Mechanics vs. Setting

[gamerprinter]

I have a special hatred in my heart for games that have setting and mechanics so close that you're playing the world, not a game.

I'm not sure what you mean by this...?

 

[billd91]

I don't necessarily care whether a game focuses on setting or mechanics first - either can catch my eye as a decent game. However, what I don't want is a game that tries to imply that its rules define the game's laws of physics. That's not what I play table-top RPGs for. If I want a game to design my physics engine, I'll play a computer RPG. I want a table-top RPG's rules to define reasonable abstract mechanisms for adjudicating actions that a character might reasonably take given the assumptions and allowances of the genre of the game we're playing.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

I'm not sure what you mean by this...?

I mean a game where the mechanics are so enslaved to the world, where how you roll deals with the world, that it just feels wrong.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Game world and mechanics should work hand in hand to deliver the best experience.

In concert, these two items define the tone of the games which can be played using them. If they don't match - e.g. heroic fantasy rules (AD&D 2e) and gothic horror setting (Ravenloft) - the result leaves something to be desired.

Now, you can modify, house-rule, extend, or change the rules to adapt them to the desired setting. Back when we played a lot of GURPS, my players showed interest in playing a Cthulhuesque game, and I tried to make a GRUPS variant:

I set the CP to 25, expanded the skill list, defined Mental Health and Mental Damage, whipped up tables for insanities, and so on.

We ended up playing Call of Cthulhu with the GURPS task resolution system, plus the advantage/disadvantage system and codified insanities.

Granted, this is the result of me knowing the CoC rules and not knowing GURPS Horror. It still shows that the rules should accentuate the setting and its flavor.

If, on the other hand, mechanics and setting work at cross purposes, the result will be less than perfect.

Of course, a good GM and interested, active players can easily make good with such a combination regardless of any theoretical discussion.

 

[gamerprinter]

I mean a game where the mechanics are so enslaved to the world, where how you roll deals with the world, that it just feels wrong.

Can you give an example? How are mechanics enslaved to a world? Your statement is so general it seems to apply to nothing specific. I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Bluenose]

It depends. If your game is written for a particular setting or at least style of setting, then the mechanics should be written with that in mind. If you're writing a game without a setting in mind, then the mechanics should be as solid as possible even if they end up lacking much flavour. So for instance, The One Ring is written for a particular period of Middle Earth, and it doesn't seem like something where the rules would be easily adaptable to other settings (though I used to feel that way about Pendragon). GURPS is written mechanics first, and setting material is added on top of that, and works very well in it's own way without ever quite being as good a fit for any setting as a game written for that setting might be - the advantage being it's huge adaptability. Neither way is better imo, there are setting-specific games I love and others I dislike, and mechanics-first games I like and dislike.

 

[Jhaelen]

Whatever the exact question you're getting at is, the answer is mechanics.

It's like asking which is more important to understanding the real world: the history of Russia or the laws of physics.

Umm, really?
I think this comparison fails on two counts:
- different scopes: either you'd have to compare the history of the world to the laws of physics or you'd have to compare the history of Russia with a specific subset of physical laws (say thermodynamics).
- 'understanding' and the 'real world': I'd argue that you don't have to have a single clue about the laws of physics to understand 'the (real) world'. To understand what's happening around you, i.e. the things you see in the news or read about in newspapers knowledge of history is definitely more useful than knowledge of physical laws. In everday life, physical laws are simply irrelevant: Gravity works without you knowing anything about it!

Now back to the original question: I prefer mechanics that are informed by the requirements of the setting. Call of Cthulhu and Ars Magica are both perfect examples for this. The 3e campaign setting of Eberron was similarly great because of it, considering the d20 framework it had to respect.

For systems that are supposed to support multiple, very different settings the mechanics are of course more important, but they can never work as well as a system developed specifically for a particular setting, imho.

 

[Ahnehnois]

- different scopes: either you'd have to compare the history of the world to the laws of physics or you'd have to compare the history of Russia with a specific subset of physical laws (say thermodynamics).

Not at all. The original setting of setting v mechanics is also a matter of different scopes. There are many settings for one set of mechanics (D&D in particular). Many of those settings are regions of a game world (the Forgotten Realms comprises several settings, for example: Maztica, Kara-Tur, etc,).

- 'understanding' and the 'real world': I'd argue that you don't have to have a single clue about the laws of physics to understand 'the (real) world'. To understand what's happening around you, i.e. the things you see in the news or read about in newspapers knowledge of history is definitely more useful than knowledge of physical laws. In everday life, physical laws are simply irrelevant: Gravity works without you knowing anything about it!

You knowing physical laws in some sense is irrelevant, but they still affect you more than any facet of human behavior and culture does, whether you know it or not. Likewise, a beginning rpg-er may not know anything about why they're supposed to roll a d20 when the DM says to or what the numbers mean or even why there's a DM, but those parameters affect them more than the history of their campaign world does (to which they are likely to be equally ignorant).

For systems that are supposed to support multiple, very different settings the mechanics are of course more important, but they can never work as well as a system developed specifically for a particular setting, imho.

I find your examples here a bit odd. Call of Cthulhu, for instances, supports a wide variety of settings, from modern to historical, and from realistic to fantastical. CoC is designed around stylistic elements, not a setting (as are most rpgs). That's why it works.

 

[howandwhy99]

In perhaps the most important ways, Mechanics are Setting.

Sort of like how gravity defines the universe, at least in part.

 

[Karak]

If the rules are amazing I can come up with my own world.
If the world is amazing I can move the setting to my own rules.

I don't have a real preference.