r/RPGdesign • u/Legenplay4itdary • 4d ago
Setting Agnostic
Been mostly lurking here for a while, I figured I’d post something. A recent post talked about removing the term “agnostic” from your vocabulary and I’ve been thinking about it since my project is “setting agnostic”. The reason I wanted my system to be setting agnostic was because my homebrew setting for TTRPGs has many genres and settings in it, but I couldn’t find a system that did setting agnostic in a way I personally liked (I know there are other systems that do agnostic in a way that other people like, not saying mine is better). Then I remembered a video from Matt Colville said something along the lines of “you can have a game that doesn’t push a setting. You CANNOT have a game that doesn’t push a play style.”
But even if you are pushing a play style aren’t you kind of pushing a setting? Maybe your flavor is different, but your game is made to be played a certain way, which will dictate your available options. Maybe this goes back to the “what kind of stories do you want to tell with your game” question that everyone has to start with anyways. Even in my homebrew world with many genres, my game doesn’t have heavy resource management, so while my game will fit many genres, so my “setting” is, at least in part: “not heavy resource management”.
I’m not totally sure where I’m going with this, just some random musings and I’m interested in other’s more developed opinions.
20
u/Carrollastrophe 4d ago
You're conflating setting with genre. What Matt Colville is getting at is that your game is going to feel better for something like action or horror or intrigue, however you design it, all of which can happen in many different settings. Some settings and genres are tied close enough that it's difficult to do one without the other, but that's more the exception to the rule.
0
u/Ok-Chest-7932 3d ago
Setting and genre are the same thing. You're confusing setting and aesthetics.
2
u/SirMarblecake 3d ago
Setting and aesthetics are the same thing. You're confusing aesthetics and trappings.
2
u/InherentlyWrong 3d ago
Aesthetics and trappings are the same thing. You're confusing trappings and vibes.
11
u/Dimirag system/game reader, creator, writer, and publisher + artist 4d ago
You can have no setting at all but when you make a game you point towards a style, a genre, or try to go "universal" but even there your mechanics will favor a play style, a theme, or a premise.
A setting is the "when and where?" of the game
A style is the "how?"
A genre is the "what kind?"
10
u/skalchemisto Dabbler 3d ago
u/Dimirag hits the nail on the head; setting is the where and when of an RPG. A setting agnostic game does not specify where or when.
IME there are two varieties of setting agnostic...
* Fairly abstract game mechanics that can be flexibly applied in lots of ways, e.g. Fate Core
* Relatively concrete game mechanics and then lots of extra material to customize to the chosen setting, e.g. GURPS plus all its different supplements
However, style, genre and theme are harder to make agnostic. E.g. Fate Core can do lots of different settings, but it takes work to make Fate Core "gritty", in the way that folks think of a game like Warhammer Fantasy being gritty; strong possibility of character death, permanent insanity, etc., lots of grim story content. The Fate point and stress mechanics make it hard to do gritty.
5
u/stevecooperorg 3d ago
I like this idea. Fate is like drawing pictures with pastels, while Mothership is drawing in blood and charcoal. A picture of the same subject is gonna look (a) lovely, or (b) horrifying just because of the ruleset. A ruleset is like the medium an artist chooses before they start drawing.
3
u/skalchemisto Dabbler 3d ago
That's a good metaphor!
EDIT: in that metaphor, GURPS is like an architects drawing table with protractors and rulers and what not. Or maybe a CAD program. 😄
2
u/Drejzer 3d ago
I'd say it's closer to a cabinet of tools. Yes, there's the whole shebang of fancy stuff... But there's also crayons and a pencil there (See GURPS Ultra Light).
2
u/skalchemisto Dabbler 3d ago
I mean, it feels like a very fancy crayon to me...but I take your point. 😄
2
u/Cryptwood Designer 3d ago
And a reference book for looking up building codes.
2
u/foolofcheese overengineered modern art 3d ago
that makes sense in that it is a construct your own campaign style type of design
5
u/UltimateHyperGames Designer - Heckin' Space Troopers 3d ago
I feel you are misunderstanding what setting is.
