Mechanics vs. Setting

[Nagol]

I try to choose the rule set that best matches my expectations for genre, character power-level, trappings, and focus on aspects I want to explore in the game.

A focus on a setting to some degree is very helpful: it provides a ready source of inspiration, sets a common expectation among the players, and helps set the game apart from others on the market.

I don’t like a game that gets so specific with the setting that it becomes annoying to try to use the rules while tweaking or changing the setting.

Conspiracy-X is an example. I’ve liked the Uni-system since I encountered it in All Flesh Must Be Eaten so I figured it would be a good contender for a X-Files style modern mystery/conspiracy game.

The setting is too tightly intertwined with the rule set for my taste. The player abilities, the antagonists, and the characters' roles are bound up in the setting trappings to the point where a whole bunch of work is necessary to run a game with a different world background.

 

[Balesir]

I voted "other", because it depends very heavily what the focus and agenda of play will be. If the aim is to explore and play with the setting, then setting is paramount. If the idea is to kill stuff and grab loot or make a fun story out of competing ideas, though, system is much more useful.

 

[Jhaelen]

CoC is designed around stylistic elements, not a setting (as are most rpgs). That's why it works.

Okay, maybe setting doesn't cover what I was thinking of.

What I meant is that, e.g. CoC introduces Sanity rules because it's expected that when playing CoC getting exposed to cosmic or personal horrors is central to the game. Whether you're using a historical, contemporary or entirely fictional setting is indeed pretty much irrelevant.

Likewise Ars Magica features extensive rules about lab research, inventing new spells and creating magic items because it's expected that these activities will be important for every campaign.

Regarding the Eberron example, however, it's indeed the setting that the ECG was designed around. It features rules about dragonmarks because the dragonmarked houses are one of the most distinctive features of the setting. Other mechanical additions are stylistic in nature, e.g. it introduces a 'detective' prestige class because Eberron games are supposed to be about investigations (at least some of the time). It also makes action points a mandatory part of the core rules because games are supposed to be 'cinematic'.

 

[Tallifer]

I would happily play in Eberron or Moorcock's multiverse using any and every set of rules.

I would never play in Disc World or Greyhawk even with beloved systems like Pendragon or the Fourth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons. And I have no interest in the Wild West or 20th century settings.

So setting definitely trumps mechanics.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Okay, maybe setting doesn't cover what I was thinking of.

Fair enough. I'm thinking of "setting" pretty narrowly, as a set of locations, characters, and background information. The OP didn't define it that I can see.

"Style" or "tone" or the like IMO are more important than and are a consequence of both setting elements and game mechanics. Horror games or cinematic games and so on require a synthesis of mechanical and setting elements to achieve.