If you read nothing else about tabletop roleplaying this week, read Ken’s exploration of why setting (vs. character, vs. plot) is the RPG designer’s primary responsibility.
More and more, I’ve come to believe that the designer’s primary responsibility in an RPG is the setting […] and a decade or more of reviewing RPGs has mostly taught me what a loose, iffy job many designers make of it.
The most powerful argument, for my money, is Ken’s suggestion that Ye Olde DMG‘s wandering monster tables and random dungeon generation appendices were the embryonic form of a better method for setting presentation than the campaign box.
Hite’s argument is certainly interesting and I’m going to ponder it for awhile. For my money, a player invests in a game because they care about their character – as a designer, I think that one of my most important jobs is to construct tools that make the creation of a character fun / rewarding / worth playing. Where those tools stray into “setting” I’m in complete agreement with Ken.
I’m starting to come around to Ken’s point, I think. And I think setting establishes and informs the PC so much that it probably serves your point, too, TS.
I’m focusing on setting a great deal in the RPG I’m developing now, so I hope Ken is right.
I think it’s even possible to locate rules-design under the setting umbrella, for these purposes. (Definitely true if your other options are the “character” umbrella or the “plot” umbrella.)
To the extent that rules are designed to reflect the setting’s unique sense of itself, that’s certainly true. Many games are like this, some are not. I think you’re right that rules fall under “setting” rather than “character” or “plot.”