Vreeg's Fifth Law of Setting Design

[Xathan]

Reading over these, I still feel they should be Vreeg's Laws of Running a Campaign, not Laws of Setting Design. The focus of these laws apply to the Setting once it is in motion. By necessity a setting is static - it may have a history, it once was in motion, but by the time it reaches these boards, the pages of a setting book, or right before the game is run the setting (ideally) is fixed and unmoving - the Setting is waiting for the characters to begin their journey through it, in stasis until they do. I dare you to name a complete setting that is not static, where things are actively happening once the setting is complete. (And no, Nation X is at war with Nation Y and winning is not movement - the combatants are frozen in victory or defeat until a game, a novel, a comic, any story begins and time begins flowing again.) A setting is as a book of history - no matter when it is written and how far it goes, even if it goes all the way up to current events at the exact moment that book was published, it presents a static image of the world - the most current history book ever written is still a frozen image within a microsecond of publication. The same is true for a setting. The Laws, however, assume something that is being interacted with, something that is in motions, where there are characters making actions and actors responding. I've thought about these Laws and while many of them I agree with when it comes to running a game, I challenge that they are Laws of Setting Design.

In addition, there is a heavy focus in the Laws on how players interact with things. I don't intend to get into the fact that every group's dynamics are different and these Laws seem to describe the ideal group they want. Second is the fact that the Laws assume the Players even exist. A Setting does not have to be made for players -it could be made to provide the framework for a personal work of fiction, it could be made as a thought experiment (What if X?), it could be made for review and praise or criticism from fellow worldbuilders, it could even be made just for the sheer fun of inventing an entire area, be it a Universe all the way down to a tiny village. A Setting need not be made to be anything other than that beautiful frozen moment, never intended to go beyond that, and it need not be made for others to interact with, intended for the Author of the Setting to create his own characters and story within it. (None would dare not call Middle Earth a Setting, but it was not made for players, but for the author's personal fun and to provide a framework for a novel.)

Therefore, I ask again my unanswered question - how do these Laws (any and all of them) apply to the Design of a Setting, when they seem to best be suited to the running of a game?

[LordVreeg]

Reading over these, I still feel they should be Vreeg's Laws of Running a Campaign, not Laws of Setting Design. The focus of these laws apply to the Setting once it is in motion. By necessity a setting is static - it may have a history, it once was in motion, but by the time it reaches these boards, the pages of a setting book, or right before the game is run the setting (ideally) is fixed and unmoving - the Setting is waiting for the characters to begin their journey through it, in stasis until they do. I dare you to name a complete setting that is not static, where things are actively happening once the setting is complete. (And no, Nation X is at war with Nation Y and winning is not movement - the combatants are frozen in victory or defeat until a game, a novel, a comic, any story begins and time begins flowing again.) A setting is as a book of history - no matter when it is written and how far it goes, even if it goes all the way up to current events at the exact moment that book was published, it presents a static image of the world - the most current history book ever written is still a frozen image within a microsecond of publication. The same is true for a setting. The Laws, however, assume something that is being interacted with, something that is in motions, where there are characters making actions and actors responding. I've thought about these Laws and while many of them I agree with when it comes to running a game, I challenge that they are Laws of Setting Design.

In addition, there is a heavy focus in the Laws on how players interact with things. I don't intend to get into the fact that every group's dynamics are different and these Laws seem to describe the ideal group they want. Second is the fact that the Laws assume the Players even exist. A Setting does not have to be made for players -it could be made to provide the framework for a personal work of fiction, it could be made as a thought experiment (What if X?), it could be made for review and praise or criticism from fellow worldbuilders, it could even be made just for the sheer fun of inventing an entire area, be it a Universe all the way down to a tiny village. A Setting need not be made to be anything other than that beautiful frozen moment, never intended to go beyond that, and it need not be made for others to interact with, intended for the Author of the Setting to create his own characters and story within it. (None would dare not call Middle Earth a Setting, but it was not made for players, but for the author's personal fun and to provide a framework for a novel.)

Therefore, I ask again my unanswered question - how do these Laws (any and all of them) apply to the Design of a Setting, when they seem to best be suited to the running of a game?

You raise a good overarching point, though some of the examples do not hold water in my eyes.  