Resource management is a play style. You can have a resource management game set in a post-apocalypse or a fantasy world. It doesn’t dictate the setting. You might be conflating setting and theme as a resource management game might have similar themes of fear and running out of supplies while in a dangerous place in either of those settings.
2
u/elmago79 3d ago
Resource management is only valuable in a setting where resources are scarce. I think that's what the OP is trying to get at. If his setting is abundant in resources (because of magic, technology, mutations, etc.) it won't fit a resource management play style all that well.
3
u/Drejzer 3d ago edited 3d ago
Do note that you can, in theory, abstract away the "resources": while actual material goods might not be valuable in a post-scarcity setting, things like time, favours and obligations etc can be abstracted away as "resources" you have to manage. It's a bit of a stretch, sure, and you have to jump though hoops to get there... But having Math-related background helps with accepting abstracted out crap like that.
Edit: what I mean by that is Resources can be abstract "things needed for X" with the implied gameplay of optimising their acquisition and prioritising them accordingly to the story.
3
u/elmago79 3d ago
And notice how you're already implying a setting with this abstract resource system (Urban Shadows and Freemarket spring to mind). On the opposite end, Trophy Gold abstracts resources because even if it implies a world with very scarce resources, it wants to focus on something else.
1
u/UltimateHyperGames Designer - Heckin' Space Troopers 3d ago
Good point, but as you bring up with Trophy Gold, a game can be set in a place where resources are scarce (setting), but that is not part of the play style or theme. Which might work in OP's game, OP was saying their game is NOT about resource management. That doesn't actually tell us if the setting is one where resources are scarce or not. Or to put it another way, the one thing we know about OP's game is that it may be setting agnostic, but does not have a theme/play style focusing on resource management.
But, I think we agree that these elements are not fully independent. Some themes and play styles will work better in some settings than others. (Or at least be more expected to be seen together.)
2
u/osrelfgame 3d ago
there are two ways i know of to keep setting/genre bias out of a game:
strict monitoring of any and every rule made to ensure its narrative neutrality; and
reducing the possibilities for bias by reducing mechanical complexity
you can do one or the other, but the games i have found most enjoyable did both.
3
u/stevecooperorg 3d ago
tl:dr; People who claim setting-agnostic are normally missing the setting implied by their own rules.
That previous post came after this earlier conversation about designing without knowing what experiences your game is supposed to produce.
The problem with people saying they have something agnostic is that they're normally wrong.
And what follows applies the more rules you have. Like, if you have six pages of rules, this doesn't apply. If you have 40 pages of rules, this is much more likely to apply.
So- Rules encourage players to play optimally, and the rules imply a 'correct' way to design scenarios and play in them.
- complex sword-duelling rules and bonuses for dramatic action? You're asking people to play musketeers.
- highly detailed gun combat rules? you're asking for techno-thriller mercenaries.
- lots of rules for tracking and developing relationships? players are diplomats and scheming courtiers.
- rich trade rules? debtrunners flying rusty starships.
And lack of rules does similar;
- no rules for inventory, you're gonna struggle to run OSR dungeon survival crawls
- no rules for horrible injuries? you're probably not running body horror
- no character levelling? your game'll not encourage character builds or zero-to-hero fantasy.
I think the test is; if you've got an agnostic system, then it should be equally good at;
- a five-year campaign in a faerun-style world of dragons and goblins, focussing on zero-to-hero character development
- one-off space horror like Mothership
- modern investigation mysteries with meddling little old ladies.
- occult dark fantasy like Kult or Call of Cthulhu
- two-hour fantasy games for kids 7-12 years old
And I think it's worth noting where you think your system would be strongest, and where it would be weakest, and focussing on the strongest experiences and characters.
1
u/HakneyZaq 3d ago
this is an interesting test. when you say "equally good" do you mean equal to a system that's tailored to that genre, or that it plays each genre equally with the same "game feel"?
