|
Recently I've been thinking about running a game set in the Star Trek universe, but using Luke Crane's Burning Empires rules. That got me wondering - would we be playing Star Trek or Burning Wheel at that point?
My instinct would be that we would be playing Star Trek, though I'm not sure I can articulate why that is. Basically, with a game like Star Trek, I feel like if you strip away the rules and replace them, you still have the core of what you set out to play. If you took out the phasers and the Klingons, you'd be playing a different game, like Traveller. On the other hand, with a game like (generic) D&D, the system seems to be at least as important as the setting. If you take out the D20, classes, etc., you could basically be playing Burning Wheel or Fantasy HERO.
So what's the difference? Is it just the focus of the company's IP? Would anyone say that my friends and I would definitely be playing Burning Empires rather than Star Trek in my above example? Why?
EDIT: A similar question came up for me a few months ago - a friend of mine ran a game set in Freedom City (Mutants and Masterminds) but using a variant of the Marvel Super Heroes Game for his ruleset. So which was it?
Setting first.
Take Star Wars for example.
I played it with many systems : Freedom in the Galaxy, Star Frontiers, Space Master, Star Wars (West End Games), Star Wars (d20).
There was never a doubt it was Star Wars, whatever the type of dice we were rolling.
Setting before system.
Roleplaying, atmosphere and immersion before the rules.
|
|
Personally, I think the setting makes the game. As you said, you'd get Traveler (or any other generic syfy universe) if you removed Star Trek-specific pieces like phasers and Klingons.
On the other hand, I think, too, that some game systems handle certain genres and, yes, settings, better than others. I still find the late, lamented D6 system handled Star Wars far better than the current Star Wars Saga system. And CoC handled Sanity so well that other systems just readily adopted it into their games (e.g., d20).
I think in this case you're playing Star Trek, because it's the story. With D&D it's about being a Fighter or a Wizard or a Bard, not about the story. The story is important, but D&D is a system (or set of systems) where Star Trek is a settin.
I say setting, but this is coming from someone who usually plays generic systems.
Problem is that in some settings-systems it becomes incestuous.
Consider Shadowrun. Setting begat system, but elements of the system definitely impacted the setting: nearly every mage being able to travel in the astral plane, the way the Matrix worked, even how cybernetics worked.
Yes, you could port the setting to say ... Hero ... but the build system there will effect both the feel of the setting and the way whole parts of the world work.
The same could be said for the "World Of Darkness" or "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay."
|
I would say setting first BUT the mechanics of the system must reflect the feel of the setting. For me Chaosium CoC was fantastic and then d20 CoC came along and well, just no. I agree also about the Star Wars d6 vs Saga rules, d6 wins in my opinion.
A brutal world can hardly be portrayed in a system that has characters with huge amounts of hp's for example. I use Chaosium's Stormbringer for rules when I want PC's to think twice when people are pointing cross-bows at them. But if I want the players to charge the 10 "evil" soldiers ignoring the round of crossbow bolts that will ensue, well D&D seems the system of choice.
Horses for courses.
S.
I have to say it is a synthsis of the two.
The best settings are intimately connected to their systems. Deadlands for instance.
The setting is (IMO) more important than the system. It's the setting that fires the imagination and inspires the player and/or GM. However, the system is a major factor in how well it allows the setting to come to life in an actual game session. The best results occur when the system compliments the setting. The GM should always try to use the rules/tools best suited to the campaign/setting they run.
Modules. I don't buy a system unless there's strong system supports for it. Not only that, but modules are the practice to the theory of the setting and system.
For example, I love Nyambe, but it's going to be hard for me to use with so little support.
It depends. If I were playing a DC superheroes game using the Champions rule set, I'd describe it as a "Champions game in the DC universe", not a "DC superheroes game". But if I were playing a generic superheroes game using the Champions rules, I might describe it as a "superheroes game". It depends if I think the rule set needs stressing or not.
Generally speaking, I favour the approach that a game with a good setting run by enthusiastic players can survive poor rules, but having great rules with a lacklustre and unengaging system can be a real drag.
The relationship between setting and rules is an interesting one. DEADLANDS' rule system is tied into the setting very well, to the point where running the setting in other systems just felt like a poor second choice (such as when we tried it with D20). On the other hand, D&D saw substantial rules changes and even a paradigm shift in approach from 2nd to 3rd Edition but still 'felt' like the same game, whilst after the shift from 3rd to 4th it didn't. Interesting to see where the breaking point was, possibly the removal of the magic system?
|
|
System VS. Setting?
This really is a false dichotomy in my mind. It just doesn't compute with me. I guess that each game product is its own beast in the matter. Some products will be defined by the mechanics they use (RoleMaster), while others will push a setting to define them (Serenity RPG).
There are no rules in that respect but what each game product is built for and used for in the first place. You can take apart a product, and at some point, it won't be how the product was first intended to be used, but that point will vary in specifics each and every single time, with each and every single user, probably.