Whould you buy a system-free setting?

[tadk]

Hey there

Hi all,

I've been thinking about the present and potential future of the D20 market (well the RPG market in general, but it's the D20 one that I mostly write for) and was wondering if people would actually buy a setting, assuming you liked it, of course, that didn't have a game system included - it would expect you, I suppose, to convert to whichever generic system you liked best, GURPS, Savage Worlds, a D20 variant, True20, etc. So let me know which of the responses on the thread you think best fits your opinion

I would pick it up if it was a setting of interest to me.
I actually want more of this available. I can do my own converting, make systems, port stuff over. But I would personally love more system less setting information. Like a novel with encyclopedic information, maps, glossaries, all the lovely fluff and I can crunch it the way i want to.
Odds are if SF I would port to Fuzion
Fantasy all depends either Hero or d20ish
Other it would all depend
But yes I would purchase such an item.

Tad

 

[JVisgaitis]

I dig your Violet Dawn stuff, Jeff. When will you guys release something else? I was hoping to play something in the Broken Isles, but I felt like I didn't know enough about the rest of the nearby lands to feel comfortable enough (like aggressor nations, nearby theology, tech levels, etc). It's a great setting with an awesome feel.

I can go into this a lot more, but I don't want to thread jack. You'll see more info from us soon.

 

[prosfilaes]

Then, in a second book, I give guidelines on how to use a variety of established RPG systems for that setting (a chapter on GURPS, a chapter on Unisystem, a chapter on d20 (True20, C&C, d20 Modern, etc), a chapter on FUDGE).

But can you afford to do that? WotC got sued by Palladium for doing that for their Primal Order series (pre-MtG) and had to settle. It's clear that at least one publisher isn't happy with that, and that even if the court agrees you have the right to do that, it will take a full court case to decide that.

 

[buzz]

But can you afford to do that?

As long as he's not publishing it for money, though Palladium may still yell at him regardless.

w_earle_wheeler, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not talking about a published product, correct?

 

[Alnag]

Actually I did one system-free setting myself so the answer is quite obvious. I think, that integration of the system into the setting is wrong and evil thing!

 

[Wombat]

As I am a person more interested in fitting the rules to the setting, rather than the setting to the rules, I am potentially interested in looking at the material. From there on in it is strictly a matter of how the world plays out; some types of worlds would interest me broadly, some to a more limited extent, and many not at all.

 

[Turanil]

I've been wondering if people would actually buy a setting, assuming you liked it, of course, that didn't have a game system included

The only settings I am interested in, are those without any game system provided. I am waiting Freeport mainly for that reason, and won't buy Thieves' World because it has a set of rules in it.

It's true that not playing d20, I am not really interested in d20 rules. But if I were still using this sytem, why get more stuff when there is already so many D&D 3.5 rules, plus lots of 3rd party d20 stuff available, so I have really no need for more. What I want is a detailed setting, no useless feats and prestige classes.

 

[Turanil]

Ahem, I have been reading the thread, and all those who say why a setting has to be tied to some game system.

Now I see something. Such comments make sense, but there is a difference between a setting totally system-less, and a setting made for, say d20, yet doesn't provide any new crunch (feats, prestige classes, etc.).

Now that I think about it, I would prefer a setting intended for d20, but only for reference. Providing no new crunch, no stats, etc., but only reference to monsters, NPCs (of which classes) etc., I could use whatever d20/D&D/True20/C&C/Osric stuff I want, with some guidelines, but wouldn't have to suffer "wasted space".

 

[Kid Socrates]

I don't think I personally would because it would feel like I'd be doing all the dirty work and none of the fun work. I designed a world for the game I run now, and I'm working on a different one for the next game I'll start sometime later this year. I have a lot of fun coming up with ideas like a flightless race that longs to return to the sky so they've become airship engineers, and their naming conventions and holidays and clothing styles and the history of their people. I would have significantly less fun if someone else came up with that and all I got to do was decide if they get a +2 to Dexterity or a +2 to Intelligence.

I think it sets the bar of entry too high. You like this great setting with deep character motivations and places and people and things and magic and history and intrigue? Well, to use it you're going to have to put about a month or two of work into figuring out how this and that and this and that works. By the time that's done, you might as well have written your own setting.

So no, I don't think it could work.

 

[Corinth]

A systemless setting book is properly called "a setting bible", because that's the only sensible reason to publish such a thing.