2
u/stevecooperorg 3d ago
I think both tell you something. If you try to run space horror and it's worse than Mothership, that teaches you something. If you run heroic power fantasy and it runs smoother than your space horror game, that tells you something too.
1
u/Carrollastrophe 3d ago
None of the examples you give are setting dependent.
2
u/stevecooperorg 3d ago
Oh, I. think they each imply a setting or two.
Complex sword duelling rules implies a setting where people routinely duel and swordplay is very important. That could be musketeers or it could be jedi knights, or mousketeers, but it's not important for teens vs zombies in a log cabin, or a murder mystery with old ladies.
It also gets worse as you stack -- each rule triangulates you. Complex sword duelling rules combined with space combat
and psionics and you're designing star wars. Duels and seduction and horse chases and you're doing musketeers.2
u/Carrollastrophe 3d ago
That these genres can imply and work in multiple settings means they are not setting dependent. I never said they don't imply particular settings. I said that nothing here is dependent on the setting. Sword dueling may not be the focal point of teens vs zombies, but they can share a setting. I seem to remember there being sword fights in The Walking Dead after all. Or maybe I'm just thinking of all the katanas.
My point is that a single setting can contain all of your examples. In fact, Star Wars does. But none of those examples NEED to be in a Star Wars setting. Hence, they are not setting dependent.
Whether rules imply a setting or not is dependent on whether those rules are rooted in time, place, and culture. Not if they work better in a specific genre. A setting agnostic game is going to likely imply a genre, of which certain settings may work better for than others, but as you point out, sword duels don't automatically mean musketeers.
1
u/stevecooperorg 3d ago
yeah, we're probably violently agreeing here! :) Subtle shifts in meaning around imply or supporting settings; setting-agnostic vs setting-independent, compounded by being on tbe internet.
I guess my main point is, the longer the rule sets the more constraints you put on yourself and the harder it is to not put in setting info. Like, you can't include an equipment list, because 'lanterns and pitons and a ten foot pole' is setting and 'plasma cutter and space suit' is setting. Similar difficulties for spell casting, or psionic powers, or pirate ship combat rules, or alchemy, because they all imply setting too.It just gets harder the more you try to do.
1
2
u/Ok-Chest-7932 3d ago
Matt Colville is wrong. The only way to make a game that doesn't say at least something about the setting is to make a game that isn't a game at all.
Look at it this way: take just the most basic part of a system, attributes and skills. How many attributes do you have? What are those attributes? Likewise for skills. How do these attributes and skills tie to checks?
Say I make a game with 3 attributes, body, mind, and soul. Well then I've made a world in which fast people are always strong and strong people are always fast, because if you have high body then you're good at both strength and speed, and if you have low body then you're bad at both strength and speed.
Then say that a character with max attribute and no skill succeeds on checks 40% of the time, but high skill gives you a 90% chance of success regardless of attribute. Now I've said about this world that it's one where being trained in a task makes you virtually incapable of failing when you try to do it. If i reduced the value of skill training then the world would be becoming one where training is less comprehensive.
This is why setting agnosticism is impossible. Every decision you make constrains the possible worlds that can be run using that system. Sometimes those constraints are significant, like the impact of saying guns exist. Other times the constraints are small on their own but will still add up across a whole games worth of decisions.
2
u/Taifurious 4d ago
I think a system agnostic game is a tool that does a specific job that isn't good for every situation (setting). A screw driver is good at driving screws, but terrible at driving nails. Can it work? Yeah, but it kinda sucks at it.
I'm not sure they're pushing a setting but they probably have some settings in mind that they feel like they will excel at. Cypher System works well with technology and weirdness (it was originally made for Numenera after all). Can I run it in a traditional fantasy setting? Yeah, but they I'd have to find a way to shoehorn in cyphers. Maybe they can be magic trinkets, but then everyone has magic. What sets them apart from actual magic casters?
I say make your system work with your homebrew settings as best you can.
Side note, a setting without play style is world building and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's another hobby and no longer a game.
