I am working on the setting section of Sertorius and making some decisions in terms of content/organization. Part of that is what to exclude. I am wondering if there are entries people feel detract from a game. Are there things you just don't want RPG settings to include?
I should note this is for a game I intend to publish and responses could inform the content.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;650450I am wondering if there are entries people feel detract from a game. Are there things you just don't want RPG settings to include?
All of it :)
In truth, this is an odd question. An author should include what he wants, and nothing that he doesn't want.
For my part...
The only thing I've ever encountered in a setting* that I disliked was modern politics clouding the past. For example, Deadlands where an never-ending Civil War and a world corrupted by evil resulted in the end of racism and sexism. Same with too much of Shadowrun.
Beh.
If a part of the world is disgusting to the author, it's best to just leave it out completely rather than wish it away. Let the buyer decide what to do with it.
Edit: *I should note that I only talking about settings that I would otherwise like. Truth to be told, there's not that many. But it is generally not because they decided to included this or that.
Ummm... For me? Don't lock everything down. Leave space for group level creativity. Use examples rather than infodumps. Basically, use a broad brush and don't sweat the details.
I will bet that runs directly contrary to what the people out there actually want though! :D
-clash
I don't want an assembled world. I want a way to assemble the world from parts.
Pile it on, the more the merrier. I mean that, lots of setting information please, if I don't like bits I can change it myself but it's much easier to change things than to come up with them in the first place. More monster manuals, more spells, more histories, more almanacs, more weather patterns, more politics, more iconic characters, more! Any hack can wheel out a few paragraphs of worldbuilding, what distinguishes a professional are the details.
The things that always annoy me the most are the things that have clearly been done in a rush because the writer felt they were needed; but was not actually interested enough to think through.
Item prices tend to fall into this category a lot; because as a writer its just a dull list - but for the GM and players it crops up every session.
Weather patterns/geography can often fall into this category as well. In a fantasy setting its fine to have a glacier in the middle of a lake of lava, but you should probably have at least *some* explanation thought out.
So yes, proving Clash's point, basically *do* sweat the details.
Oh god yes, no in-setting prose either.
I'm a sucker for maps and floorplans, but you were asking what NOT to include... hm, in-setting prose.
It really depends what kind of game it's for, and what scale the setting is at.
Personally, I'd like a "zooming in" approach. The world, a specific nation in that world, a specific region in that nation, and a specific city in that region (maybe a specific dungeon if your game does that) All getting roughly the same page count. As an example mostly suited to fantasy. You could also zoom in through governments organizations and individuals, empires planets and spaceports, etc. And it can be three in each instead of one in each or whatever works. You get the idea.
Likes: maps, see Harn. Nitty gritty detail, population levels, location names, etc., see Harn, the first Greyhawk module, Citystate, etc. Also, interesting cultures and beings, see Talislanta, Jorune.
Dislikes: metaplot, detailed characters, political relationships between NPCs, etc.
The first are things that I can reference to make my life easier as a GM and stir the creative juices, the second are things I'll come up with on my own and don't need preconceptions about and that tend to inhibit my creativity.
Shopping lists, soap opera recent history, and obscure ancient history. Oddly enough ephemera works great as rumor grist.
Shopping Lists: unless there's something notable and no obvious appraise value, don't give me reams of inventory and prices. It's easier to categorize things by time and place and tack on % mark up. So i.e. Roman Age goods, with North African emphasis, general markdown of 5%.
Soap Opera Recent History: Anything resembling 2e integration of novel main characters' heroics into the setting. Gloss if you must, but spare us the blow-by-blow breakdown with all 20+ proper names. At best place it as an aside, "Drizzt saved this kingdom and left a LG Halfling in charge during the Flatulence Wars in XYZ novel, if you so choose to incorporate."
Obscure Ancient History: a little goes a long way, and really the more well-known ancient history should be interesting enough. Knowing what vizier peed on which ambassador's shoe so as to prevent the marriage between two ancient lost kingdoms which gave rise to the saying, "pissing to prevent the bastard," is total TMI. That's flavor which should be left to GMs.
