do you bend (alter) the system for the world, or the world for the system?

Since, in such a case, it was the world that drew me to it, I much prefer to alter the system than to alter the world. Still, it might be necessary to alter the world a bit, but if it's no longer what I was originally drawn to, I'm better off doing something else.

Usually I would try to pick a system that complements the setting. But if it comes to it I think it is easier to modify aspects of the setting. I'm not opposed to house ruling, but it is more likely to lead to unforeseen consequences than changing details of the setting

My priority is usually Campaign --> Setting --> System, so I'll modify the setting to better fit the campaign, and modify the system to better fit either.

But I also have an unusual taste for running settings outside of their native system and vice versa. As I've said elsewhere, I've yet to find a perfect pair of system and setting where I'm totally happy with both.

An interesting thread.

The question is; which matters more, to your satisfaction?

You're running the game.  Make yourself happy.  Then; do everything possible within that, to give everyone else a chance at having a good game.

Don't run games, for people you cannot please. 

Quote from: Man at Arms on April 29, 2024, 01:57:16 AMDon't run games, for people you cannot please. 

This also applies to yourself (not Man at Arms, anyone preparing to run a game). If you find something--either rules or setting--too frustrating, I recommend not starting it and "seeing if it grows on you." Because, IME, it won't.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on April 28, 2024, 04:38:59 PMdo you bend (alter) the system for the world, or the world for the system?

Since I'm a sandbox GM, I *always* bend the rules to the setting conceits. The game, for me and my players, is the actual roleplaying and what goes on with their players in the setting. The rules are merely there to express those things.

The conceits of the setting should be underpinned by the rules to the degree that everyone agrees the expression is fun. This requires that the rules have flexibility in their abstractions so it "feels" right.

This is why I look askew at all the people that try to pigeonhole every form of genre into d20. It wasn't designed to be used this way (of course it can be and *is* used that way but I find outside of a fairly narrow bandwidth it does so poorly). But if you want an adventure/mystery/hackety-hack RPG of normal people that borders on super-heroic, and d20 does just fine.

The problem is some GM's lean into the emulation with crunch over abstraction, and the crunch of some systems becomes the actual game that people are playing, rather than the setting and the PCs/NPC's in it doing stuff. It's that "boardgame" meta-effect that many people do in modern gaming where the system becomes the actual game. That's what you want to avoid.

This puts the burden on a good GM to express those mechanical interactions at the table - and this is true of d20 games as well - where the roll of every die should mean something more than "you hit." or "you miss". That is a simple way of elevating your game past the system.

Some systems flow faster and even encourage your players to do this. But you should be wary of systems that are overly narrative driven. This is the flipside of the equation - mechanics bring rigor to your world and setting. The mechanics should *brace* the conceits of the setting, especially the ugly shit.

If it's a gritty setting, there should be rules that expressly reinforce it. If it's a light and breezy setting - same thing.

You *can* do this with any rules out there. The issue is how much effort do you want to put into it commensurate to the effort you put in as a GM at the table.

This is precisely why I landed on Savage Worlds - it's designed expressly for this kind of question. It natively runs solid. It's not perfect, but it's also designed for you to make what you want or need for literally any kind of setting or genre. You might not like some of the sub-systems - so replace it. Your settings from campaign to campaign might differ - so they have Setting Rules to fine tune the "feel" of your setting mechanically.

You should do that with any ruleset - not just Savage Worlds. This is the Way.

You're not playing a pile of mechanics.

 

If you are excited to run a game in a particular setting, figure out what about the setting is drawing you to run a game in it. Don't let the mechanics used spoil that. Game mechanics are a tool to help you run the kind of game you want. Any mechanics that ruin what you love about a setting should be discarded. If the GM is not really excited about preparing and running a game it will become apparent fairly soon and the game will sputter out. If any mechanics make you less enthusiastic about the setting just don't use them. That way your interest is maintained and you have a shot at a lasting campaign.

Like others said, namely like ForgottenF & Tenbones, system comes last. I am interested in the campaign, style, genre and world setting, not the mechanics. Fiddling with widgets while in play is better emulated in video games and card games for me, doing that in TTRPGs is meaningless noise instead of fun. I want to roleplay first, that's what I came for, maybe a little tactics, statistics, and logistics accommodation alongside as long as it is expressed with more naturality and less mechanical whiz-bang gadgetry insistence.

Some want the opposite. Good, play your own table. Together we can enjoy other things.

I'm system first. I bought rules cyclopedia largely for the maps of mystara for example, even though D6 system is how we play.

Bit of both. If there's something already in the system that basically already does what I want, I use that.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on April 30, 2024, 01:37:54 PMI'm system first. I bought rules cyclopedia largely for the maps of mystara for example, even though D6 system is how we play.

But you tweak the d6 mechanics to express the setting of Mystara right? Or are you just playing d6 (however its set up natively) and it just happens to be in Mystara?

Are there any setting specific things you had to stat out in d6?

Quote from: Slipshot762 on April 30, 2024, 01:37:54 PMI'm system first. I bought rules cyclopedia largely for the maps of mystara for example, even though D6 system is how we play.

That's not really following the OP's premise. The premise is that you have decided upon a setting first. Now, do you adjust that setting to fit a ruleset, or adjust a ruleset to fit the setting? At least that's how I read it. I have gone the other direction and started with a system then tried to select a setting for it (GURPS practically demands it, and Savage Worlds works this way too), but that's a different experience (IMO).

I'd say the system. Then I create or flesh out the world to fit the modified system. But I wouldn't be averse to changing something in the world if I thought that'd be a better fix.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on April 28, 2024, 04:38:59 PMdo you bend (alter) the system for the world, or the world for the system?

I ran into this today while writing. After a few hours of wrestling with it, I came to a conclusion. My goal was to have this be playable by as many people as possible, so the rules had to be kept RAW to allow for that to be - which means tweaking the world in order to best fit the system. The decisions made for the world or system must be able to accommodate whatever is the ultimate goal for the thing you are creating.

Sorry if that seems to be Master of the Obvious kind of thing, but I can find myself disappearing up my own asshole when I start to overthink things.