Do you agree - a Free RPG lives on its setting

[Rob Lang]

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[Majyc]

[Rob Lang]

[Starglim]

[Majyc]

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[kumakami]

I Find that neither one out weighs.. I own (literally) a small library of RPG's (I own Amber, shutter) and there a a few games where I've had players unable to grasp the setting.. then there are the one's with a systems too grandiose or badly thought out to play. (did some one say Palladium?) in the end, like most things, A lot of this is subjective. I love the Hero system (aka champions) but the open character creation is very hard for people. There is a balance but even then people may not like that either. (I know a few math heads that like hard, true Statistic in there roll mechanics)

[Dyson Logos]

[Rob Lang]

I am sure that there are pockets of people who play superb games without ever needing any setting information. There are plenty of examples of people who don't need or use it but my point still stands.

If you are writing a Free RPG and you want people to play. Give it a setting. It doesn't have to be monolithic (1 by 4 by 9) but it does need to have a flavour. If you choose not to, you've created a generic system that is much less likely to be played. Running through list (which I have been, importing still living links into my Directory) you will find scores of D&D clone systems with nothing to set them apart from normal games.

A GM has to convince, cajole and excite their players and generic systems rarely produce anything truly new.