Setting or system?

[zayven]

My ramblings on another topic made me think of this question:

Do you like Earthdawn because of the setting or because of the rules system?

For me, it's about 75% setting, 25% rules. I'd actually be pretty willing to accept dramatic changes to the rules provided they still reflected the key aspects of the setting.

Is it even fair to ask this question? How many people run ED using different rules systems?

[Jaracove]

[Kasbak]

That's a hard one for me, as one of my favorite aspects is that the rules are so tightly interwoven with the setting (or at least, the mechanics behind the rules are). I think I have to agree with Jarcove's numbers. I have several house rules, though it's rare that I have to make one for actual balance concerns. I don't think I have ever had to make a setting change from what's established though.

[Nahor]

I love, love, love, the setting. But I also love the rules and how they are interwoven into the setting providing a mechanic to they why things are the way the way they are. I never found the system too "Crunchy" or whatever. I love building a character for over an hour (stats aren't the only thing that makes it take so long) and I love the idea of talents, bumping some up, others not so much, etc.

[Flowswithdrek]

I don't know how many settings I've read over the years, but the Earthdawn setting still blows me away. Its one of the few settings that each time I read it, it still inspires adventure seeds. To me the dice system is just that, a system, however its probably one of the best I've personally used. A lot of people make the step system to be complicated, but I've never had a problem with it. It just works for me. And yes, exploding dice. What's not to love about that.

[zayven]

I personally feel like the fact that the rules are interwoven with the setting is a little overrated. It's a cool feature, to be sure, but I don't always feel like it really adds a whole lot to the gameplay experience. I've never thought that the rules handled the concept of patterns and threads very well, to give an example. That's something I'd like to see a new edition really go back to the drawing board for new ideas.

I do appreciate that there's a logical explanation of why there are "classes" and "dungeons" in the setting. And I like the basic "bones" of the rules (variable target numbers, derived values like defense ratings, attribute + talent rank tests, etc). It's cool that the game tried to mesh the elements of "vertical" character progression (ie- class based D&D style systems) with "horizontal" progression (ie- skill based Runequest style systems), but the implementation can get a little messy at times.

All in all, it's a good system, but I've never felt like it was the only possible way to represent the setting.

[Stormcrow]

Personally I prefer the rules to the setting and this is true for most rpgs for me. I realise this makes me a bit of a freak however, I think it is a lot easier to tweak and alter aspects of a setting I don't like whereas altering rules too much can result in unintended game-breaking consequences. Yes, you can always switch them back but sometimes the damage is done and you're left with a poor gaming session. I also find it difficult to immerse myself in the world if I dislike the rules system too much. I find it distracting. D20 in particular, has always bothered the hell out of me for a lot of reasons. Earthdawn is not perfect but the I like the base step system as it is very elegant. I'd hate to see that element of it go but I like the improved 3ed version. Usually, the parts of the rules I don't like are the ones that divert too much from the base systems. I think ship combat would be far better if it were more similar to character combat for example.

[val05]

100% setting. Step System is cool for simple task but awful when you want a quick fight... and if you forget that Dexterity is so powerful...

[Jaracove]

[zayven]

I'm obviously in the minority here (and elsewhere on the forums). I wouldn't even touch a game with a poor setting no matter how good the rules were. Rules systems are generally something that I have to tolerate. I like ED's system in general, but several aspects of it frustrate the hell out of me. I think it's a better system than the d20 system and I like it better than Shadowrun's system, but if fourth edition changes a lot of it, I probably won't mind too much.

Shadowrun is probably a better example of this than Earthdawn. ED's system is pretty easy to pick up and explain to people, but Shadowrun is a freaking nightmare to teach to somebody. I've stuck with that game for as long as ED only because it's such a spectacular setting. We got REALLY luck when FASA Corp decided to create the step system for ED rather than porting over the Shadowrun system.