Ephemera like "Amplebottom makes the best fatcakes this side of the Shire. And on every third Sunday she fills them with sweetmeats and dandy plums!" though silly and forgettable actually pull double duty as rumor mill grist. They end up as rumors and flavor that can later end up as quests or even recurring NPCs. They also impart a sense of cultural attitudes without lengthy, dry explanation. Sprinkle a bit in.
Fuck timelines.
If I see a timeline at any point in a book it goes straight to my "sell" pile. Do not pass go, do not get played.
Quote from: gleichman;650454All of it :)
In truth, this is an odd question. An author should include what he wants, and nothing that he doesn't want.
I am working within a word count requirement because I need to set price and page count well before release and the amount of material I want to include would exceed this. I want to get some feedback on what people don't find helpful in terms of content to keep in the back of my mind when I make editorial decisions on this.
QuoteFor my part...
The only thing I've ever encountered in a setting* that I disliked was modern politics clouding the past. For example, Deadlands where an never-ending Civil War and a world corrupted by evil resulted in the end of racism and sexism. Same with too much of Shadowrun.
How do you feel about fantasy settings in this respect? I've already established the content of my setting, but just curious if this matters to you in a purely fantastic setting with no connection to our own world. I generally dont worry about real world history but try take the setting's history seriously (if it makes sense for slavery to be common.
Quote from: Piestrio;650512Fuck timelines.
If I see a timeline at any point in a book it goes straight to my "sell" pile. Do not pass go, do not get played.
Then you probably won't like this product. I have a historical timeline (primarily just to make it easy to see the history at a glance) as well as a vague chart of potential future events (which is largely there because we have a few spells allowing time travel and i figured it may be helpful for some GMs).
Quote from: Opaopajr;650509Shopping lists, soap opera recent history, and obscure ancient history. Oddly enough ephemera works great as rumor grist.
Shopping Lists: unless there's something notable and no obvious appraise value, don't give me reams of inventory and prices. It's easier to categorize things by time and place and tack on % mark up. So i.e. Roman Age goods, with North African emphasis, general markdown of 5%.
Soap Opera Recent History: Anything resembling 2e integration of novel main characters' heroics into the setting. Gloss if you must, but spare us the blow-by-blow breakdown with all 20+ proper names. At best place it as an aside, "Drizzt saved this kingdom and left a LG Halfling in charge during the Flatulence Wars in XYZ novel, if you so choose to incorporate."
Obscure Ancient History: a little goes a long way, and really the more well-known ancient history should be interesting enough. Knowing what vizier peed on which ambassador's shoe so as to prevent the marriage between two ancient lost kingdoms which gave rise to the saying, "pissing to prevent the bastard," is total TMI. That's flavor which should be left to GMs.
Ephemera like "Amplebottom makes the best fatcakes this side of the Shire. And on every third Sunday she fills them with sweetmeats and dandy plums!" though silly and forgettable actually pull double duty as rumor mill grist. They end up as rumors and flavor that can later end up as quests or even recurring NPCs. They also impart a sense of cultural attitudes without lengthy, dry explanation. Sprinkle a bit in.
Note to self: remove "The Pissing Contest of al-Fashal" from the history chapter.
I studied history in college so I do tend to write my history sections like histry books (so tends to be a bit dry). What I tried to do to make things more manageable for readers is divide the history section into two parts: history in broad strokes (which should be enough for most people) and a section giving more detailed histories of the major powers and regions.
Quote from: beejazz;650503It really depends what kind of game it's for, and what scale the setting is at.
Personally, I'd like a "zooming in" approach. The world, a specific nation in that world, a specific region in that nation, and a specific city in that region (maybe a specific dungeon if your game does that) All getting roughly the same page count. As an example mostly suited to fantasy. You could also zoom in through governments organizations and individuals, empires planets and spaceports, etc. And it can be three in each instead of one in each or whatever works. You get the idea.
It's a fantasy setting with a focus on spell spellcasters.
Quote from: apparition13;650508Likes: maps, see Harn. Nitty gritty detail, population levels, location names, etc., see Harn, the first Greyhawk module, Citystate, etc. Also, interesting cultures and beings, see Talislanta, Jorune.
Me and one of the other designers are fans of Harn, so that is going to be an influnce.
