rules or world first?

[ThirdWizard]

I think they should be integrated together, but I don't think I've ever seen this done. I can't stand half the book being nothing but rules and the other half being nothing but lists of nations, cities, NPCs, etc. It bores me to death. I'd prefer to the two to be meshed together. Tell me about the country of Windlebup and then give me the PrCs, feats, ect. that are available to people who live there or are based in the area.

 

[Imret]

Primarily I want setting info, since I've got my own rules set that works just fine for me, but KidSocrates and ThirdWizard raise good ideas. Races early, and all the rest of the crunchies scattered throughout the setting info. PrC's in their nation or religion of origin, new spells in the religion & magic breakdown...that sort of thing.

Maybe that's just because I quite like finding useful tidbits in sidebars.

 

[Mallus]

snip...if the rules are unplayable or unenjoyable or whatever, I can't bring myself to play it.

I see you didn't get your start with 1st edition AD&D/2nd edition...

If I wanted a fictional setting and nothing else I'd read a novel.

Mind you, even with a bad ruleset, an rpg still gives you a fictional setting that you can alter, that responds to your actions. Novels never provide that, and thus, it's not helpful to compare them.

(Now plenty of RPG campaigns fail to provide players with meaningful chances to 'change the world', but that's a GM problem which has nothing to do with the rules used)

 

[Crothian]

I think they should be integrated together, but I don't think I've ever seen this done. I can't stand half the book being nothing but rules and the other half being nothing but lists of nations, cities, NPCs, etc. It bores me to death. I'd prefer to the two to be meshed together. Tell me about the country of Windlebup and then give me the PrCs, feats, ect. that are available to people who live there or are based in the area.

While the idea is nice, it can actually make finding the rules to look up and reference a little difficult. I think Rifts actually did a lot of this.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm finishing off a review of a new setting, Etherscope by Goodman Games, and this question really came up for some unknown reason. It seems that d20 games and setting have a habit of placing the rules and mechancis in front of the actual setting. Other games tend to do it the other way around and I was just wondering is this something people care about. I personally perfer to read about the setting and then seen had the rules fit in that. Readign the rules first leaves me wondering how it fits together.

So, in this poll, its very simple which do you perfer first in a setting book?

I prefer the setting information, because when I look at a setting book, I am first interested in being the DM. Therefore, I want to know why the setting is special and interesting as a whole.

But you're right, almost all settings I've seen start off with character classes, because that's the first thing players want to know (they want to know what they can be if they play in such a setting). Since there are more players than DMs, putting player material in front of a setting book is nothing else than a marketing reason: 99% of those who browse a book in the gaming store obviously start from the first pages.

 

[Pinotage]

Definitely setting information. It's much easier to read through rules and mechanics if you have a groundline framework in which you can evaluate them. I find the same thing when reading other setting material - mechanics first, then setting, and it makes it difficult to read, particularly if you're reviewing it.

Pinotage

 

[Psion]

See sig.

I'm not sure where that puts me, but I guess I'll say setting first, with the caveat of not making things hard on yourself by eshewing rules when you don't have to.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Other: Game concept first, then setting or rules depending on that choice.

For example, I'm interested in running a Sci-Fi game with a Firefly-ish flavor. Setting-wise, I want to use Traveller. Rules-wise, I could go either GURPS or T20, or D20 Modern/Future with some T20 mixed in. The exact rules system are not the key point.

I also want to run a Cthulhu-esqu fantasy horror game. I want to run it using D&D rules, with alternate classes. As for setting, I'm bouncing back and forth between an alternate medieval Europe, or a homebrewed world, or Wilderlands.

So the initial concept informs all subsequent choices.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

The story is key. I can tell the same story with pretty much any ruleset. I've run Midnight with D&D but have considered running it with MERP, Rolemaster, and Palladium. All would work well especially MERP since the settings are so similar. There would be no work involved with creature conversion.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Setting first.

I don't buy a setting product for the crunch. Furthermore, too much crunch becomes a barrier to using the product. It's also annoying when you buy a cool-looking campaign setting, and you give it to the players to read, they come back and say "can I play [this class]?" They end up spending more time looking at the rules than the flavor.