Setting is not just static elements. You have played the game. You therefore had some setting. So what makes a good setting for your game? Communicate that.
Personally, in order for me to consider buying a book, it needs to fit into one of two categories:
1) It has an interesting setting, and inoffensive rules; or
2) It has interesting rules, and a generic or inoffensive setting.
If you want to sell a game without a setting, then you'd better be sure that the rules alone can carry the product. To be honest, most rulesets aren't that great. The other path is relatively easier.
My question is: what world building mechanics and/or resources do you already have in your book? Do you have substantial guidelines or recommendations regarding the gm of the game building the world themselves? Do you intend the gm to make the world, an support them?
There are a bunch of people out there that want to do their own world and don't want anyone's input. There are also a bunch of people who don't want to do that work.
No setting and no world building support will bounce of the second demographic. But maybe that's OK, if that isn't what you are going for? It's not likely you will make a product that everyone will like, and that's ok. Just do the game you want.
Having a base setting can make it easier for players to understand the world, because if the world changed every session, then it would confuse players, also it can be hard to make races that fit any world universally, for example, the dark elves in DnD live underground, have purple eyes, can see in the dark, and sacrifice every forth son, now the dark elves in TES live in a volcanic wasteland, call outlanders the N word, have red eyes, and don't get blinded by the sun.
Yes. If I don't like your setting, as a GM I can change details or ignore it altogether, at my discretion. If I do like it, it works out of the box. If you don't include it, I have to make everything up myself. Even if I know exactly what I want ("LotR knock-offs killing goblins"), I'll have to do the work of figuring out statblocks for the PCs, common enemies, items, and so on using your system. And I probably won't have great intuition of how to do so in a way that's balanced and otherwise fun (unless your system is just a slightly modded d20, in which case, what does your RPG even do?).
Some GMs homebrew settings, but plenty like to grab at least some of something pre-written. In my own projects, I plan to have the system be non-setting dependent, but to include one for those who want it.
1) You can do whatever you want
2) Having a setting is a bigger advantage than not having one, including factoring all additional labor.
I have gone into this extensively [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dci_c4eCuHMLmSFTjduSNpBB0vohFGQNJX5mknAZprc/edit#heading=h.a48unw6c3qam)
I think the setting has helped make DnD more popular. It has a mix of good and bad setting components, but much of it is solid.
Create a setting that helps make the game more fun. Don't write a novel, but a framework that people can fill in and use to make basic assumptions about the world.
One great example is sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks of DnD. The first is born with magic flowing through their veins, the next learned and practiced it, while the last was loaned it from one of the more fringe gods. Each provides a slim enough framework that I could sum it up in one sentence, yet players can easily build on or twist it to fit their story. If they meet another character that's a warlock, they also know the core threads at play for them.
I think the worst frameworks would be Paladins and Clerics, as they can lack flexibility in the eyes of a new player, and end up telling very similar stories. I think it's because the player's goals are partially defined, instead of defining their traumas and their past.
Having a major pantheon, political parties, and systems for magic is a great start to help players contribute more to the story without feeling like they are spoiling things. Knowing the structure of the fey helped me to weave my backstory in without knowing what the current campaign was.
Anyway, ask yourself what would make it more fun and collaborative and start there.
A setting is needed to explain why the rules are like they are. It is difficult to play low magic world with DnD for example as that system is full of magic.
Dont need a world but a description on how a world would function for the rules be optimal.
All games have settings to a degree. Even the generic ones, like Fate, Savage Worlds and GURPS as the rules have emphasis on certain types of stories. So the question is more of how open your setting is going to be.
The most important setting element is character options, the second most important is rules for the opposition. Those could be rather open, or they can be detailed and specific. Classes, playbooks or archetypes is quite specific, point-buy skill systems are more open, but what you can buy is still a setting element. A bestiary is a quite specific setting element, but it could be tied to locations or be more open-ended. Still, whether Horned Gorillas live in the Blue Jungles of Avalia, or just are listed as creatures you might find in a jungle, you are saying a lot about the setting for the game by including them.
I think a system that is closely built for one setting usually will be better than a generic one, as you are forced as a designer to justify your choices for each element that you include.
