rules or world first?

[Jackelope King]

It doesn't matter / other.

The crunch should be logically organized for ease of use and arranged in such a way that it supports the setting's fluff. I don't care how you do it, just do it. I prefer getting the basics up front, then including specific bits of crunch to prop up or support fluff you describe (usually logically organized together within the chapter of interest). For example, in an Eberron suppliment about the Last War, I would like to see faction-specific prestige classes or substitution levels included at the end of a chapter describing that faction. That combines ease of use (you know that a PrC associated with Kingdom X is in the end of the chapter about Kingdom X) and logical flow (you've logically built up to these classes with a good groundwork of background crunch).

 

[Pinotage]

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.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your answer incorrectly, but Crothian was asking that is you had a setting book, would you want the setting content first in the book or the rules content first in the book. He's not asking if you thing setting is more important than rules, but what you prefer to see when reading a book - the setting in the first pages or the rules.

Pinotage

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I voted setting first, but I want it first and third, and rules second and last. Thats the way the oathbound book was (iirc). First the setting, in fairly broad strokes, but definitly everything you needed to evaluate it. Then the new races, major rules additions, etc. Then more highly detailed setting info for the actual running of the campaign. Then the detailed miscelaneous crunch like new spells, items, monster details.

 

[Wombat]

huh? :\

Okay, to remove the "Huh?" factor, what I mean by "rules-amphibious" is that I am not tied to a single set of rules, be they D20, GURPS, or whathaveyou.

This also means that I am quite willing to borrow material from, say, Forgotten Realms to use in a game of, say, Over The Edge.

Thus the setting material as setting is ultimately of more use to me than the rules material, unless the rules set in the setting book specifically goes with the set of rules I am using at the moment. What use are Ars Magica spell options in a D20 game? Little to none. But what material could I use out of The Dragon & The Bear book on medieval Russia to put into a D20 game? Probably quite a bit!

Thus rules-amphibious... ribbit

 

[Wil]

I prefer the setting information first, with either relevant rules information in the sidebar or simply located in an easy-to-find, organized, well-indexed section. Although the format has it's detractors, Tribe 8 1e was a great example - the entire first half of the book was setting information, told from the perspective of a variety of in-world narrators, with NPC stats and other tidbits in sidebars. The only thing that I would have done different would be to make sure to include small sections of objective, "encyclopedia-style" text along with the narrative. They did this in the second edition, though I think they went too far by eliminating the subjective narrative completely. Of course, I'm also not adverse to short, well-written game fiction to help illustrate the world as well.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Oh, OK, I get it now. Interpretation of the post was faulty.

I'd prefer a brief intro to the setting, then the Crunch, then the fluff.

 

[William Ronald]

Oh, OK, I get it now. Interpretation of the post was faulty.

I'd prefer a brief intro to the setting, then the Crunch, then the fluff.

I concur. I want a feel for the setting, and to see if there are any concepts that attract me to the setting. Then, I can see how some of those concepts are implemented, and learn more about the setting.

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book does this by talking a little bit about the setting, then diving into the rules before giving details of the setting.

 

[ZombieButch]

The folks who just really want the setting and aren't planning on using the rules will say, "Setting first!"

The folks who don't care about the setting, but just want to use the rules material, will say, "Rules first!"

With those two groups, you're going to be screwed one way or the other.

The real question you should ask yourself is, "Is there anything in the rules that doesn't make sense unless you've already read about the setting?" and "Is there anything in the setting that doesn't make sense unless you've already read the rules?", then organize accordingly.

 

[Psion]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your answer incorrectly, but Crothian was asking that is you had a setting book, would you want the setting content first in the book or the rules content first in the book.

I read it as priority not presentation.

Presentation... tough call. But I guess my answer would be a bit different. I think setting needs to sort of be feathered in a little at a time, whereas rules might be an area that is familiar to you. So, I guess, rules first if you are speaking of presentation.

 

[Henry]

I prefer setting first. Preferably, I prefer setting, with rules tacked onto each section, much like what Eberron's Five Nations book does. However, in the absence of that, Black Company Campaign Setting had my preference, by putting the setting overview in the front, followed by the mechanics which told of how they fit within the setting.