QuoteDislikes: metaplot, detailed characters, political relationships between NPCs, etc.
The first are things that I can reference to make my life easier as a GM and stir the creative juices, the second are things I'll come up with on my own and don't need preconceptions about and that tend to inhibit my creativity.
While there is no real metaplot like you have in vampire (we arent going to release books that infold things), I am a 2E era GM and that will have an infuence on some of the setting material.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;650638How do you feel about fantasy settings in this respect? I've already established the content of my setting, but just curious if this matters to you in a purely fantastic setting with no connection to our own world.
Fantasy settings can get away with a lot. Viewed from a High Fantasy PoV they are suppose to paint things bright white and darkest black, so having a nearly perfect fantasy Good Guy kingdom is rather acceptable.
That said, I'm so locked in a Middle Earth mindset that a place that completely escapes what I would call innocent "strangers are others, and thus suspicious" (labeled racism by many today) and reasonable (what most people now days would call) sexism would feel odd to me.
Meanwhile, I'm also of the mind that things can be too Dark. I'm not at all fond of LotFP style art or Carcosa writing as these are way pass the pale and represents the worse the hobby has to offer although the OSR is close in its own way.
Quote from: gleichman;650646Meanwhile, I'm also of the mind that things can be too Dark.
I agree things can be too dark. I am fine with settings that feel historical and dont paint things in terms of clearly being good or evil. At the same time I also like settings that have heroes and villains. This particular game leans more in being morally gray.
The setting for this game is inspired largely by my interest in ancient and middle east history. But it also is very anachronistic at times---in terms of our own history (there is a large coastal empire of halfling merchants modeled loosely on the Carthaginians but they have canons, coffee and more advanced armor).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;650653(there is a large coastal empire of halfling merchants modeled loosely on the Carthaginians but they have canons, coffee and more advanced armor).
For my part, things to leave out include "any non-human race from a Tolkien book", and "any setting that is clearly a real-world culture with the serial numbers filed off".
Fantasy should be
fantastic, not a rehash of the same old tropes and tripe from four decades of gaming.
Quote from: daniel_ream;650658For my part, things to leave out include "any non-human race from a Tolkien book", and "any setting that is clearly a real-world culture with the serial numbers filed off".
Fantasy should be fantastic, not a rehash of the same old tropes and tripe from four decades of gaming.
Then you probably won't like this game :)
No, and I don't expect to, nor do I expect you to change your business plan just to suit one outlier.
That said, I do think that fantasy gaming is as creatively moribund as fantasy fiction is. I don't think this is hurting it any economically, as the market seems to prefer warmed-over stale tropes, but I miss the Skyrealms of Jorune and Talislanta-esque settings.
I am not too fond of mundane details on what farmers, shopkeepers and feudal estates do. A cultural baseline is good, but too much of it ends up wasting space. I prefer setting information which is
- game-relevant (affects the way the players interact with the setting),
- colourful (focuses on the fantastic instead of the commonplace), and
- to the point.
Sometimes, the right kind of information on everyday life can mean a lot, like explaining the role of hospitality or barter in some pre-modern settings. But a lot of the time, it just ends up deadly dull, or overstays its welcome and squeezes out the good stuff.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;650653(there is a large coastal empire of halfling merchants modeled loosely on the Carthaginians but they have canons, coffee and more advanced armor).
CC&A, with those life can hardly get better.
Feel free to deluge me with a metric fuckton of setting info. I chop out whatever I don't like.
Here's a metaphor, that might get mangled in the posting.
Larry Niven once said (paraphrased) that in fantasy fiction, you have to describe the thumb well enough so that people think they've seen the whole hand. Describe a limited particular, and it implies the whole.
RPG's are different. Here, you describe parts of the whole well enough, that GM's can make up the rest.
This "making up the rest" is actually pretty important. It gives GM's the "room" to insert their own ideas into the campaign. Too much campaign detail, and GM's are too constricted. (IMHO.)
Monte Cook actually has a great approach to this — detailed in a post on your blog, now that I recall. So, my advice is to do that.
For everyone else, here's Monte's approach:
Instead of detailing every city to the exact same level of detail, you detail one city at a moderate level (key stats, general neighborhood outline, overview street map). In another city, you give more details, and in a third just the basics.
