It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Posted By: Josh RobyI Games do not, I swear to you, sell on the strength of their clever dice gimmick.
Posted By: deadlytoqueI honestly think that a lot of really great indie games would be even better if the mechanics had been divorced from the packaged settings, and instead written in such a way that you could orient the mechanic on the setting and theme of your choice.
Posted By: ValamirYeah, I think the key to designing successful generic story games is not to tie the the mechanics to the color of a specific setting but to tie them to the color of a specific theme.
Posted By: ccreitzMark, why are you looking for "settingless" games?
Posted By: Mark CauseyI took notice of the fact that it didn't seem to even be a consideration in gaming - whether it be indie or big company...]
Posted By: Jared A. SorensenGumshoe is agnostic with regard to setting.Except that it's not. The setting of the game (location wise) doesn't matter but it's quite clear that wherever it's set, Gumshoe is a specific game and not just rules
Posted By: timfireThis is why I think it's often better to include a default "setting". I think it's much easier to see and understand situation if it's presented within a (color-filled) context, rather than within some sort of abstract explanation.
Posted By: Mark CauseyWhatever happened to creating generic or settings-less rules sets? I mean, the Solar System is pretty awesome.
Posted By: David ArtmanSo, OK, again: is or is it not sufficient to provide copious examples of play in a variety of genres, and tools for GMs to tune to particular themes, and a few ready-to-run settings... or is this going to become The Epidiah Principle: there must be a "canonical" setting, even if your system easily drifts to other settings or genres with the same theme(s)?If not, what does that tell us about flexible system presentation in rules text?believe me... I'm curious. Because, personally, the notion of building GLASS as a single-genre, single-theme game... and then redoing it again with another supplement... and again with another supplement... seems both tiresome (to me) and a bit deceitful (to the customer).
Posted By: David ArtmanThanks, guys, for the replies.So, Ralph and Epi, here's the gig...
[cite]Posted By: Jared A. Sorensen[/cite]Of course, these aren't games. You need context, else they're just simulations or toys. You can't play GURPS, you can only use it to play a game.
Posted By: Wordmantweaks like "if you want this effect at the table, change this, otherwise, do this".Another might be product containing chapters of rules, followed bymultiplesettings, each highlighting a different strength of the mechanics.
Posted By: David ArtmanBut, yeah, just a stack of rules and their mechanics won't make a full RPG product. Unless it's Universalis.
"IME, "generic" games like GURPS simply leave a hole in the situation front that the players have to figure out for themselves."
Shock: has a whole setting creation engine right in there. So does Misspent Youth. They give you the tools to make a setting with thematic content.
In short, I don't know what you're talking about.