In-Game or Out-of-Game Setting Material

[tyrlaan]

So I've seen two distinct methods of approaching setting material.

Out-of-Game - The setting material is presented in, let's say, "text book" format. There is no attempt to suggest the material in the book is in any way in-game. This seems to be the more common practice and there's two sub-flavors of it. One is the "sourcebook for all," like the 3e Forgotten Realms book. The other would be DM-centric, like the 4e Eberron setting book.

In-Game - The setting material is presented as if the book in your hand is an actual piece of text written by some individual or group that exists in the game world. This seems to be quite rare (at least IME). An example of this would be anything Shadowrun or Earthdawn (at least in the FASA days, I can't comment on the newer production companies and what they are doing).

So my question is this: What do folks prefer? How do you like to get your setting material served to you? For that matter, has anyone seen a method other than what I've outlined?

I'm also curious what pros and cons people perceive toward these methods. I have my own opinions on each, but I'll reserve them for later in the discussion instead of coloring the conversation in advance.

 

[Klaus]

There's also the middle approach: part is in-character, part is out-of-character.

An example is the original Dark Sun boxed Setting, which had the Wanderer's Journal IC and the Game Rules booklet OOC.

 

[tyrlaan]

You know, I just looked at that recently and completely forgot about that.

Makes me wonder how they'll be presenting the 4e material since it's going against the grain of the settings they've released so far.

 

[Oryan77]

The 2e Planescape books have always been the most interesting for me to read.

They mostly give information in-character. I prefer this method because it gets me in the mood to DM while I read it. The way the narrator speaks also gives me an idea on possible ways to roleplay NPCs. If the book is purely instructional, then I don't really get anything else from it other than crunchy stuff. But when it's written in a fluffy way (which seems extremely rare these days), I not only get the crunch, but I get ideas on how I can better my own roleplaying skills in game at the same time.

Plus, reciting crunchy rules doesn't help spice things up as much in the bedroom as well as the fluffy roleplaying does.

 

[JediSoth]

I like a mix of both. I find the In Game perspective useful to get in the right mindset when writing adventures or running NPCs, but sometimes, I just want a straight info dump (just the facts, ma'am) which is better served by Out Of Game perspectives.

For the record, I LOVE Shadowrun's presentation. Of course, I thought Ptolus's was great too. It was like reading a travelogue to the coolest city ever.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I, too, favour the mixed approach: part of it should be a collection of material for reference, part should be evocative.

An added bonus would be some separate evocative material to be given to the players. At least from my players I'll never see some dedicated study related to some new background. Something like the Player's Guide to Ptolus or even as small as the stuff in the old Known World Gazetteers is a big plus.

 

[S'mon]

I tend to find the in-setting stuff very offputting, and in practice I greatly prefer the OOC/objective approach. One reason is that it often feels very cheesy and badly written, another is that it prevents my own imagination getting to work on the dry text - it says "This is what you will think".

 

[Allenchan]

I prefer the Out-of-Game formats. I think part of it is because I see that as how it really is, but with anything IC, you've got to take with a grain of salt. consider any recount by an in-game persona to be an unreliable narrator. I am not going to take anything as truth that Thogg the Explorer has to say.

 

[Hussar]

I like the mixed approach too.

It really helps to nail down the feel of a setting when there are numerous pieces of short fiction included in the setting book. Scarred Lands was fantastic for this. Tons and tons of stuff was in the fiction.

 

[Janx]

I tend to find the in-setting stuff very offputting, and in practice I greatly prefer the OOC/objective approach. One reason is that it often feels very cheesy and badly written, another is that it prevents my own imagination getting to work on the dry text - it says "This is what you will think".

How do you interpret the writings of an NPC telling you what HE thinks, as "This is what you will think."

That's logically contrary, as IC writings are inherently the perspective of a specific individual that is not you.

Whereas, OoC writings are by nature, declarative statements of how the world is, and in effect dictating "This is what you will think."


Allenchan makes a stronger point to me, that the writings of an NPC are from the perspective of a person, who may be flawed or biased. The content designer is deliberately leaving the GM an out for whether to truly follow what is written.

Whereas, OoC content is stated as the full fact of the situation, as decreed by the game designer.


Bear in mind, I like IC content.