A setting is not static, if you play it long enough. So your first issue is that a setting is Never complete. You want a setting that is engaged in active evolution?  I don't have to look far.  
Celtricia's first character was created in November of 1983 (Klantio and Gearsar), and their date of first adventure was Winterwane (Dumotux) 10.  Over 27 years of play later and over a 100 characters later, most of the current groups are playing in Spring of 895.  So we have played through the Empire of Argus' attack on the Theocracy of Nebler in 899, the years of hot war between the Blue/White alliance vs the Stenronian Alliance (899-892) and the uneasy peace that currently exists.  
A setting is certainly a setting created in that moment when the game starts.  It si still a setting once the game begins, it does not lose the status once game play begins.
This is part of creating the 'World In Motion'.

I agree that many of the rules for Setting design as stated are based on an active, used setting, and more, they are certainly written for foe an interactive situation of some sort.  I think they apply in terms of writing fiction as well as RPGs, however.  They do NOT apply well to those that are just Conworlding for the sake of creating.
In the example above, the original setting notes and setting as created in 1983 set up the situation of specific tensions between the various national states, their historical issues, and the momentum currently in place.  And if no one had ever played it, and if I had never used it for writing fiction, or for gaming, then it would have remained as you describe.

But I am not going to bother adding the words "intended for active gaming or for use" in front the the word 'setting' in the rules, due to the audience I write for and the groups I interact with.  And they are not merely laws of running a game, as they are all very setting-specific.  I will agree that the Fifith Rule, the newest, strays the farthest from this.  Would you think it better as less of a full rule?  Perhaps as a corrolary to the second Rule?  

[Xathan]

You raise a good overarching point, though some of the examples do not hold water in my eyes.  

A setting is not static, if you play it long enough. So your first issue is that a setting is Never complete. You want a setting that is engaged in active evolution?  I don't have to look far.  
Celtricia's first character was created in November of 1983 (Klantio and Gearsar), and their date of first adventure was Winterwane (Dumotux) 10.  Over 27 years of play later and over a 100 characters later, most of the current groups are playing in Spring of 895.  So we have played through the Empire of Argus' attack on the Theocracy of Nebler in 899, the years of hot war between the Blue/White alliance vs the Stenronian Alliance (899-892) and the uneasy peace that currently exists.  
A setting is certainly a setting created in that moment when the game starts.  It si still a setting once the game begins, it does not lose the status once game play begins.
This is part of creating the 'World In Motion'.

Emphasis mine. As soon as a game begins, the Setting "unfreezes"...and refreezes the moment the session ends until the DM begins altering it further or the next session starts. I guess I should have clarified my initial point - a setting, posted on these forums, is a static entity until further modified, and a published setting is a static entity until a game/story/fiction begins. I do accept that it doesn't lose setting status once play begins, just assert that static is the default state of a setting unless it's being played in a way that impacts the setting on a 24/7 basis (The only example I can think of of settings that don't follow this default state are MMORPGS, but until one comes out where you can alter the world around you the way you can in a tabletop RPG, I'm going to stick by my assertion.)

I agree that many of the rules for Setting design as stated are based on an active, used setting, and more, they are certainly written for foe an interactive situation of some sort.  I think they apply in terms of writing fiction as well as RPGs, however.  They do NOT apply well to those that are just Conworlding for the sake of creating.
In the example above, the original setting notes and setting as created in 1983 set up the situation of specific tensions between the various national states, their historical issues, and the momentum currently in place.  And if no one had ever played it, and if I had never used it for writing fiction, or for gaming, then it would have remained as you describe.

But I am not going to bother adding the words "intended for active gaming or for use" in front the the word 'setting' in the rules, due to the audience I write for and the groups I interact with.  And they are not merely laws of running a game, as they are all very setting-specific.  I will agree that the Fifith Rule, the newest, strays the farthest from this.  Would you think it better as less of a full rule?  Perhaps as a corrolary to the second Rule? [/quote]

I'll admit that my problem was partially an emotional one - I read it as to mean "all settings should be designed this way to be good settings", which I found frustrating. Now that I understand their intent, I do think the fifth rule would make more sense as a corrolary to the second rule as you suggested, though how you outline them is entirely your prerogative - as long as the message gets across, then your rules' exact organization is relatively unimportant. However, the message does need to get to get across, and I'm of the opinion that some disclaimer as to the type of settings you are addressing should be part of the overall "Here are the rules" post - even if it's just a minor note at the bottom - for those who aren't your usual audience, such as myself, because while most of the audience you write for understands what you mean inherently, it's obvious at least one person didn't - and while I may be a total anomaly, I feel your points would be greatly improved with that clarification.