rules or world first?

[jester47]

I think rules should be independant of setting. That is the rules should be flexible enough to fit around the setting. The setting should be able to be independant of the rules and stand on its own.

This is not to say that you should not have specialised rules for a setting to help accentuate it, but that is where the two meet. But in a good setting with good rules, the development of the setting expressed in the rules set should be minimal.

(but then again, I am a minimalist)

 

[CarlZog]

I don't particularly care how the book is organized, but I do very much like having some kind of introductory chapter that summarizes both the setting and the rules. Getting that overview makes it much easier to wade into either of the following sections and have a general understanding of the context right off the bat.

Carl

 

[Crothian]

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.

It is presentation, but that usuall equals priority. In games that are setting first like tWhite Wolf they do place setting first in their book. While the more mechancially focused games like d20 tend to have the rulkes in the front.

 

[cildarith]

I prefer my setting books to be as free from rules as possible. So I guess my answer is 'neither'.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

If a publisher is very good at providing a solid introduction about the setting, this problem could cost just 2 pages at the very beginning. But sometimes the introduction is just a wasted pimpin' page about how cool this setting is going to be, how powerful your characters, etc.

For example, I have the Rokugan campaign setting book. It is really a wonderful setting and a top D&D book IMHO. But one nitpick about it is that it starts off with one page introduction that contains nothing but an in-character description (that functions more as an advertising to me), and some lines about necessary books etc... Then the books starts immediately with the description of each clan, and the character benefits of belonging to one.

It would have been great to have 2 pages mentioning all the important features of the settings, both rules-based and rules-free, so that you know what to expect. For example, it could have been mentioned in the intro that Honor and Taint have rules to follow, what place has Void in the setting, etc... instead of talking about them in the clan descriptions (100 or so pages before explaining how these work). A preliminary as-short-as-possible explanation would have made the reader feel much better.

 

[DragonLancer]

Personal preference is rules/mechanics before setting.

 

[Bardsandsages]

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.

This is the sort of thing we tried to do with Neiyar: Land of Heaven and the Abyss. I consider this important for a game making sense. You have the setting information and the rules together, offering the reader a rules/example mix that makes it easy to understand. So we started with general information about the society matched with the gods, and this included the special rules and abilities granted to the clerics of the gods. When we discuss the races, we include information on how the different races feel about each other along with the rules. The monsters section isn't just a laundry list of new monsters with weird powers, but includes additional setting information on how these creatures either came to be or how they fit into the world.

 

[Ranger REG]

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

In a campaign setting book? The fluff.

I like to force my players into the introduction -- or a primer -- of the world they're playing.

 

[Knightfall]

If a book is designed to be a campaign setting first and foremost then there should definitely be more thought given to the setting than to the rules. The best example of this I can think of is Ryan Smalley's Valus fantasy role-playing world sourcebook published by Different World Publications. (The book is the best setting book I've seen that doesn't add a ton of new rules to the d20 System without giving up the ability to be unique.)

However, many d20 settings are designed with the one core book philosophy, and then create add-on books for more crunchy material. In such cases, a good balance between setting and rules is a must. The best example of this I can think of is Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. (The main book is very well balanced between rules and the setting material, which is needed as the setting doesn't eaxctly follow the rules of the PHB, DMG, and MM.)

As for "rules first" supplements, such books rarely need to have any setting material, unless the book is designed for a specific d20 System setting (i.e. Arcana Evolved). Personally, I tend to stay away from such books unless I really like the setting. Thus, Blackmoor sourcebooks have interest to me, while Arcana Evolved sourcebooks don't. This is simply preference.

As for Crothian's concern regarding Etherscope, I would hope it falls into the same category as Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. Considering its a Goodman Games campaign setting, I'm sure it falls into that category.

Cheers!

KF72
===========================

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

As you can tell from my post, I made this same mistake. I guess I should have voted "it doesn't matter". I guess I didn't read his post carefully enough.

 

[was]

In a 'settings' book, I prefer to have information about the setting up front, followed by the rules material. It's just more interesting to me.