My big problem is that I don’t even consider licensed RPGs, particularly of settings I’m fond of. They don’t filter into my perspective of gaming unless there is something inherently special about the game (such as the sanity-mechanic in Cthulhu). But I’d have to agree that some settings simply strangle out any leeway for gaming. The comments on the LJ version of the post seem mostly in agreement.

I think part of the problem for us is that we’re Fudge fans and Fudge encourages us to create our own settings. (Is it that we’re drawn to Fudge because we like to create or that Fudge encourages to create?) Why spend money on buying someone else’s interpretation of your favourite setting when you can just convert it yourself to Fudge. Also, this way, you take your realisation of the game with your opinions of it…

Also if I plan to run a game based on a TV show, I’m tempted to look to Now Playing to run it. In fact I’d run a “spin-off” show based on it. But I wouldn’t look for someone else’s version of the show (unless there is something remarkable about the RPG).

Of course, even if the source material lends itself well to adaptation, it does not necessarily mean that the game designers charged with adapting it will do a good job. Very often they won’t. To accentuate the positive, I will say that I enjoyed playing Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld, and a variety of other licensed RPGs in the past, but as a rule, even if I buy a licensed RPG nowadays, I’ll probably only use it for the setting material and adapt it to Fudge.

Whether it is licensed or original, I think the best RPG setting is a careful balance between detail and freedom of opportunity (for GMs and players alike). Television shows that were written by many different writers (especially freelancers) are often good examples of settings that had just enough standards in place to enforce a sufficient level of continuity, but granted enough leeway to writers to define their own niches (such as planets, villains, and entire species in the case of Star Trek).

I was thinking for the past few weeks about writing an article comparing and contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of three RPG campaign settings - Greyhawk, Tekumel, and Harn - but I’ve only actually played in one of them. The other two I have only read. I know what I like, but I’m not sure what actually works and doesn’t work in practice. Each has elements I like, but Greyhawk did one thing better than the others: it gave just enough detail to inspire GMs to fill in the rest. It probably could have given a little more detail, but the important thing is that it left plenty of areas to be developed and scattered ideas and adventure seeds everywhere. Licensed RPGs ought to do the same; let the people who play the game make it theirs.