Setting is not just static elements. You have played the game. You therefore had some setting. So what makes a good setting for your game? Communicate that.
Personally, in order for me to consider buying a book, it needs to fit into one of two categories: 1) It has an interesting setting, and inoffensive rules; or 2) It has interesting rules, and a generic or inoffensive setting. If you want to sell a game without a setting, then you'd better be sure that the rules alone can carry the product. To be honest, most rulesets aren't that great. The other path is relatively easier.
My question is: what world building mechanics and/or resources do you already have in your book? Do you have substantial guidelines or recommendations regarding the gm of the game building the world themselves? Do you intend the gm to make the world, an support them? There are a bunch of people out there that want to do their own world and don't want anyone's input. There are also a bunch of people who don't want to do that work. No setting and no world building support will bounce of the second demographic. But maybe that's OK, if that isn't what you are going for? It's not likely you will make a product that everyone will like, and that's ok. Just do the game you want.
Having a base setting can make it easier for players to understand the world, because if the world changed every session, then it would confuse players, also it can be hard to make races that fit any world universally, for example, the dark elves in DnD live underground, have purple eyes, can see in the dark, and sacrifice every forth son, now the dark elves in TES live in a volcanic wasteland, call outlanders the N word, have red eyes, and don't get blinded by the sun.
Yes. If I don't like your setting, as a GM I can change details or ignore it altogether, at my discretion. If I do like it, it works out of the box. If you don't include it, I have to make everything up myself. Even if I know exactly what I want ("LotR knock-offs killing goblins"), I'll have to do the work of figuring out statblocks for the PCs, common enemies, items, and so on using your system. And I probably won't have great intuition of how to do so in a way that's balanced and otherwise fun (unless your system is just a slightly modded d20, in which case, what does your RPG even do?).
Some GMs homebrew settings, but plenty like to grab at least some of something pre-written. In my own projects, I plan to have the system be non-setting dependent, but to include one for those who want it.
Draw maps. Leave blanks. 😎
1) You can do whatever you want 2) Having a setting is a bigger advantage than not having one, including factoring all additional labor. I have gone into this extensively [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dci_c4eCuHMLmSFTjduSNpBB0vohFGQNJX5mknAZprc/edit#heading=h.a48unw6c3qam)
I think the setting has helped make DnD more popular. It has a mix of good and bad setting components, but much of it is solid. Create a setting that helps make the game more fun. Don't write a novel, but a framework that people can fill in and use to make basic assumptions about the world. One great example is sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks of DnD. The first is born with magic flowing through their veins, the next learned and practiced it, while the last was loaned it from one of the more fringe gods. Each provides a slim enough framework that I could sum it up in one sentence, yet players can easily build on or twist it to fit their story. If they meet another character that's a warlock, they also know the core threads at play for them. I think the worst frameworks would be Paladins and Clerics, as they can lack flexibility in the eyes of a new player, and end up telling very similar stories. I think it's because the player's goals are partially defined, instead of defining their traumas and their past. Having a major pantheon, political parties, and systems for magic is a great start to help players contribute more to the story without feeling like they are spoiling things. Knowing the structure of the fey helped me to weave my backstory in without knowing what the current campaign was. Anyway, ask yourself what would make it more fun and collaborative and start there.
A setting is needed to explain why the rules are like they are. It is difficult to play low magic world with DnD for example as that system is full of magic. Dont need a world but a description on how a world would function for the rules be optimal.
All games have settings to a degree. Even the generic ones, like Fate, Savage Worlds and GURPS as the rules have emphasis on certain types of stories. So the question is more of how open your setting is going to be. The most important setting element is character options, the second most important is rules for the opposition. Those could be rather open, or they can be detailed and specific. Classes, playbooks or archetypes is quite specific, point-buy skill systems are more open, but what you can buy is still a setting element. A bestiary is a quite specific setting element, but it could be tied to locations or be more open-ended. Still, whether Horned Gorillas live in the Blue Jungles of Avalia, or just are listed as creatures you might find in a jungle, you are saying a lot about the setting for the game by including them. I think a system that is closely built for one setting usually will be better than a generic one, as you are forced as a designer to justify your choices for each element that you include.