Wrote a new blog today about how much setting should go in a rulebook. It's different for every game, but I feel a lot of games put too much lore in with the rules.
I know it's really hip to have your setting lean on your mechanics and vice versa, so neither works great without another, but I am more of a fan of rules that support tone and play patterns that reinforce genre more than specific settings. Probably mostly because I am not big on learning a lot about a setting before I feel good about running a game.
I also like to have lots of room to improv and make a setting my own. I know you can do that with any setting, but I just feel more confident doing that with less definition in the setting.
I could probably drop a little something more into my rulebook as a stinger to get people excited about what kind of fiction the game presents. I guess that could be interpreted as setting, or at least adjacent.
Curious about what other think about this topic.
https://infantofatocha.itch.io/chronomutants/devlog/572397/whats-a-paradox-war-anyway
Since the Dolmenwood Kickstarter just launched: That is too much setting for me. I would take a look for inspiration but I would never run it out of the book. Too constraining. Instead I tailor the setting to the player characters.
Even as a player, I would feel pressured to get all the background right. The freedom to just invent something on the fly is nicer.
I agree with that sentiment. Been a little surprised by how many folks responded to say that they like a lot of lore because they feel like they don't have to prep that way.