Setting or Mechanic

[DEFCON 1]

I'm basically the opposite of Mark CMG in that I think the best games are ones where the mechanics were designed directly in support of the setting they were meant for. I find most 'generic' mechanic systems to not be as good as ones that were designed specifically for the settings they represented.

Sure, I could use d20 Future or GURPS Space to create a game for the Star Trek or Star Wars settings... but I find playing both of those specific rpgs to be much, much better for the task at hand. And this is why 7th Sea is hands-down a better roleplaying game than Swashbuckling Adventures (AEG's d20 ruleset for their Theah setting).

 

[ThirdWizard]

A game system with good mechanics and a poor built-in setting is usually easier to salvage than a game with good built-in setting and poor mechanics.

I feel I must disagree, putting Rifts up as a model of a system with poor mechanics but a fascinating setting. I could simply swap out Palladium system for SW, SAGA, 4E, d20 modern or Alternity with ease.

That's odd to me, because I read your explanation as an agreement! In my eyes, you aren't trying to salvage the mechanics since you threw them out. As I see it, you aren't playing a Rifts game at that point, you're playing an "X" game in the Rifts setting. So mechanics really were important, or you would have played with the Rifts mechanics.

So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that its all a matter of semantics.

 

[Hussar]

Funny how the commentary seems to be largely at odds with the poll results with, as I write this, DM's being more in favour of strong setting than strong mechanics.

I'm very much a strong mechanics fan for a game I want to play.

OTOH, if it's an RPG book that I want to read, then I totally want a strong setting. Valherjar is a fantastic urban fantasy setting. Wedded to a stock d20 system. The system isn't anything too earth shaking, but the setting is bloody fantastic. Love reading that book, not sure how interested I am in playing. OTOH, Sufficiently Advanced, a post-humanist SF game had really fun mechanics, but the setting was fairly bare bones. Interesting, but not very detailed.

I played SA for almost a year.

 

[Sadrik]

I'm very much a strong mechanics fan for a game I want to play.

I am also for strong mechanics, I don't like weak mechanics much. For the record I like strong settings too, weak settings don't do anything for me. I am also unphased in that I think setting is more important than mechanics.

For me, a fun game is one with a setting that is easily understood what I am doing in the game and what my role in the world is as well as my compatriots. Why do I adventure? If it is a game about exploration I want to be able to have different ways to explore, investigation, treasure gathering, etc... these all need to be well outlined in the setting as to what I am going to be doing as a player. As a DM/GM I am interested in the setting, I don't run any particular game just for the mechanics, I run it for the story and the setting. One that has intrigued me...