I'm uninterested in stoking the fires of the edition wars with this post. If you're looking for flaming of a given edition or play-style, you're going to be disappointed. I was curious about another aspect of releasing a "modular" game system.To be sure, the concept of a modular role playing game system is not a new idea. Take a look at Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying core rulebook, any edition of Steve Jackson Games' venerable GURPS, Hero Games' HERO System, Green Ronin's True20, or Savage Worlds. Each of these are useful and entertaining games.
My question: Should a core rulebook for a game include a default setting?
Several of these previously-mentioned games do not have settings included in their core books. (I think HERO might be the exception there.) Would a modular RPG benefit from having a solid, well-defined setting in their core rules books?
I feel that, given DnD's tremendous popularity, it will need somewhere solid into which the casual tabletop gamer can drop their spell-slinging mystics and thugs with axes. DnD4e's default setting was the Nentir Vale (borrowing heavily from previous editions' settings later in their development). DnD3x's default setting was Greyhawk, but it seemed to suffer from an editorial push to be generic enough that it didn't outshine the rules the game presented in the three core books.
Regardless, I'm curious about the kind of balance that authors feel should be created between a system and setting in a "generic" or "modular" game.
All the best games integrate elements of the setting into their rules. The things on your character sheet should mean something in the world your character lands in. An Orlanthi shaman won't have spells to summon fire elementals. The Knights of the Blue Rose will be expected to arbitrate disputes in the outlying areas of the kingdom, regardless of their arcane or martial abilities (or even their ability to speak the local language). You can tell how successful an Investigator in Call of Cthulhu is by comparing their number of encounters with the Mythos and their Sanity score.
At least that's what I'm hoping for.
Should a core rulebook for a game include a default setting?
ReplyDeleteActually, I have been pondering just this question the past few days (I'm in the initial stages of developing a game and wondering whether or not I should include a setting or keep it generic).
For a game with a huge user base like D&D, I would say no. There are too many people wanting to run a game in a different setting that would find having a default one embedding in the rulebooks to be annoying.
On the other hand, I feel that, for a smaller game, having the setting tied to the rules could be beneficial. You only have one place to look for information. Much of the attraction for such a game could actually be in the setting. The author runs the risk though of alienating people that don't enjoy the setting, so there is a good argument for either choice.
That's the dilemma, isn't it? Over-specialization vs. under-specialization.
ReplyDeleteMost players of DnD3x I've talked to were dimly aware that Greyhawk was the default setting, but glossed over it for the rules and mechanics. When more setting-anchored splatbooks were produced, they ended up picking the bits they enjoyed and left the remainder. Which is what all tabletop gamers do, honestly.
My question could be refined I suppose. How about: To what degree should you invest a given "core" rulebook in a given setting?
If I cannot sort out how to customize the modular nature of the rules to my specific setting, the rulebook has fundamentally failed. By providing a clear example of how to do this, any new core book hedges their bets for the game science to take root in creative players' imaginations. Should it blossom from there into a new setting, huzzah! You've sold another copy of your core, which I understand is where the money is anyway.
Thanks for your feedback!
From the tidbits we've seen around the 'nets, there's some backed-up speculation that this time they're gonna make Forgotten Realms the default setting. My timid guess is that the core rulebooks will just casually/loosely refer to it, and the true setting book will be separated but available from launch or little later.
ReplyDeleteThe quotes I'm deducing this from come from Enworld:
"The Forgotten Realms will be supported from the start, and a video game art studio from China has been hired to fully detail the Realms. We asked if going forward support would be continued for the current time after the Spellplague and the Neverwinter Campaign. A WotC spokesperson answered, “The Forgotten Realms has a rich history and we will support all of it. It is for the gamers to decide which time they would enjoy playing in.” That would allow Wizards to take advantage of a massive back catalog of products."
"... That would allow Wizards to take advantage of a massive back catalog of products."
DeleteAnd there's the trick, isn't it? WotC should carefully consider their tack here. If there will be a truly modular game-system that will allow people to pick up their 3x material and use it with minimal fuss, they've succeeded with their plans.
If there is a game-system that requires more overhead / translation between previous editions' mechanics, or that is opaque about applying these shiny modules to new or original settings, then that book will fail.
My intent with this post was to get the stakeholders to really consider their choices and drum up some talk about how hard a setting should be hammered into a modular / generic tabletop RPG system. My intentions aren't selfless - I have a game-system I would like to publish. If this dialog can help WotC make their system usable (and therefore profitable), awesome! I'll take the concepts to Lulu for my own creations and let the 800-lbs gorilla rule the forest.
Thanks for the feedback R - R - R A F!