choking on fluff....

[kumakami]

so I'm running into my normal issue...fluff aka setting. Do not missunderstand, I beleave it is vital to a game. I just have an easier time tranclating my system thoughts into writen/typed word. Added to that I feel the best games have systems that are as much the setting as the setting.....

that beign said I resently chalenged my self to write up a game idea I had, and start by typing the setting before comitting system to pdf ( I have system notes in a spiral binder) the problem is....I seem to have issues knowing how much to type of each component....I feel like I'm either writting too much or to little....

Any one you run into this?

[Onix]

About a page for general setting for players to familiarize with. At least two pages for a GM. A lot of the rest can be told in mechanics, pictures or maps.

That should be enough for most settings. I wouldn't try forcing anything past that.

[Rob Lang]

[kumakami]

onix: normal I would agree, but this setting is very removed from standard reality so I will need quite a Bit more

Mr.Dr. the lang: That is 1 diffinition of fluff...in this case litrary fluff. In gaming its information above what one "needs" to play the game...saddly that means setting as a whole is counted as fluff.....you don't need a made setting to play a game, look at general system RPG's (fudge)

[maledictus]

Setting is the world where you want the players to play, so I consider it essential to your game.

Writers always recommend to write the less than you can, only the necessary to advance the plot or for character growth. In this case, only the elements that you thing are essential to the setting.

An example: in the basic books of D&D, the setting is there, implicit in the races, classes and items, but it's there and that's what makes it D&D.

[madunkieg]

How would you react to examples of play and accompanying stories? The example of play is used to generate the story, and care must be taken not to add unnecessarily to how it plays out.

For example, how not to do it:
He thrust his sword through a gap in the armour to skewer the opponent's arm
(generic attack roll resulting in a general hit, damage roll that doesn't bother to designate where gets damaged)

And how to do it:
He wrestled with his opponent, pinning him to the ground.
(struggle with wrestling skill, outcome of the roll is opponent gets pinned)

Is it still fluff if this is the description? How about if it takes place in a junkyard? Certainly at some point you're going to be providing details that aren't in the rules, but try to avoid details that the rules don't allow. At what point does it cross over from content to fluff?

Hmmm, this has got me thinking.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[kumakami]

I'd like to thank you all for the responses. this was intended to be more a philosophical debate then true "this is what you need kuma..."

in the end I believe in "the tools must fit the job" too often we place rules or setting on a silver platter. Everyone has there preferences, but I've seen "too much" and "not enough" done in both parts of a game. The extremes are easy to see, but when you get down to mid ground the grey area is HUGE!

that being said what I asked was have any of you dealt with a problem of "do I need more setting...less..is this fine...hmmm"

[Onix]

Sure, I've got more setting than you or your grandmother can shake a stick at. I've got more than I've published. It's all too much. There's already too much in the main book. I'm just not one to let things go to waste.

One of the things I'm getting more comfortable with doing is getting more detailed descriptions and revealing meta story elements in adventures. This way they become an experience for the players to discover rather than a short note somewhere that the players may or may not read.