This leaves the cities open to GM interpretation. By describing one city in the region in detail, GM's can extrapolate from there, elaborating on those basic ideas as they see fit.
The goal, with an RPG, is to communicate the feel of the region/country/campaign world, and let GM's loose. "Roman Empire meets Chinese culture? Cool."
While this approach doesn't work for everyone — and can be odd when first encountered — it does seem like a great approach.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;652317Here's a metaphor, that might get mangled in the posting.
Larry Niven once said (paraphrased) that in fantasy fiction, you have to describe the thumb well enough so that people think they've seen the whole hand. Describe a limited particular, and it implies the whole.
RPG's are different. Here, you describe parts of the whole well enough, that GM's can make up the rest.
This "making up the rest" is actually pretty important. It gives GM's the "room" to insert their own ideas into the campaign. Too much campaign detail, and GM's are too constricted. (IMHO.)
Monte Cook actually has a great approach to this — detailed in a post on your blog, now that I recall. So, my advice is to do that.
For everyone else, here's Monte's approach:
Instead of detailing every city to the exact same level of detail, you detail one city at a moderate level (key stats, general neighborhood outline, overview street map). In another city, you give more details, and in a third just the basics.
This leaves the cities open to GM interpretation. By describing one city in the region in detail, GM's can extrapolate from there, elaborating on those basic ideas as they see fit.
The goal, with an RPG, is to communicate the feel of the region/country/campaign world, and let GM's loose. "Roman Empire meets Chinese culture? Cool."
While this approach doesn't work for everyone — and can be odd when first encountered — it does seem like a great approach.
Monte's blog entry on that was pretty good. I think it makes sense. However I also think there are details you sometimes want to comprehensively cover. While I might not want every city or province detailed, having the names and minor details of all the governors, mayors, kings, etc can be helpful (at least I usually find that helpful). But I do like the approach of detailing representative samples for each region.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;652317By describing one city in the region in detail, GM's can extrapolate from there, elaborating on those basic ideas as they see fit.
In archaeology, it is common practice to classify all sites from a particular discovered culture with the name of first site that was uncovered. This leads to some awkwardness when, as is often the case, the first site is not at all typical of the culture.
The danger in the approach you're describing is that subsequent writers will treat the first city/region as a kind of
ur-city which provides a template for all the others, when that might not be the author's intent. You can end up with the Chicago By Night/Milwaukee By Night problem, or to use an OSR reference pretty much the entire corpus of AD&D 1st ed. modules.
Quote from: daniel_ream;652340The danger in the approach you're describing is that subsequent writers will treat the first city/region as a kind of ur-city which provides a template for all the others, when that might not be the author's intent.
That is a good point — you don't want the detailed city to become a cliche, or for every other city to be a photocopy of that.
I'm assuming, for this example, that Brendan & co-writer are the ones writing their own material, so they can elaborate, or not, as they see fit.
I would also include in the material a note saying "This
is typical for Fooistan. Others are not detailed, and for the most part won't ever be, so GM's should feel free to make up whatever serves their campaign the best."
Always make it clear what you're doing.
Again, this approach won't suit every situation, but it seems like it could be a match for Brendan's.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;652351I'm assuming, for this example, that Brendan & co-writer are the ones writing their own material, so they can elaborate, or not, as they see fit.
Yes, this is the case. I also do not intend to fully embrace Monte's approach. In some places it just won't work as well as others and some details I really want in the book regardless
QuoteAgain, this approach won't suit every situation, but it seems like it could be a match for Brendan's.
I am taking it case by case. On paper the approach sounds great, but we are detailing a whole continent with a wide variety of cultures and governments. The halfling's for example have colonial cities on coasts and islands all over the southern region of the setting, and each one is pretty unique because there are local elements interacting with the halfing culture. These cities also come in several different types. So it would be difficult to just detail one of those cities and expect the GM to extrapolate from it. Also, even though the amount of detail will vary from entry to entry, I do want to have a description (even if small in some cases) of everything labeled on the map. So I wouldn't take his idea to the extreme of leaving out actual entries and just letting the GM ride with earlier examples. I personally find it a bit frustrating if something is important enought to get a name on the map (whether its a tribe, kingdom, city or ruin) but it has no description in the book. For me, I am using the idea more as a way to guide how much detail each entry gets.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652371I personally find it a bit frustrating if something is important enought to get a name on the map (whether its a tribe, kingdom, city or ruin) but it has no description in the book. For me, I am using the idea more as a way to guide how much detail each entry gets.
