1KM1KT Free RPG Community

I've been finding this is true for characters, too, though I'd suggest drama, rather than conflict (niggling semantics).

Look at the character sheet for many rpgs, such as World of Darkness or GURPS. You can divide the mechanical parts of the character into two sections, those used to resolve drama and those used to create drama. Attributes, skills, equipment, and the like, all serve to resolve drama. Advantages and disadvantages, or whatever they're called, more often serve to create drama in the game, though they sometimes affect resolution effects. I'm finding that my games are pushing more towards the latter category, that every game element must create drama. It seems to fit with rpgs, which are open-ended systems.

I disagree with the idea that detail makes for bad settings. His own example regarding kanks and erdlu is an example of difficulty resolving a detail with understanding how the game setting works. The presence of the detail isn't the problem, and could be a great source of story (perhaps possessing kank are a measure of status and therefore prone to rustling despite their being less useful, or you could quest for a method of cooking kank meat, or whatever). I love running games about the trivial and the mundane, especially in fantastic settings. Your trivial detail may be the root of my campaign premise.

I find that there is valid argument for both sides of this. In my own personal gaming experence I've found times when BOTH are bad. Having TOO many no's in a game, that then made character creation and play imposible. The there were the times where there were so many maybe's that in the end there was little in the way of a real setting to enjoy.

I find that absolutes can/will be ignored and worked around if the group feels the need to do so.

beside limitation creates chances for creativity. My fav quote (personal one that is) "I like to think out side the box. If the box you give me is EVERTHING then the only thing out side of it is NOTHING."

in the Gnome Pogrom scenario I'd say that this is MUCH better then never having been Gnomes

1) It gives more flavour to the world, little stories have the effect of fleshing out the world and making it FEEL more real

2) It allows much more flexibility for the absence of gnomes and of course a simple 'of course it wasn't totally successful' answers the questions.

3) Conflict = Drama

EL

A setting that a friend of mine is creating, a sci-fi one, goes on the basis of "Man has not experienced aliens", which doesn't write them out but makes the setting work as an all human game. Now later on in it's development, such as splatbooks, he's able to add the aliens in when their development is complete enough to fit properly.

In the portion of this conversation concerning detail vs. vagueness I wanted to bring up the notion of focus. In very broad focused games, where campaigns can take place on one of many continents or in one of many time periods, there is more room for more vagueness, for, like the above example, gnomes may have settled in other places, or be more abundant during certain areas.

Though, if your game has a very narrow, or specific focus, like being isolated in one location or taking place in a very specific moment in time, like a U.S. Civil War game, then detail becomes very important or the game loses it's essence.