Implied Setting

Raving Raven · Jan 20, 2003

In the rational behind his newest book, Arcana Unearthed, Monte Cook said something along the lines of Races and Classes being an implied setting, one for which he wanted to write an alternative.

Out of curiousity, I started wondering what it would take to translate WoD games into D20 games, but I then realized that not only do Races and Classes provide an implied setting, but so do mechanics.

Do you think the good people at WotC have even thought of this? Sure, the D20 gaming system is smooth running and streamlined, but something tells me that it will never be the end all and be all of all games.

s/LaSH · Jan 20, 2003

I forget who (so cannot really answer the question), but someone said recently that D&D isn't part of a fantasy genre (of which there are several), but is its own genre. It's definitely something I've considered, but I'm nobody so far... Some examples:

AC promotes heroism against overwhelming odds. It's true! If you're surrounded by wolves, you suffer a -2AC penalty for flanking, and that's about it. (You can overcome this with Aid actions, of course.) Whereas I've heard it said that in a six versus one bout, when the one is surrounded, the six cannot help but win. Wading into the thick of the enemy is a heroic thing to do because it's stupid in real life (and grittier systems).

Spells - the way they work is just sooo unique to this sub-genre. Nowhere else in fiction can you find fire-and-forget spells, that I know of. It's quite a difference.

Weapon superiority - some weapons do more damage than others. Bang, that's it; if you can use that weapon, I bet you will. Proficiency is the one thing that could stop you, but even in the limited space of what a class allows you can find room to max out your weapons. Whereas in reality, a dagger can be superior in certain circumstances. Try stabbing someone surreptitiously with a sword.

This would, of course, be where I say my homebrew has taken these factors into account. But it's not ready to see the light of day yet (funny, because I call it Twilight).

hong · Jan 20, 2003

s/LaSH said:
I forget who (so cannot really answer the question), but someone said recently that D&D isn't part of a fantasy genre (of which there are several), but is its own genre. It's definitely something I've considered, but I'm nobody so far...

D&D handles one genre fantastically well: wuxia. At high levels, magic is flashy and destructive, characters can fly and teleport, and they wade through everyone whose kung fu (levels) isn't as strong as theirs. Okay, so you have people wandering around in full plate, and the mystical Zen schtick may or may not be present, but those are just cultural frills.

Drawmack · Jan 20, 2003

I have always felt there are four elements that make the setting:

1) Races & Classes: Think about it remove paladin and cleric from the game and all of a sudden you're in a godless world. Remove dwarves and all of a sudden the mountains are not carvernous cities any more.

2) Rules: Want a horror setting, add rules for fear, sanity and addiciton and make battle more deadly.

3) Monsters: Populate the world with only animals, beasts and humanoids and you've got a much more realistic world. Stick in a bunch of dragons, mind flayers and such and you're in high fantasy.

4) The GM: The way things are described plays a big part in the game. For example:
"You spin around in a circle with your sword extended at arms length slicing 8 orcs in half."

"With the might of determination you manage to behead the first orc, the power of your fury carries your sword through the second orc's neck as well, The third orce puts up more of a resistence but his body falls to your blade, amazing the four orc succoms to the tortures of your sword as well...."

One is wuzia the other is the character accomplishing something amazing and legendary. Though both of them are nothing but great cleave.

hong · Jan 20, 2003

Drawmack said:
"With the might of determination you manage to behead the first orc, the power of your fury carries your sword through the second orc's neck as well, The third orce puts up more of a resistence but his body falls to your blade, amazing the four orc succoms to the tortures of your sword as well...."

One is wuzia the other is the character accomplishing something amazing and legendary.

No, the second is just a long-winded GM.

Raving Raven · Jan 20, 2003

Hmm. I don't think a single one of you get what I'm saying... *Shrugs*

Compare for a moment the D20 system to the Storytelling sytem of Vampire/Werewolf/Mage fame. Strip out the races, classes, and world specific matieral and compare the two systems. Doesn't these two systems suggest different types of game play? Do you see how these two systems could be suggestive of very different settings?