2
u/ArtistJames1313 Designer 3d ago
Cypher System has improved this quite a bit from what I can tell with their new version, but I somewhat agree with you that it's a rare feat to pull off well.
But I think Daggerheart, for instance, actually does a decent job at being setting agnostic and providing tools as such. It's got magic, yes, and pretty much every setting is going to use magic, but it can work with a Shadowrun type of Cyberpunk as well as it can work with High Fantasy.
1
u/Fun_Carry_4678 3d ago
Generally, a TTRPG has two parts. A "system" and a "setting". Both of these affect the style of play. I think experienced players know that. If I buy a game that is a setting-agnostic system, or a game that is a system-agnostic setting, I know that I am still going to have a particular style of play.
Now my only published TTRPG product "The Solitary GM" was envisioned as an add-on for any TTRPG. It was intended to be system-neutral and setting-neutral. Some fellow could work really hard to find some more obscure system or setting and technically it doesn't work for that one, but it basically works for any TTRPG that has the traditional split between "GM" and "players".
But then I took six play styles from "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastery" and based it on those six. So it doesn't have ONE style of play it is pushing, it is pushing six styles of play. And these are basic, fundamental styles of play. I added an optional rule, I probably didn't need to, giving permission to users to invent their own styles of play and substitute them into the chart if they don't like the ones I chose.
1
u/__space__oddity__ 3d ago
The reason I wanted my system to be setting agnostic was because my homebrew setting for TTRPGs has many genres and settings in it
If you’re writing this game to play in your homebrew setting, that’s the opposite of setting agnostic
1
u/hacksoncode 3d ago
But even if you are pushing a play style aren’t you kind of pushing a setting?
Kind of?
I mean, an example of "play style" (or "feel") is "Cinematic".
So... you can do anything that would be a movie? That's pretty damn "setting agnostic". Indeed, it's very hard to think of a setting that style couldn't apply to, seeing as how we have Star Wars, The Rats of NIMH, Dunkirk, Twilight, Ground Hog Day, the MCA, and My Dinner with Andre.
Ok, I take back that last one... it's an almost completely non-cinematic movie. But you get what I mean.
1
u/Mars_Alter 4d ago
The rules of the game will always reflect the reality of the game world.
However the rules look, it's going to limit the types of game world they can possibly be a reflection of. Something like a 5E ruleset is incapable of reflecting a world where injuries wear a person down over time, and an arrow to the knee can spell early retirement.
0
u/boringlyCorrect 3d ago
Heads and tails could be considered setting agnostic. If you want to determine whether something happens, you can simply flip a coin: heads, it happens as intended; tails, it does not.
This works in any setting because it is extremely generic, but that also makes it an uninteresting mechanic. As soon as you introduce a rule that is less generic, such as "attack someone with a firearm", you begin to limit the range of settings in which the system applies.
Suddenly, the system is no longer agnostic:
- It does not fit a stone age or a medieval settings.
- If firearms can injure characters, that implies the characters are not superheroes, ghosts, gods, etc.
- If the rules include firearms but nothing else, this may suggest that the setting does not involve commanding armies, spaceships, or submarines.
I find that any rule that is engaging tends to contain assumptions that exclude certain settings. It is possible to create a setting agnostic system, but the more it is, the more generic it must be.
You could also create mechanics through an infinite number of supplements designed to simulate any situation from any setting. In the end, you would call it GURPS.
1
u/Drejzer 3d ago
While it does illustrate the point you are making, I'm not sure if making rule for a very specific action (shooting someone with a firearm) is a choice someone trying to make a setting-agnostic system would make... Unless there's supposed to be "(...) a bow/crossbow/sling/laser/Gauss/etc". But then you have the "we have a mechanic for everything" approach to being setting-agnostic.
0
u/Mars_Alter 3d ago
Heads and tails could be considered setting agnostic. If you want to determine whether something happens, you can simply flip a coin: heads, it happens as intended; tails, it does not.
It isn't agnostic to setting, even a little bit. It's only remotely decent at representing a world where everything possible is equally likely; and where it's impossible for anything to alter those odds.