It sounds like you've hit on an approach that suits your needs: detail what needs to be detailed, at the level of detail necessary. That's a good rule of thumb, and there's no need to didactically follow Monte's ideas. (Not that I would have recommended that, in any case.)
I'm looking forward to seeing the final product.
I'd describe Daddy Warpigs' Monte reference as Macro-to-Micro design with Finished Examples. I prefer Macro-to-Micro design. Though I appreciate Finished Examples, I agree with daniel_ream's concern that people can extrapolate cookie cutter assumptions from there.
What I found helps me is broad brush strokes to rapidly provide a Macro-to-Micro framework, but provide a smaller Finished Example or two on the scale of an NPC or singular Locale. Especially so when I have huge swaths of territory to cover, this technique I picked up from Birthright by experience helps save me time. I'd like to think it also conveys to players well, and thus would work as well with GMs, but then I play games not design products to be sold, so...
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;652378It sounds like you've hit on an approach that suits your needs: detail what needs to be detailed, at the level of detail necessary. That's a good rule of thumb, and there's no need to didactically follow Monte's ideas. (Not that I would have recommended that, in any case.)
I'm looking forward to seeing the final product.
We just did a public playtesting at Boston Gameday and it was quite succesful. Will probably be out in about a year. Most of the core mechanics are pretty much finished and it is mainly about refining, fixing and finding the weak bits. The setting is about half finished (i know all the broad outlines though). I did the first half while GMing a campaign. Now I have switched to being a player in a campaign run by Bill, which is giving me a fresh perspective for the second half. What we do now is I submit the material to Bill as he needs it for the campaign, and it works great because his first time reading the it is when he preps for the adventure.
I have a lot of the same decision making issues writing background stuff and mine isn't even for publication.
As far as detailed histories go I have come to the decision that I write about the place/person first and if I feel I need to mention something from the past like a murder or political uprising that will be more detailed in the history section but otherwise if it doesn't have a noticeable effect on present day circumstances I usually don't write about it history wise.
I think less is more is the best idiom. If I go to read it myself during editing and find myself skipping some part then most likely that part needs to come out. If it bored me then I pity others :)
What you need, when writing history, isn't an encyclopedia entry. What you need is a mythos.
A mythos is "history as story" that explains your setting.
The mythos of Shadowrun is the Awakening — it explains how all these elves, dwarves, and dragons came to exist in the world of the future.
The mythos of Deadlands is the Reckoning, which explains where the monsters and powers of the setting came from.
The mythos of The Lord of the Rings is the tale of Sauron, the forging of the rings, and how he lost it.
This last is especially illuminating. The mythos is just a small subset of the history of Middle Earth, which is vast in scope and detailed. It even comes into the novels — when Aragorn tells Bilbo to include a green gem in his poem about Eärendil.
But for the novels themselves, the only story people need to know is the mythos of Sauron. And Tolkien summarizes it in the famous poem that opens the book. ("One ring to rule them all", etc.)
All you need for the setting as a whole is the mythos that sets up the present day campaign setting. Other pieces of history may be necessary in different places, but only the mythos is de rigueur.
Quote from: Piestrio;650512Fuck timelines.
If I see a timeline at any point in a book it goes straight to my "sell" pile. Do not pass go, do not get played.
Just curious, what is it about timelines that you dislike?
It looks like word count considerations will limit the amount of detail I can include (because I need to leave room for other sections as well, notably the monsters). I am going to be able to have entries for everything on the world map (turns out this is a lot more than I originally thought), and some will be quite lengthy as needed. Others will need to be smaller. Depending on the place, size will range from one paragraph to several pages. The smaller entries will be suggestive, serving to give the GM room to create and explore, but also giving a a small kernel of inspiration. The larger entries will go into some detail with political structures, religion, economy, etc. Even with some of the entries being smaller, the word count for the setting chapter is going to be quite large due to the size of the world.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;652490What you need, when writing history, isn't an encyclopedia entry. What you need is a mythos.
