Which is more important? The setting or the system?

[Snowy_One]

Topic title. When signing up for an RP, which do you consider more important? Setting or system? Would you join an RP without a stat-system but a good/great setting? Would you join an RP with barely any setting but a well-made stat system?

[roymbrog]

Both. Though I would be fine with a setting without a system as well. If one or the other doesn't interest me though, I see no point in joining that. I'll dislike half the RP.

[Nanami Touko]

If a setting is really good it can probably get away with a lackluster or slightly poor system, but the system still matters, and if it's pretty bad, no amount of setting is going to save it. Unless your group's alright without a system, but I can't exactly see many people doing very well in something like that. at least not again in my case

[Snowy_One]

The idea in splitting the two is more of to ask which you see as more important. Obviously a good/great RP will do both well and both are important, but which is MORE important on the whole? Especially if you had to sacrifice one for the other?

[Nanami Touko]

Don't think I could, Snowy. If I was forced to get rid of one for the other, I'd drop the RP :V

[ReformBlade]

Short answer: Both are important

Long answer: Both matter and equally effect each other, each person will value them differently so there is no factual best to really be had. Some people value writing and interactions better, others value more logical approaches and having a goal in mind (not to say that both paths can't have this actually).

[Rehab]

I think I'm having a hard time getting my head around the idea of what could make a setting "bad," which I can imagine might be because I'm relatively new to actually playing role-playing games with other people. Like, even settings that don't appeal to me personally, I can imagine somebody else finding interesting, so I have a hard time calling them "bad settings."

Could the term encompass things like; a setting with a colossal amount of backstory that is imperative to know but somehow difficult to teach ingame? In a possibly related area, a setting with a lot of intrusive plot rules? A setting that's just plain really confined, that doesn't have a lot for you to do in it and that you can see all of relatively quickly? There's so little suggested direction that the players don't know what to do or something? A setting that doesn't appeal to one's specific player group somehow?

Because I can imagine house-ruling and player/DM ingenuity getting around or at least doing something to deal with all of those.

Admittedly, my first impression of Rogue Trader's setting was "oh my god this is so great and expansive, it's ripe for doing tons of things I find interesting I want to make a character right now," and my first impression of D&D(4E) was "this seems kinda, I don't know, archetypal and bare. Vast majority of races being written as 'irredeemable assholes you can whale on without feeling guilty,' 'GOOD gods and BAD gods that don't seem to do anything that interests me,' etc. What can I do here that I find exciting?" But on further reflection, not only did I think of things to do that intrigued me in it (though not often being much like the things the books suggested, far as I could tell), my GM for the latter game just punting everything out the window and had us play a custom setting that I immediately found interesting, which still took some things from the base one.

I came to the realization that might have been part of the point to the stuff, maybe

Though, I guess one could use the "you can just house-rule things" idea for dealing with systems one doesn't like, too, but, I don't know, there's something in my gut that I find more off-putting about the idea of a system I find stupid/arbitrary/intrusive. Maybe it's that somehow I have the idea that I can work around parts of "the world" I don't like, but "the laws of physics" seem somehow less appealing to edit?

I'm not even sure why though. Might be a (video) gamer thing. I dunno this is a hard question to me for some reason, like I think I have an answer but when I try to explain it I'm like "but why, exactly, do I think that?" blimey

E: oh yeah, and I assume one could pair almost any setting with almost any system and, again, appropriate house-ruling? But come to think of it, that might be kind of outside the specific purview of the question. Why am I even making this edit? hmm,

Edited April 10, 2014 by Rehab

[ReformBlade]

I think I'm having a hard time getting my head around the idea of what could make a setting "bad," which I can imagine might be because I'm relatively new to actually playing role-playing games with other people. Like, even settings that don't appeal to me personally, I can imagine somebody else finding interesting, so I have a hard time calling them "bad settings."

