "things" bothered me.

Deadlands very nearly went this route, except for two things: 1) advancement was never primarily dependent upon combat prowess and 2) they later removed Plot Immunity from all the NPCs in the setting, including The Reckoners.

Midnight very much fell into the same trap as Ravenloft, all but saying "You can never, ever, win, ever, no matter what you do, especially if you try to kill things and take their stuff", but was released for a system geared towards doing just that as the primary means of advancement, while giving the major NPCs plot immunity.

I like setting best.  That's what I buy when I get a new game.  Rules, players, snacks, etc. can all be replaced; but, I want a good basis to play.  Did that sound harsh?  Okay.  *chuckles*

I mean, I will change the system of a game completely, if I think another fits it better.  I bought it, and I can do with it what I will, after all.  I've created my own settings before, but rarely do I create my own systems.  There are just so many rules options floating around that I can probably find what I need if I just look hard enough.  It's been a long time--I know a lot more what I do and don't want these days.