Confessions of a Setting Whore

Hello, Everyone.

My name is Caerwyn ... and I am a Setting Whore

Hi Caerwyn

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm probably something of an anacronism in the RPG world today.  Many of my opinions (which are entirely my own, I speak for no one else but myself in today's blog post/rant) have been formed long ago when I started playing role-playing games. And I've been playing since the early 70's. 

You, my unnamed and unknown reader, are free to agree or disagree with as much of this post as you wish. 

That's the joy of the RPG hobby: It's flexible enough to support all our different points of view.

In today's world of role-playing games, where people talk about "rules-light" and "rules-heavy" systems way my generation once deliberated the merits of "new" Duran Duran over "old" Duran Duran, my opinions on what is and is not important may not resonate with everyone.  But, lets begin:

There are a lot of very intelligent people out there, most of whom are probably smarter than I am, who have given a lot of thought about creating and delivering the perfect RPG game system, where each element is a finely-tuned RPG machine, delivering maximum RPG RPM's to the players blessed to game upon its surface.  Many of those games are truly inspired.  Others are shockingly insipid.  All rely on varying definitions of "perfections."  For many people today, system really does matter.

Show me the setting.  I'm the GM, I can take it from there.

Now, as systems go, I prefer a skill-based, classless system over a class-based one, which often are more focused on "niche protection" than any sort of "reality."  This, in my opinion, is especially true for class-based systems that have "feats" or "powers"that are often one or more of the following:

1. just skills-by-another-name, often skills and/or abilities the character should already have.
2. Feats or Powers that are actually skills that should (in my opinion) be role-played out by the player, and not be at the mercy of some predictable and exploitable system mechanic.
3. Nothing more than KEWL POWERS that would only warm the cockles of some DBZ-loving munchkinesque power gamer trying for some platonic ideal of "the Perfect Build."

I prefer systems where the focus is on the character as a person, rather than the characer as some sort of nameless race/class/alignment combo, typically with the aforementioned kewl powers!

Personally, I don't want there to be any sort of focus on "builds" at all.  But, if there simply has to be such in the game, I prefer the system to support a "perfect build" that is something other than the tired old "nameless paranoid sociopathic killing machine with no background, a trenchcoat and katana, who robs the bodies and sells the organs on the black market after the kill" cliche as the only option and everything else either badwrongfun or totally unsupported by the system.

I like roll-under, percentile-based die mechanics over some insane dice-pool or some trendy dice mechanic.  The standard "d20" has been done to death.  Yes, I know a lot of people feel a roll-under mechanic doesn't "scale well" or is "counter-intuitive."  I also know a percentile-based system isn't exactly Earth-shatteringly original.  But, these are MY preferences in a system, and I like a simple and easy-to-use mechanic.

I like a system where the game rules "fade into the background" during play.  Nothing irritates me more than when the rules get in the way or otherwise assume a dominant role.  I'm here to PLAY, damnit!  (I'll avoid the tired, cliched "Roll-Play VS Role-Play" argument. We've all seen it before.)

I like a system that supports a flexible, non-vancian magic system when it's appropriate for the setting.  Obviously, magic in an RPG about athletescompeting in the modern Olympics would make little sense, although such a game would be interesting to play!).  I prefer the magic system to be flexible and unpredictable, rather than having huge lists of spells that players can predict, and invariably are reduced to "magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold."

I like a system that can make a grubby, excrement-covered NPC peasant farmer just as easily as it can create an Elven Wizard (or whatever).

I especially like a system where both the farmer and the wizard I just referenced are just as playable (in their own way) as the other, are equally supported by the system to BE just as playable (again, in their own way), and are made the exact same way using the exact same rules.

I like a system that supports the old-school "hero's path' from zero hero. Yes, it's cliched, but I like it. Hello, Horatio!  Welcome home, old friend!  :D

I also like a "traditional game" system, with the old GM/Player divide, rather than be forced to conform to some long essay about player empowerment or innane rant about deprotagonization in the game book/pdf.

Wow, my spell checker REALLY didn't like the word "deprotagonization." Do I sound like a petulant old grognard yet?

For what really matters (to me, at least) isn't the system, but the setting.

There is a word I wish every GM, Gamer, and Game-Designer would learn.  It's "Verisimilitude."

Honestly, I'm not sure how to pronounce it, but it means "truthlikeness."  In this context, it is a measure of the quality of the realism of the game setting described.  Now, 'realism' does not necessarily mean "like the real world."  For purposes of this discussion, I'm trying to address the quality of a settings internal realism and how "true" the setting is to that internal paradigm. 

A setting can be all sorts of crazy, and still be playable.  For example: A setting where the Players are sentient wedges of cheese telepathically disputing the validity of the color blue in a Jungian vs Freudian psychoanalytical framework.  It is my belief that, if the setting is put together coherently in accordance with the truth of its own internal paradigm, it's playable.  Even if the 'internal logic' it adheres to is totally batshat crazy, if it's true to the paradigm of its own internal reality, it can be played (and enjoyed) by someone. 

Now, some systems will be able to handle a wacked-out setting better than others.  But, if the setting is good, then a good GM can run it.

Now, I fully understand there are gamers out there who want nothing more "realistic" out of their game than some variation of: "Kick the Door, Kill the Orc, Take His Delicious Pie."  I am not one of those gamers.  I want to know why the orc has the pie in the first place.

For me, its all about immersion into the paradigm of the setting.  It is a WORLD, not just the background noise for rolling the dice the system tells me I should be rolling.

I like richly detailed, realistic settings where things like economics, religions, societies, hell even the cuisine makes sense in the context of the setting as described.  The actions of the player characters should be part of the ongoing narrative of the setting paradigm, and it should all mesh together seamlessly, preferably without the intrusion of the game system.

Even if the GM never uses the details, they should be there.  Even though most players will take the paradigm of the ongoing narrative and fill it with penis jokes, the setting matters.  Because, just as we all play differently and want different things from a game, someone will look upon some random bit of information and think to themselves "Hmmm... I can USE that..."

For that purpose, I have created the Fourteen Worlds of Ta'ar.  I've created the sort of setting I want to play in, and I think others will find something of value in it as well.

Does system matter?  Yes, of course it does.  But it is not the only thing that matters.  In the end, the system is just a series of rules to be used BY the players who are running their character IN the setting.  It's all about the setting, and I love it.  That's why I am a settings whore.

Caerwyn