Which Comes First: System or Setting?

The title of this post isn’t really a chicken-or-egg question: in most cases, I surmise, the system you’re using comes first, and, if you’re so inclined, you create a setting using the resources provided by the system. Until, that is, the tension between system and setting becomes too great. Then you’ve got the choice of shoehorning your setting into the rule box or opening out the ruleset with hand-waving and/or house rules. In my own games, most of the house rules that I create and apply come from my frustrations with the system. Against that, most of the house rules my players thrash out, create and apply arise from their frustrations with combat.

I’ll come out right now and own up: combat, while exciting and fun, isn’t my focus. I’ve played multiple systems and considered many more, and have found most rules for combat freighted with problems, whilst generally providing a great deal of enjoyment, regardless. Most of the combat-related issues I’ve had to consider over the years break down comfortably into two categories: the ones deemed by my players to be generally unfair, and the ones where one player thinks they’ve found an advantage only to discover that the rules can be interpreted for and against their funky idea. I’ve found this everywhere, and don’t expect it to change. Most rules simply can’t simulate everything and most are weighed down with internal contradictions, even where they seek a level of abstraction that ought reasonably to eliminate much of the problems apparent with more simulationist offerings.

So let’s get that out of the way.  As long as combat does an OK job and doesn’t perpetrate injustices that leave players grumbling for whole sessions – or longer – I’m content. My problem with systems is where they place strictures on worldbuilding. One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed Rolemaster so much over the years is that the basic structure of the game is a pretty good springboard for adaptation to the requirements of the setting. Hence the question, properly phrased: which should come first, the system or the setting?

I’ve pretty much telegraphed my answer already, but I’ll make it explicit: for me as a GM, setting comes first, even if you end up with a brain-curdling mash-up/love child of ten different systems. I’ve tried to put this into practice around a Rolemaster base, but my patience is fraying a tad, primarily because I did a huge amount of work to bring what I considered the necessary flexibility to RM2 and then RMFRP, and now, I’m facing a new contraction of options as the new RM takes shape. I’m aware, of course, that new options will gradually come available, and that’s fine so far as it goes. But will the options serve my campaign world? Probably not, and for several reasons, which I’ll discuss below.

Spell Lists & Realms: I like RM’s spell list system, although I like other systems better. But as it’s presented in previous incarnations of RM (and in the playtest documents for the latest version), I’m finding it increasingly confining. Yes, I know you can adapt it: I’ve done that plenty.  However, the current system cuts down creativity for both GM and players. There’s a bit of a myth in RM that, if you have the Development Points you can do anything, but this is somewhat hyperbolic.  In the RM2 core rules – and more emphatically in the new system – you can’t learn lists from a realm that is not your own. RM2 introduced options whereby you could do so, and this was carried over to RMFRP Core Rules, but the problem has returned. But are realms the true source of the problem? Or is it, on the other hand, professions?

Professions: RM orthodoxy tells us that the development point costs obtained via professions are a reflection of aptitude and early training. Thus they are flexible, but not too flexible. If you make large sacrifices you can – rather pointlessly – master skills or magic beyond the ken of most members of your profession. I understand the reasoning, but I really don’t like it: if you are the sum of your early training and inherent aptitudes, cultures should be professions.  We should see 12^th level Wood Elves and 17^th level Ogres, not 12^th level Wood Elf Illusionists and 17th level Ogre Fighters. But we don’t. Culture is an add-on to professions, and of profoundly limited influence, usually granting no more than a few set skill ranks and a couple of bonuses or penalties to various activities. Race has a bit more of an impact, as racial stat bonuses create difficulties in some areas (think Elven Self-Discipline penalties, for instance. Elven Warrior Monks will always struggle to utilise some core abilities). To me, professions, whilst not infinitely elastic, should have greater flexibility, particularly with regard to access to magic.

One possibility is to ditch all professions and use one (‘No Profession’) set of DP costs (or, if that’s too extreme, a Non-Spell user, Spell-user and Semi-spell user set of costs). One could replace professions with cultural DP costs (but allow a couple of individual skill specialisations). Or one could simply abandon the whole professions-as-inborn-aptitude notion and treat ‘professions’ as ‘classes’, with all that that entails (multi-classing rears its head here!).

I find myself oscillating constantly between different options, but these days I find myself leaning ever closer to the one size fits all approach: one set of DP costs, for everyone. Allow extra rapid skill development for folks who want to be really good at a narrow range of skills. Allow players to choose their own realm(s) and base lists (maybe 1 Background Option per extra realm) and insist on a set amount of base lists (3?4?) coming from one ‘profession’ to ensure focus whilst encouraging diversity. Grant 60 DP a level to allow for better characters at lower levels and a point buy for stats. I’d marry it to the ‘Archetypal & Cultural Builds’ system that I’ve previously mentioned here, retaining the unique abilities and skill unlocks but drop all components to do with skill costs.

I like this method of - errrm - re-mastering Rolemaster because it is comparatively ‘low magic’ and guarantees a reasonably level playing field. But most of all, by eliminating the artificial flexibility of ‘professions’ with one set of skill costs, you get a kind meta-flexibility. Everything – players, NPCs, even, conceivably, monsters – is built on one base, but you then have all of those spell lists – and individual spells for ‘special abilities’ – from which to choose. Oddly enough,  in some ways, the less that is built into a system – the more torso-like it is – the more options you have (which is why I've been enjoying re/discovering the OSR).

So here's the takeaway, for the purposes of this blog: henceforward, a reasonable portion of the fairly small amount of material for RM (see this post) I publish here will be based on the approach noted above: it sure ain't RAW, and if anyone wants to use it, it'll require adaptation for regular RM (whatever your flavour). But its a system I can carry over to the new generation RM, and its simplicity enables it to map across nicely to OSR games (and, when I'm feeling particularly complex, to Pathfinder.)