A mythos is "history as story" that explains your setting.
The mythos of Shadowrun is the Awakening — it explains how all these elves, dwarves, and dragons came to exist in the world of the future.
The mythos of Deadlands is the Reckoning, which explains where the monsters and powers of the setting came from.
The mythos of The Lord of the Rings is the tale of Sauron, the forging of the rings, and how he lost it.
This last is especially illuminating. The mythos is just a small subset of the history of Middle Earth, which is vast in scope and detailed. It even comes into the novels — when Aragorn tells Bilbo to include a green gem in his poem about Eärendil.
But for the novels themselves, the only story people need to know is the mythos of Sauron. And Tolkien summarizes it in the famous poem that opens the book. ("One ring to rule them all", etc.)
All you need for the setting as a whole is the mythos that sets up the present day campaign setting. Other pieces of history may be necessary in different places, but only the mythos is de rigueur.
I have to agree with this. I can't always tell you a full list of what I hate but I can definitely tell you what I love. I will buy an RPG book just to read the mythos and the possibilities related to it.
Quote from: Bobpool;663091I have to agree with this. I can't always tell you a full list of what I hate but I can definitely tell you what I love. I will buy an RPG book just to read the mythos and the possibilities related to it.
I am not sure whether our history and lore will be to your liking or not. It is a blend of the two. The lore aspect explains the rise and fall of ogre civilization and the introduction of magic into the world. There is also straight history as well. I wrote two sections, one for history in broad strokes followed by specific histories of key areas. There are only a few specific histories. After this is a lore section filled with less reliable oral traditions and legends (these are mostly used to explain things like how the elves went fom essentially being slaves to nomadic tribes and why there are three major groups of elves).
We want the book to be about three hundred pages. So this is the main thing limiting how much i can do in each area. The setting section was growing too fast and it would have engulfed other parts of the book if I hadn't allowed for smaller entries. The history section is similar, in that i had to reduce the number of detailed specific histories to make room for other chapters and the appendix. If we increased these two sections, my only other choice would be to go to about four hundred pages (because if we did a lower number between 320 to 370, the cover price would be too high for the page count). And at four hundred pages, the price would still be higher than I would ever want our books to be (plus i dont like the idea of a 400 page beast, 300 seems more maneagable for players and GMs).
Quote from: daniel_ream;650692I would also include in the material a note saying "This is typical for Fooistan. Others are not detailed, and for the most part won't ever be, so GM's should feel free to make up whatever serves their campaign the best."
If I were making a wish list, this would be at the top. I don't want to retcon anything when your next book comes out, so if you intend to use a specific setting location and expand on it greatly, a hint would be great. Take RIFTS for example, a new book may plant a half million people in an abandoned wilderness. Or destroy an entire city moments after describing it. That may all be great setting material, but if you have detailed those parts of the world in a different way, now future material has less value. Paizo actually scares me quite a bit in the same manner. You get a paragraph, if you're lucky, on something that screams 'awesome playground'. Now you have to decide whether to run the risk of fleshing it out only to be contradicted later.
Quote from: mcbobbo;663248If I were making a wish list, this would be at the top. I don't want to retcon anything when your next book comes out, so if you intend to use a specific setting location and expand on it greatly, a hint would be great. Take RIFTS for example, a new book may plant a half million people in an abandoned wilderness. Or destroy an entire city moments after describing it. That may all be great setting material, but if you have detailed those parts of the world in a different way, now future material has less value. Paizo actually scares me quite a bit in the same manner. You get a paragraph, if you're lucky, on something that screams 'awesome playground'. Now you have to decide whether to run the risk of fleshing it out only to be contradicted later.
If I understand your concern, you are worried about setting material being introduced, then taken away in later books through stuff like metaplot? If I misunderstood let me know, as I think you and daniel are raising interesting points.
