(I'm sure this has been covered before, but it's still pretty open territory, as far as I know. Still, cool links are appreciated).

So, system matters. It affects play. Now, we all probably agree that setting matters, too. I'm thinking about what functions an RPG setting has. Specifically, how does it affect player choices and actions/behavior?

This is kind of a fuzzy topic, because the answers are so obvious. However, game designers and GMs still sometimes make settings that don't actually work in play. I think that's because we're not always aware of what functions a setting often needs to have*.

The first things I can think of are:
- Setting informs choice of character. In Pendragon, you're not likely to want to play a female character, since women in that setting tend to sit around and wait to be rescued. In a Heortling game in HeroQuest, you most probably want to play a Heortling - not a Lunar invader.
- Setting informs inter-character relations. In Lord of the Rings games, there will be tension between elves and dwarves. In Vampire games, members of different clans have specific attitudes towards each other.
- Setting informs character portrayal. A 1920s dilettante in Call of Cthulhu speaks and acts differently from a caped crusader in a superhero game.
- Setting defines a range of possible situations and scenarios. Call of Cthulhu's horror conspiracies make for good investigation games, but not for tactical games (weak characters with too little information about the enemy makes for bad tactics) or slapstick (it can be done, but it's a deliberate break with genre). Price of Freedom is good for sabotage and combat scenarios, but not really the best setting for scenarios about solving childhood problems or clue-hunting murder mysteries.

If a setting doesn't fulfil these functions, I believe the group often steps in and defines the missing parts, more or less without thinking about it. "So what does my Moonbunny Assassin think of your Cantaloupe Warrior? Hm, it doesn't say in the book. They're probably rivals, since they're both aiming for the same market. Perhaps they've got an ancient feud or something? Yeah, that's cool."

What other functions does setting have in games, would you say?

* I say "often", not "always". Every game is different; the way Lacuna uses its setting, for example, doesn't completely fit with my thoughts on what a setting needs to do.

There's a thread running at Cultures of Play that seems pretty pertinent to this, Matthjis. SEveral very interesting issues being raised in regards to Setting and the spectrums of construction play-discovery play, information-inspiration, canon, etc.

I'd say setting plays two really important roles for me:

1. It tells me (and the group) what kinds of situation, issues, premises, etc, are NOT possible or NOT appropriate. It whittles down the range of possible play material on a larger scale.

2. On a smaller scale, it gives me basic material to make issues and situations out of, for individual scenes or adventures/scenarios.

For example, if there's a conflict between two cultures in the setting, and they're fighting over the last oil well, that gives me various possible situations (like "the military leader tries to take the well by force" or "someone decides to destroy the well before the fighting gets out of hand").

It's notable to me that many, many published settings do not do much to achieve either 1) or 2) (at least for me).

Setting helps people who do not like to design games to play the game. Yes, I know this is a bit broader than what you want, but whenever you put a thread like this up in a place frequented by people who design games, settings tend to take a lot of bashing and get seen only as limits, so the counter-point is needed.

A game designer tends to see a setting as infringing upon their ability to design something using the rules. There is no actual infringement or restriction imposed by the presence of a setting, an individual who is so inclined is free to change or add anything. This is a perception that was constructed through a mixture of poor game design simply forgetting to include details useful for play (early D&D) and rpg marketing (with Steve Jackson's GURPS being the biggest perpetrator).

So, having a setting helps reach out to players who do not want (or cannot, likely for life/time limitations) to design their own. This also suggests that setting can help in marketing the game, as it is hopefully somewhat evocative.

Setting sells books.

Posted By: MatthijsCould game procedures be taught through setting? (Are they, and I've just forgotten about it?)

Didn't Orkworld combat work something like that?

Setting is a part of Situation. It adds context.

Example 1:

You have 10 dice that you can roll, total, in the course of the game. So do I.

If you roll a die higher than mine, you win! If you roll a 6 and I roll a 1, I win.

You roll. You roll a 4.

I roll. I roll a 5.

Do you roll another die and see if that one beats mine?

Probably not. There's no reason.

Or:

Example 2:

You have 10 dice that you can roll, total, in the course of the game. So do I.

If you roll a die higher than mine, you win! If you roll a 6 and I roll a 1, I win.

You are playing a Umran Wing Woman, a guardian of the monestary of Mount Udet, the home of The Piercer of Eyes.

I am a Gnauget, a mendicant nun of an order that requires you to act as advocate to poor women with children.

I am carrying with me a woman whose child is feverish and will die tonight if he doesn't get medical attention available only at Mount Udet.

You are charged with keeping all humans away from The Piercer of Eyes.

The Umran Wing Women are trained in the Harrier's Way, a martial art that gives its practitioners the ability to fly and strike with deadly force, in the interest of defending Mount Udet and those who would disturb the Piercer of Eyes.

The Gnauget carry with them at all times a short staff, used in all of their medicinal, judicial, and martial practices.

Now let's roll those dice.

Posted By: timfireThere's no " setting should..." here, setting is just a tool for designers and players to use for different purposes. Sometimes you want to have all the pieces pre-wound so players can start the game running. Other times you want there to be holes that the players are forced to fill in-game.

Complete agreement. Of course, as always, it helps to inform people what your intentions are - but as a designer, you can make a swiss cheese setting or a catapult (or whatever metaphor takes your fancy), whatever fits your game.

I think the secret is that setting on it own doesnt do any of these things. Setting is just the board you put the pieces on. You have to deliberately concentrate on adding things to setting to make it usable. You need to put in situations that are full of conflict, you need to add color to make it feel alive, you need characters to take a stance on the situations placed in the setting.

Setting itself is the stage, the events that happen on it are the play.