In-Game or Out-of-Game Setting Material

[karlindel]

I like a mix of the two, with a bias towards in-game. In-game material is great for getting a feel for the setting, especially if there is obvious bias in the speaker. I like out-of-game material as a transition between setting description and rules material. I also like out-of-game material for things that it would not make sense for people in the world to know about.

 

[Crothian]

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

The problem is when that's all the info you are given. Without any other sources to base an opinion on or facts to say what it really is, what else can a person think?

 

[Wik]

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

I dunno. I can think of a few rules that are good to have in the bedroom that work MUCH better than fluffy roleplaying. She calls it the "I have to be at least THIS drunk before you..." rule.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The combination is the best approach for me. You get some ideas about how the "people" in the setting see things, but then you get the way the designers intend it to actually be. Sometimes the fun is where those two versions diverge from each other.

You can come up with the "reality" on your own without the designer's input, but the risk is that later publications may contradict your reality, causing you to scramble to retcon or try and keep the differences straight.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I've never actually read an In-Game setting, so I only half know what I'm talking about, but I think I prefer Out-of-Game (short fiction is okay, so long as it's short). Thing is I kind of hate mystery in a published setting for the same reason many people don't like above a certain amount of confirmed information: because I feel like it's telling me what to do. It may sound odd, but for me I have an easier time resisting/changing information that exists than information that doesn't. Either give me the secret or stop teasing me.

 

[Hussar]

I've never actually read an In-Game setting, so I only half know what I'm talking about, but I think I prefer Out-of-Game (short fiction is okay, so long as it's short). Thing is I kind of hate mystery in a published setting for the same reason many people don't like above a certain amount of confirmed information: because I feel like it's telling me what to do. It may sound odd, but for me I have an easier time resisting/changing information that exists than information that doesn't. Either give me the secret or stop teasing me.

I think I can see what you're saying. One thing that having a setting mystery means is that it's very, very difficult to talk about the setting with other gamers. You might take the mystery in one direction, while someone else takes it in the complete opposite way. And thus are born flaming row's on the Internet.

I'm a bit mixed to be honest. I like having the information, which means I can change it if I want. But, OTOH, I play with fellow GM's (everyone in my group has GM'd and it's been this way for a lot of years) who very well might want to use the same setting. They might borrow/buy the same setting books that I have, which makes it more difficult to personalize the setting if they start getting stroppy about setting canon.

I'm not really sure which I prefer. I'll be over here sitting on the fence.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I prefer out-of-game. In game could be good, if it was well done, but it hardly ever is.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

You might take the mystery in one direction, while someone else takes it in the complete opposite way. And thus are born flaming row's on the Internet.

It doesn't matter to me what someone else does. What matters is that I'm better at rearranging pieces than making stuff up. I'll happily take a setting without any mystery and butcher it till it runs black with the ink of its canon. But give me a mystery and I'm a deer in the headlights.

I suppose I just like to mess with peoples' expectations, so I hate it when there's nothing to mess with.

They might borrow/buy the same setting books that I have, which makes it more difficult to personalize the setting if they start getting stroppy about setting canon.

What does "stroppy" mean, and why does it make it difficult to personalize?

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Out of game all the way for me. I want the info so that I can figure out what tone and structure I use the campaign setting for. I detested the ingame presentation from Planescape, but I don't mind some flavor text here and there - a sentence or two at a chapter heading or something (like the quotes scattered around Spelljammer).

 

[GrimGent]

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

The bulk of the 3e gazetteers for Ravenloft consists of an in-character travelogue by a wandering scholar hired to prepare a comprehensive survey of the domains, with practically all the crunch stashed in the appendices. The books themselves actually exist in the setting, as a potential adventure hook. (As an added bonus, it's a rather conversion-friendly approach which is nice since I don't run D&D.)