Ranillon · Jan 20, 2003

I agree with you Raven -- D+D does imply certain characteristics relating to the nature of any setting. Just one example (out of many possible ones) is the "fire and forget" aspect to magic. Many fantasy settings sport magic that is risky to cast and may in fact blow up in your face. If you wanted to replicate that aspect for your own game, but still use D+D you'd have to bring in some house rules.

To put it another way, D+D is not as "generic" as it might seem on the surface.

There is also something else which D+D implies besides a type of setting -- it also implies a certain approach to gaming in general. D+D promotes "power gaming", the sort of role-playing that revolves around beating the bad guys, getting the treasure, and demonstrating how clever you can be in your use of the rules. Now, I'm not going to suggest that style is "bad" (to each his own as they say) but if you prefer a more in-depth role (not roll) playing experience D+D doesn't encourage that nearly as well. Think about it -- the big payoffs in experience points come from killing and/or defeating monsters. The benefits for role-playing -- no matter how amazing the depth of acting and emotion -- are minor by comparison (unless, as always, the DM brings in house rules).

haiiro · Jan 20, 2003

Raving Raven said:
Compare for a moment the D20 system to the Storytelling sytem of Vampire/Werewolf/Mage fame. Strip out the races, classes, and world specific matieral and compare the two systems. Doesn't these two systems suggest different types of game play? Do you see how these two systems could be suggestive of very different settings?

Absolutely.

This is why so many games are also settings, and why a lot of people don't like "universal" systems. Tying a system to a world allows the designers to express aspects of that setting in mechanical terms -- rules for having another player run your Shadow in Wraith, gruesome critical hit tables in Warhammer FRP, the fragility of sanity in CoC, etc.

Systems that strive to be setting-free -- with GURPS being the most prominent example -- are good for switching genres without swtiching rules, but not very good at bringing out world elements through those rules. In some cases, by the time you've tweaked the ruleset to include mechanics specific to the setting you're playing in, you might as well be playing a different game specifically designed for that setting.

The underlying similarity between shared-rules games (D&D and d20 Modern, Werewolf and Vampire) lets players of one game apply much of their knowledge of its ruleset to another -- which is good. Where it falls short is in cases like D&D and d20 Call of Cthulhu. For the most part, the d20 rules are robust enough to represent a Lovecraftian world and worldview -- but the basis (D&D) is too heroic to really capture the feel. d20 CoC characters are all geared towards combat -- even those that aren't combat-oriented character types -- and this doesn't mesh with the cautious and investigative elements of the average CoC game.

I don't think there is a be-all-and-end-all system -- one that can perfectly represent every possible setting, worldview, etc. What WotC set out to do with d20 was create a system that would become ubiquitous because everyone knew the rules -- not necessarily because it was the "perfect" system.

All IMO, and just my .02.

howandwhy99 · Jan 20, 2003

I think the good people at WOTC do understand that they are making one set of rules that cannot fit all games and gaming styles. When they created 3rd edition, they followed a specific design philosophy that was aimed more at the *game* side of rpgs, than the roleplaying side. Many of the rules are ingenious not only because they work so well, but because they nearly mirror both previous editions' styles of play.

I believe WOTC will branch out, as in the D20 Modern game, as they make their system more multigenre. I also think the community is calling for a more modifiable system. I imagine something where heavier roleplaying or a lighter rules base is an option affording more widely differing styles of play.

Also, no game can be called "the be all and end all of games". To make an analagy, there is no *perfect* computer programming language. Each has its pros and cons. Most were built for a specific style or two of programming and do well when used as intended.

In the same way, the best rpg for your world and your group is going to be one custom designed by an expert game designer.
WoD has a great system that is very clean numbers-wise. If you play it under different rules, it won't be the same game. (try running the GURPS version sometime). Play it as the designers intended and no *generic* system can beat it.

Apok · Jan 20, 2003

hong said:
No, the second is just a long-winded GM.

Maybe, but one man's long-winded GM is another man's epic storyteller. The Odyssey could've been summed up in a page and the writings on a High School bathroom wall could be expounded into a masterpiece of modern literature.