In the case of Sertorius, we wont be releasing any metaplot books or altering the timeline of the setting. We give a shot of the world as it is now, with some suggestions for how it may play out in the future (because divination is a crucial skill in the game). So in the NPC section, each charcater has a past, present and future entry. But the future is presented as possibilities, it isnt written in stone. It may say something like "Veja's power is growing and if he makes the right alliances, he will secure his reign for several decades. However members of his family plot against him." This is both to give the gm adventure ideas, but also so he has something to hang his hat on if the players make a Divination attempt on Veja.
As to hinting at stuff, I did do a bit of that. Basically writing what I frlt I would find helpful or inspiring as a GM reading the material. I also stopped running the games myself and am having my business partner run them. That way, I hand him the setting text and he has to work with it to run a game. This is helping us find where to add material and where to eliminate material. I am still looking for more GMs to playtest the setting though. The best feedback so far has been from people who have never played our system or games.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;663168I am not sure whether our history and lore will be to your liking or not. It is a blend of the two. The lore aspect explains the rise and fall of ogre civilization and the introduction of magic into the world. There is also straight history as well. I wrote two sections, one for history in broad strokes followed by specific histories of key areas. There are only a few specific histories. After this is a lore section filled with less reliable oral traditions and legends (these are mostly used to explain things like how the elves went fom essentially being slaves to nomadic tribes and why there are three major groups of elves).
We want the book to be about three hundred pages. So this is the main thing limiting how much i can do in each area. The setting section was growing too fast and it would have engulfed other parts of the book if I hadn't allowed for smaller entries. The history section is similar, in that i had to reduce the number of detailed specific histories to make room for other chapters and the appendix. If we increased these two sections, my only other choice would be to go to about four hundred pages (because if we did a lower number between 320 to 370, the cover price would be too high for the page count). And at four hundred pages, the price would still be higher than I would ever want our books to be (plus i dont like the idea of a 400 page beast, 300 seems more maneagable for players and GMs).
That is a lot! Do you think the 300 pages is just a self imposed limit? If you hit 400 pages but everything is just insanely useful content to help GMs world craft, wouldn't that be more helpful than cutting out something important?
Here's the two rules of thumb I'd suggest:
(1) Try to avoid saying "never" or "can't". Shutting off a possibility is almost never as much fun as leaving that possibility open.
(2) Whenever possible, try to frame and present the information in a way which makes it immediately game-able.
There are obviously exceptions to both of these rules of thumb, but I find them useful.
You may be surprised with the latter rule, in particular, because it often requires less space to make something game-able than not. That's because making something game-able often means effectively showing instead of telling.
For example, I've recently been reading Eclipse Phase supplements. (They're pretty great, but I'm going to pick on them any way due to convenience.) In Panopticon the authors spend a great deal of time trying to explain just how incredibly pervasive sensor technology has become in the transhuman future and what that means in terms of day-to-day operations. They spend something like half a dozen pages on this. And the whole time I'm thinking:
"Just give me a set of tables that I can roll on to determine whether the PCs are currently being observed and, if so, what type of sensors are observing them."
Quote from: Justin Alexander;663455Here's the two rules of thumb I'd suggest:
(1) Try to avoid saying "never" or "can't". Shutting off a possibility is almost never as much fun as leaving that possibility open.
(2) Whenever possible, try to frame and present the information in a way which makes it immediately game-able.
There are obviously exceptions to both of these rules of thumb, but I find them useful.
You may be surprised with the latter rule, in particular, because it often requires less space to make something game-able than not. That's because making something game-able often means effectively showing instead of telling.
For example, I've recently been reading Eclipse Phase supplements. (They're pretty great, but I'm going to pick on them any way due to convenience.) In Panopticon the authors spend a great deal of time trying to explain just how incredibly pervasive sensor technology has become in the transhuman future and what that means in terms of day-to-day operations. They spend something like half a dozen pages on this. And the whole time I'm thinking:
"Just give me a set of tables that I can roll on to determine whether the PCs are currently being observed and, if so, what type of sensors are observing them."