Could the term encompass things like; a setting with a colossal amount of backstory that is imperative to know but somehow difficult to teach ingame? In a possibly related area, a setting with a lot of intrusive plot rules? A setting that's just plain really confined, that doesn't have a lot for you to do in it and that you can see all of relatively quickly? There's so little suggested direction that the players don't know what to do or something? A setting that doesn't appeal to one's specific player group somehow?

Because I can imagine house-ruling and player/DM ingenuity getting around or at least doing something to deal with all of those.

Admittedly, my first impression of Rogue Trader's setting was "oh my god this is so great and expansive, it's ripe for doing tons of things I find interesting I want to make a character right now," and my first impression of D&D(4E) was "this seems kinda, I don't know, archetypal and bare. Vast majority of races being written as 'irredeemable assholes you can whale on without feeling guilty,' 'GOOD gods and BAD gods that don't seem to do anything that interests me,' etc. What can I do here that I find exciting?" But on further reflection, not only did I think of things to do that intrigued me in it (though not often being much like the things the books suggested, far as I could tell), my GM for the latter game just punting everything out the window and had us play a custom setting that I immediately found interesting, which still took some things from the base one.

I came to the realization that might have been part of the point to the stuff, maybe

Though, I guess one could use the "you can just house-rule things" idea for dealing with systems one doesn't like, too, but, I don't know, there's something in my gut that I find more off-putting about the idea of a system I find stupid/arbitrary/intrusive. Maybe it's that somehow I have the idea that I can work around parts of "the world" I don't like, but "the laws of physics" seem somehow less appealing to edit?

I'm not even sure why though. Might be a (video) gamer thing. I dunno this is a hard question to me for some reason, like I think I have an answer but when I try to explain it I'm like "but why, exactly, do I think that?" blimey

E: oh yeah, and I assume one could pair almost any setting with almost any system and, again, appropriate house-ruling? But come to think of it, that might be kind of outside the specific purview of the question. Why am I even making this edit? hmm,

While this is all a nifty read, I don't think anyone mentioned 'bad' settings, just if you preferred a setting over a stat system or vice versa. Personally, I think there can be poorly handled settings (like everything I've done IMO) but that's a different beast altogether.

[Phoenix]

I can't really vote for one other the other either. While being able to handle an rp without a system (meh) in place might suggest that the setting's more important to me, I flat out wouldn't join an rp that had a system I didn't like. Same reason as roy. I guess settings aren't optional and 'systems' are, but if the latter are there, they're just as important as the setting.

[-Cynthia-]

Depends on the RP, but our RPs tend to spend a lot more time outside combat than in it and the effects of the system outside of combat are relatively small, so I'll go with setting.

Edited April 10, 2014 by -Cynthia-

[Snowy_One]

I think I'm having a hard time getting my head around the idea of what could make a setting "bad," which I can imagine might be because I'm relatively new to actually playing role-playing games with other people. Like, even settings that don't appeal to me personally, I can imagine somebody else finding interesting, so I have a hard time calling them "bad settings."

Could the term encompass things like; a setting with a colossal amount of backstory that is imperative to know but somehow difficult to teach ingame? In a possibly related area, a setting with a lot of intrusive plot rules? A setting that's just plain really confined, that doesn't have a lot for you to do in it and that you can see all of relatively quickly? There's so little suggested direction that the players don't know what to do or something? A setting that doesn't appeal to one's specific player group somehow?

Because I can imagine house-ruling and player/DM ingenuity getting around or at least doing something to deal with all of those.

Admittedly, my first impression of Rogue Trader's setting was "oh my god this is so great and expansive, it's ripe for doing tons of things I find interesting I want to make a character right now," and my first impression of D&D(4E) was "this seems kinda, I don't know, archetypal and bare. Vast majority of races being written as 'irredeemable assholes you can whale on without feeling guilty,' 'GOOD gods and BAD gods that don't seem to do anything that interests me,' etc. What can I do here that I find exciting?" But on further reflection, not only did I think of things to do that intrigued me in it (though not often being much like the things the books suggested, far as I could tell), my GM for the latter game just punting everything out the window and had us play a custom setting that I immediately found interesting, which still took some things from the base one.

