In my last post, I missed out on some supplement categories. Well, two categories and some subcategories are what I can think of off the top of my head:
- Modules: These materials detail a series of encounters. This doesn’t really fit under the labels of either Mechanics or Setting, though most adventures include setting so I guess there’s a case to be made that this is a subcategory of that in its most generic sense.
- Meta discussion: These supplements are more about how to play the game in a more general sense outside of the rules. This typically takes the form of advice and suggestions on how to do things like how to run a certain type of game, how to handle a certain type of player, how to modify the game to get a desired play style. Heck, discussion of play style fits in here as well.
- Gear: These supplements detail equipment: weapons, tools, armour, etc. This is really a subcategory of mechanics.
- Characters: These supplements detail characters in the world. Can include rules, but this is typically mostly setting.
These supplement categories I forgot to include because I rarely pick up supplements of the above type (not to mention that I think that half of them are instances of the previous two, Mechanics and Settings).
It’s interesting (to me at least, in that I’ve never really given it much thought) that due to the nature of RPGs, you’ll always have a setting, even if it’s an “implied setting”, i.e., a setting that is not spelled out but is nevertheless there when you run the game due to the rules. Because a game has to be set somewhere, and the nature of defining the rules will create an implied setting automatically if you don’t choose to use an explicit setting. And there will always be an implied setting whether you have an explicit one or not. It occurs to me this is also why some games can feel like they have a mismatch of setting and mechanics – because the setting tells us one thing is true while the rules (and thus the implied setting) are telling us another.