Design: Rules Neutral or Rules Centric

[Cheomesh]

When designing a setting, do you have a tendency to make them rules neutral or do you build them around some system's ruleset?  Why do you do this?  Have you found it to help or hinder your design efforts?  What are some techniques you have found that work with your approach?

M.

[Steerpike]

For me, the setting always comes before the system, though the system may well be determined by the setting.  I feel like setting is ultimately more important than system - I could play using a clunky or frustrating system, but still enjoy myself if the setting were good, but the reverse generally isn't true.  I feel like if I let the system determine my setting, I would be artificially constraining my creativity, to the detriment of what I'd produce.  I'd be putting myself in a box, while I think a lot of the best settings come from thinking outside of the box.  Admittedly, my setting preferences usually tend towards the weird, offbeat, and surreal.

That said, I do sometimes make settings with a particular system vaguely in mind that might be a good fit.  But I'm not building the setting based on the system, just keeping the system in the back of my mind.

[Raelifin]

I never adjust my settings to a pre-written ruleset. I always adapt/build rules for the setting.

This lets me be fully creative when building the setting, and I don't have to stick with normal tropes like Paladins or Fireballs or whatever. I prefer rules systems that are lightweight and flexible so that they're most easily adapted to fit and unlikely to get in the way.

[HippopotamusDundee]

I never adjust my settings to a pre-written ruleset. I always adapt/build rules for the setting.

Ditto

[Weave]

I agree with all the aforementioned posts. I used to make my settings fit the system I wanted to use, but I grew increasingly dissatisfied with the results. I've since unchained myself from the idea that I need to keep the system in mind at all while designing a setting and ended up with some pretty interesting and satisfying results.

I will also go on to say that while I think designing a setting without a system in mind is both freeing and fun, it can be difficult to find a system that fits it. In my experience, narrativist systems like FATE generally fit into any given setting than crunchier ones, like Pathfinder or 4E, but if narrativist systems aren't you or your player's thing, then it can get dicey. It's much harder to make a setting that works within the confines of a D20 system, in my opinion, while still maintaining the freedom you may desire in creating it. That challenge aside, I think I would never resort to making the system a huge priority in any sort of design, but like Steerpike said, I would keep it in the back of my mind.

[sparkletwist]

For me, this one is a bit tough, because the Asura system and the Asura setting have become pretty entangled. However, the setting existed first, so, generally speaking, I also agree with the prevailing opinion.

If you're creating a world for gaming, primarily, then you have to remember that's how the world is going to be experienced, so it is important to make that world able to be fun as a game. I personally think the best way to do that is to create game mechanics that are intriguing and fun on their own, create a setting that's interesting on its own, and then map system and setting things together when creating the finished "game." However, that can be time consuming, so I also agree with the opinion that it's often not the worst idea to keep the system in mind, at least.

[Seraph]

I often have a rules system in mind for a setting, based on what systems I know, and how I want a setting to feel and function.  That said, these days I do not typically build specifically FOR a system.  When I have a system in mind, I still don't hesitate to change things that don't work for the setting.

[LordVreeg]

um.. My view.

[Dolmar]

um.. My view.

So your contribution to the discussion is to post a link to a page on your own website to a bunch of self-congratulatory rules you named after yourself and then just go "I'll just leave this here"?

Oh, and "Vreeg's Laws"don't actually apply; "Vreeg's First Law"  is "Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system." The question was "When designing a setting, do you have a tendency to make them rules neutral or do you build them around some system's ruleset?"

A setting could be designed as a fantasy setting that could work for DnD Next, 3.5, Pathfinder, or 4e. That would be a rules neutral setting that wouldn't violate "Vreeg's Laws". A setting could also be designed to be totally all "Here's a 4e setting so I'm gonna add Warforged." That setting is not rules neutral. It also doesn't go against "Vreeg's Laws".

Now, if I misunderstood what you posted, it's because your post doesn't give any context to explain "Vreeg's Laws." So, please, do explain how the Laws actually applies to the discussion. ^_^;;

[Lmns Crn]

When designing a setting, do you have a tendency to make them rules neutral or do you build them around some system's ruleset?

I don't like starting with rules-neutral settings because I feel I always get to some uncomfortable point where, once the setting gets really established, I have to merge it with a system somehow (either by altering an existing system or trying to create one from scratch, which I am pretty bad at). The more mass the setting has at this point when it's joined to a system, the harder it is to join. So I like to have a system in mind early on, so that I feel I have a scaffolding.