I try to do the later. It is challenge, because I also want reading the book itself to feel smooth and enjoyable. My own personal preference is something of a mix. At a certain point, descriptions have too much text to be useful in play (it is hard to sift through paragraphs looking for the one piece of info you need). On the other hand, as a GM i find a bit of evocative text about thebsetting to read about between games helps get me excited about prepping material and gives me ideas. Right now some of the sections are bigger than they ought to be and I plan to edit them down some more. Some setting entries go into heavy detail, and if you are going to run those, it is best to read them before starting play. The are not flowery or anything like that, i just tried to pack them with information. Those are mainly the very important regions. So if you want to run something in the Caelum Republic, you will want to read that first. But if your players venture into Eshpar Province or travel to the Horgel Tribe territory in the south, those entries are short and to the point (usually or two paragraphs).
I am also hedging by creating a large appendix with lots of reference material. This is where encounter tables, political titles by region, king lists, glossary of terms and other details can be found (they can be found in some of the text of the book as well, at least in part, but this is where you go if you need that stuff at a glance).
Quote from: Justin Alexander;663455Here's the two rules of thumb I'd suggest:
(1) Try to avoid saying "never" or "can't". Shutting off a possibility is almost never as much fun as leaving that possibility open.
(2) Whenever possible, try to frame and present the information in a way which makes it immediately game-able.
There are obviously exceptions to both of these rules of thumb, but I find them useful.
You may be surprised with the latter rule, in particular, because it often requires less space to make something game-able than not. That's because making something game-able often means effectively showing instead of telling.
For example, I've recently been reading Eclipse Phase supplements. (They're pretty great, but I'm going to pick on them any way due to convenience.) In Panopticon the authors spend a great deal of time trying to explain just how incredibly pervasive sensor technology has become in the transhuman future and what that means in terms of day-to-day operations. They spend something like half a dozen pages on this. And the whole time I'm thinking:
"Just give me a set of tables that I can roll on to determine whether the PCs are currently being observed and, if so, what type of sensors are observing them."
I try to do the latter. It is challenge, because I also want reading the book itself to feel smooth and enjoyable. My own personal preference is something of a mix. At a certain point, descriptions have too much text to be useful in play (it is hard to sift through paragraphs looking for the one piece of info you need). On the other hand, as a GM i find a bit of evocative text about thebsetting to read about between games helps get me excited about prepping material and gives me ideas. Right now some of the sections are bigger than they ought to be and I plan to edit them down some more. Some setting entries go into heavy detail, and if you are going to run those, it is best to read them before starting play. The are not flowery or anything like that, i just tried to pack them with information. Those are mainly the very important regions. So if you want to run something in the Caelum Republic, you will want to read that first. But if your players venture into Eshpar Province or travel to the Horgel Tribe territory in the south, those entries are short and to the point (usually or two paragraphs).
I am also hedging by creating a large appendix with lots of reference material. This is where encounter tables, political titles by region, king lists, glossary of terms and other details can be found (they can be found in some of the text of the book as well, at least in part, but this is where you go if you need that stuff at a glance).
Quote from: Bobpool;663445That is a lot! Do you think the 300 pages is just a self imposed limit? If you hit 400 pages but everything is just insanely useful content to help GMs world craft, wouldn't that be more helpful than cutting out something important?
It is self imposed, but mainly due to not wanting to increase the price (and I dont think the additional info we could include with 400 pages would be worth the extra cost to most gamers). Certainly if we had an extra 100 pages of pure gold that I felt people would find useful, i would reconsider, but as it is I think there is going to be plenty we can edit down without losing much (in fact, this will probably improve the final manuscript and make it easier to read). My only real concern at this point is making sure there is enough room to have a lot of monsters. I can comfortable whittle down some of the other sections if I need, but that is a key reference section that should only gain weight as we get closer to release.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;663455Here's the two rules of thumb I'd suggest:
(1) Try to avoid saying "never" or "can't". Shutting off a possibility is almost never as much fun as leaving that possibility open.
Can you give some eamples of this? I think I know what you mean but not 100% certin and it seems like an important point. If I do understand, I tend to avoid writing in absolutes when it comes to setting (mechnics are a different story).
By the thanks to all who have posted their thoughts here. This is very helpful feedback so far.
History of the Universe going back to creation to now.
Unless that all matters to the character's immediate setting/ situation (like they are scions of deities) does it make any difference?
Just give me "now" with a little historical background about what happened "then" and how it impacts now.