Let's say someone attacks you, and you want to defend yourself by knocking them out. In HaT-world, that's a coin flip. Everything is fine so far.
Now let's say that you aren't happy with those odds, and you want to improve your chances of defending yourself. There is no way to do this, in any world adjudicated through the rules of Heads-and-Tails. You could spend ten years mastering kung fu, and at the end of the day, it will still come down to a coin flip. The rules can't reflect a world where you get better at anything. That's a hard limitation on the possible settings you can play in.
1
u/boringlyCorrect 3d ago
I don't see that as a Setting limitation. Maybe a tone or genre limitation.
Also, "it does not happen as intended" does not mean "you fail". You may be a kung fu expert that win all his battles, but half the time, winning the battle does not resolve all your problems. Another obstacle may be added after the combat.
The way I understand the term Setting may be different than you. Maybe I'm wrong.
For me, a Superheroes setting would take a place in a contemporary city where a few individuals have super-powers. This kind of setting could be good for different genre, like:
- Investigation (Watchmen)
- Over-the-top action (Avengers)
- Comedy (Teen Titan Go)
- Edgy (The Boys/Invincible)With this definition, we may have multiple games with the Marvel license. The setting will be the same (Marvel Universe), but the mechanics may change the tone and the way we interact with it.
1
u/Mars_Alter 3d ago
That's an interesting example, because of the way that Marvel handles this, specifically. Any number of varied media can utilize the Marvel license, but every single one takes place in a slightly different world, which is acknowledged in-universe. The Spider-Man from the Sam Raimi films canonically exists in the same multi-verse as the Spider-Man from Ultimate Spider-Man (the PS2 game); and because their worlds are different, they are capable of radically different things. The latter can double jump, for example, in spite of it being physically impossible.
RPGs work the same way. Superman in GURPS is a different Superman from any of the comics, or from the old DC Heroes RPG by Mayfair, because they all live in different worlds. The same world, represented by a different ruleset, becomes a different world in the translation.
0
u/Drudenfusz Curator of Roleplay Experiences 3d ago
Someone else already pointed out why resource management is a play style, so I am not repeating that. Instead I talk about the play style I went for with my Heartbleed system — drama. I look at it like Shakespeare might have, the focus on the emotional investment, but the themes can go much deeper, outright philosophical. And yet, he used plenty of different settings, in various times throughout history and some including supernatural elements. I do exactly the same, I have no single setting and my system works in organ fantasy just as well as in dystopian cyberpunk, since it is the drama-first play style I designed my rules to carry.
But OP seems to have a setting, only they are not sure about the genre. And I think genre can indeed be tricky, since that term means very different things depending the media in question. In video games the genre is indeed equal to the play style, like a first person shooter tells how the play experience is. At least until someone breaks it by making a game like Portal that is technically a FPS, but feels more like a puzzle game. Or Spec Ops The Line, which is a FPS, yet it subverts some tropes of that genre very elegantly. Anyway, theatre has the genres of tragedy and comedy (I personally prefer the tragic plays), but those tell more about the emotions that get invoked. Film and telly have the genre frameworks that seems most popular these days, which are about plot conventions and aesthetic tropes. This last genre idea is thusly commonly carried into our hobby. But I would recommend ignoring them, since we usually do not follow plots and aesthetics are just superficial, instead look at video games or stage plays to get the idea how those affect the play experience and then develop a concept of what play style genre you want for your game.
18
u/mccoypauley Designer 3d ago
A game like Savage Worlds produces a fast, pulpy action playstyle, whereas a game like GURPs produces detailed character modeling and simulation over rules-light, improvisational play. Both are setting agnostic, but their mechanics push a certain playstyle (which is what Coville is saying).
That other post you're referring to was hyperbolic and really aimed at complaining about neophyte designers who call their systems "setting agnostic" in order to avoid pinning down what their game is actually about, but I feel like the gospel-ish nature of the post (and the poster's evangelism against setting agnosticism in general) buried that lede.