I don't "build them around some system's ruleset," though, because I feel that is a pretty great way to get some terrible problems, like the old D20 Star Wars game. Could've been great, but the combination of the setting and the system was a trainwreck. (For the record, my favored combination of Star Wars + [system] is FATE [to no one's surprise]).

Generally, when I get an idea for a new thing, I'll see if it fits an old thing with little or no modification. I'll do this fairly early in the process, so I don't get carried away. Often I'll have 1-3 sentences down, as in these examples:
- martial arts masters, via astral projection, have crazy battles across space/time (probably a Lady Blackbird hack)
- blood-drenched, backstabbing drama among faux-medieval nobles during a war (Apocalypse World)
- train-hopping gamblers in the wild west, during which the biblical end times are occurring (FATE, most likely)

Sometimes there are ideas that don't fit with much, yet, in which case I sort of put them into deep freeze until something comes along that would let me do them proper justice:
- players are ghosts haunting modern Washington D.C., and must complete their Unfinished Business by subtly influencing national politics

[Weave]

I want to add what I think is also an important element that folks such as myself tend to forget: keep in mind your players.

If you're lucky, you'll have players who are open to a bunch of different systems and willing to experiment across various settings, but rarely is that the case. I have a dedicated group of awesome players who love Pathfinder and the D20 system in general, but I've gradually branched away into other systems, like FATE (or Asura!). We've had some rough transitional periods. Now it isn't as if we don't ever play together, but we usually try to meet in the middle as best we can (most of the time it's just me making a PF-based game for them :P, the little brats!).

That aside, I think it's also important to keep in mind what you audience wants to participate in, be it setting or system, and that can often help define how the system affects the setting or vice versa. This isn't to say I think the intended audience should constrain the design of a setting by merging it with their desired system, but to use the nice metaphor LC provided, I would use it as a scaffolding.

I wanted to add this because I think the motivation behind the system/setting is important to include, and players are just as much a part of the setting as anything else.

[LordVreeg]

um.. My view.

So your contribution to the discussion is to post a link to a page on your own website to a bunch of self-congratulatory rules you named after yourself and then just go "I'll just leave this here"?

Oh, and "Vreeg's Laws"don't actually apply; "Vreeg's First Law"  is "Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system." The question was "When designing a setting, do you have a tendency to make them rules neutral or do you build them around some system's ruleset?"

A setting could be designed as a fantasy setting that could work for DnD Next, 3.5, Pathfinder, or 4e. That would be a rules neutral setting that wouldn't violate "Vreeg's Laws". A setting could also be designed to be totally all "Here's a 4e setting so I'm gonna add Warforged." That setting is not rules neutral. It also doesn't go against "Vreeg's Laws".

Now, if I misunderstood what you posted, it's because your post doesn't give any context to explain "Vreeg's Laws." So, please, do explain how the Laws actually applies to the discussion. ^_^;;

I apologize a bit.  I had just gotten back in and was wiped in between starting doing some new product write-ups, and our community is pretty close knit.  I see I made a lot of assumptions, including how serious the game is (is this a magnum opus for a 10 year game, or setting for a 5-session mingame?). 

The OP,  "When designing a setting, do you have a tendency to make them rules neutral or do you build them around some system's ruleset?"  My much more nuanced opinion is that there are stages in seting design, and that you design the setting independent of a rules system in the beginning.  The ideas and underpinnings should be built pretty independent (and unencumbered) of the constraints of a rule system.  Especially if it is a serious, long term setting.

Once the basics, in terms of themes and culture and history are established, game tone and game style need to be married in BEFORE System choice.   Because that has a lot to do with the whole marriage, based on your group and the type of experience, long and short term, that you are creating.

And this is when the System-design should be looked at, based on my experience.  Because all systems have a certain amout of implied setting, and tonal implications as well, and types of games that they are good at.  Early enough before a great amount of detail is placed down.  And when I say system design, I DO mean that in terms of design, as almost any setting and game experience will benefit from tremendous house-ruling if not a system created from scratch built to mirror the setting detail and buttress the play experience the GM is creating.

"The rules are the physics engine of the setting, Crunch models Fluff. As rules are the interface between the setting and the player's actions, Houseruling is a constant process of creating a rule for a setting-specific event to formalize it. This is a process to be welcomed and enjoyed, as it only comes from the expansion of the players into the setting. Talk to them about it and formalize it with them if you have any doubts."

Again, this is all from my perspective based on what I have done and from the people I have spoken to about it.  People with different toolkits may create their works differently and get as much or more mileage.