I came to the realization that might have been part of the point to the stuff, maybe

Though, I guess one could use the "you can just house-rule things" idea for dealing with systems one doesn't like, too, but, I don't know, there's something in my gut that I find more off-putting about the idea of a system I find stupid/arbitrary/intrusive. Maybe it's that somehow I have the idea that I can work around parts of "the world" I don't like, but "the laws of physics" seem somehow less appealing to edit?

I'm not even sure why though. Might be a (video) gamer thing. I dunno this is a hard question to me for some reason, like I think I have an answer but when I try to explain it I'm like "but why, exactly, do I think that?" blimey

E: oh yeah, and I assume one could pair almost any setting with almost any system and, again, appropriate house-ruling? But come to think of it, that might be kind of outside the specific purview of the question. Why am I even making this edit? hmm,

It's actually very easy to have a 'bad setting' as well as a 'good system' behind it. Three easy examples off the top of my head are...

1) A setting where things are barely explained, possibly leaving large gaps and holes in how things work. EX: An RP in which magic and elemental control is important, but doesn't even go in to how many elements there are or what counts as an 'element' leaving you to guess if things like electricity is its own element or part of the 'air' element.

2) A setting where things are overly detailed in non-meaningful ways. EX: An RP about masked luchador wrestling which, instead of explaining how luchador wrestling works, either details every legal hold and grapple that could possibly exist (resulting in an information overload) or focused on the various methods of baking bread in China despite the RP having been established as happening in Mexico.

3) An RP where things are just... wrong. Imagine a fantasy RP which spends more time detailing the various methods of how to torture ones foes after combat including such things as including rules for rape and revels in the various manners of executing people accused of homosexuality... even though it's supposed to be a high-fantasy 'save the world' type RP.

A prime, RL, example of 'poor setting' would be F.A.T.A.L. (don't read unless you're over 18. Even if you are, it's seriously not worth reading). While the FATAL world couldn't have been saved by a good system, it is under-detailed in many important things, overly detailed in irrelevant things, and outright drowning in wrong. No system I can feasibly imagine could have saved it.

[Haspen]

For me, unfortunately, both a good setting and good system are requirements to enjoy an RPG. Without good plot, system becomes math game, and without good system, RPG becomes RP which I prefer to write with just one person and not a group :P

[Rehab]

Oh yeah, dunno how I forgot about FATAL. I can't even tell who that was designed for.

I guess I was sorta assuming that the GM could substitute, ignore or otherwise house-rule those kinds of things, and that the question was specifically asking for the player's perspective. Like, "would I less rather play a session where the GM uses a setting I don't like, or a system I don't like," as opposed to "poorly designed source material." I can definitely imagine (and have seen examples of) that being a thing yeah

Edited April 10, 2014 by Rehab

[Toogee]

Most of the RPs I've been in didn't have a stat system (or very minimal). They were essentially large fan-fics written by multiple people. In that case, setting is most important.

If the setting is that compelling but the system sucks, I would just make a NPC. If I don't like the setting, I won't even read far enough to get to the system details.

[Snowy_One]

Oh yeah, dunno how I forgot about FATAL. I can't even tell who that was designed for.

I guess I was sorta assuming that the GM could substitute, ignore or otherwise house-rule those kinds of things, and that the question was specifically asking for the player's perspective. Like, "would I less rather play a session where the GM uses a setting I don't like, or a system I don't like," as opposed to "poorly designed source material." I can definitely imagine (and have seen examples of) that being a thing yeah

Too be fair, FATAL failed at everything it attempted to the point where even hipsters couldn't enjoy it 'ironically'. Short of a complete and total rewrite it couldn't be salvaged (the game is so messed up being around Cthulu would make it saner). However many other RP's exist that failed at one or the other, and that's not to mention what happens when you try to join a group for any RP and they turn out to be combat-focused/RP-focused respectively. No matter how good the setting/system, it just won't happen.

[Cancer Lancer]

Cancer thinks setting above all.

It's pretty easy to make a post only no stat RP successful and engaging. Actually, very easy. Lol.