I had this idea of a gonzo campaign world that would merge many genres together, and would be inspired by several conspiracy theories. However, before beginning work on this idea, I thought: "so what?".

Before all, the setting:

Earth in the future, as a post-apocalyptic campaign world. However, instead of Mad-Max and irradiated wastelands, I was thinking more about the 70' Logan's Run TV show (sorry, but I loved this one, even if it was ultra kitch and low on budget) with a dash of Swords of Shannara. So, a ruined world, with small pockets of human cultures here and there, amidst ruins of ancient times and forgotten technology. Then, elves, dwarves, etc., exist, except they were genetically enginereed from humasn and maybe intra-terrestrials.

And there is more: as per some conspiracy theories that I just love (even though I will never know the truth alas), humans were in fact originally created by intra-terrestrials several thousands of years ago. That is, by the Annunaki, who merged gorilla DNA with the DNA of an intra-terrestrial species. So now the setting explains that Earth is an empty shell with a huge fire in its center, acting as its sun. This will come with a superficially very plausible physics explanation, merged with the theory of "Expanding Earth". As such the Annunaki didn't come from another planet, but were descended from dinausors and evolved inside the Earth, were gravity is lower, temperature more stable, daylight permanent though more dim, etc.

As such, the campaign can be (and should occur) both on surface and inner Earth. Of course the intra-terrestrials / annunaki have ultra advanced technology, but some weaknesses too (mainly against atomic bombs and eletromagnetic pulses, since all their tech is electricity and magnetic based), and furthermore there are enemy factions of these intra-terrestrials inside the Earth. Mankind was meant to be the slave workforce of one of these factions, but another faction maneuvered so most of humans were wiped, and later they also created their own slaves (i.e.: elves, etc.). Of course, most of these reptilian intra-terrestrial aliens are evil.

So we have three levels of tech: medieval (swords, etc.), bits and remains of human tech from the 21th century, and extremely alien advanced tech. There could also be magic: priests are humans genetically enginereed (and also getting an implant in their brain) so they get spells from their masters (while they believe to serve God). Ah, by the way, another great conspiracy theory that you might also appreciate here, that will tell you what I mean. (This one I truly love it, because it's not just mere intellectual speculation; there is something there...)


So, an ambitious campaign setting. But is this truly necessary to have fun?

I would say, for the players, "not particularly."  For the GM?  That's a different story; for a long while in my gaming career, I didn't have anyone around me who played TTRPGs, so the only way I could indulge my favorite hobby was to read new games and build worlds, even knowing they'd never be inhabited by real players' characters.  So I'd say, go for it.  HTH

(shrugs)  People like what they like.  I've known gamers who'd eat that premise up; I've known gamers who'd sneer in derision.  If you want to do it, and you've got players who'd buy into it, why not?

Quote from: CausticJedi;1017549I would say, for the players, "not particularly."

It's also what I suspect.

By the way, what I was thinking about, was writing a nice campaign setting to sell in POD and PDF someday, but something not necessarily fantasy medieval. Something with sci-fi elements.

Phil Barker worked on Tekumel for 30 or 40 years before he started running games on it.  The advantage of a huge game world is that it is always fresh and interesting for players and referee both.  There is always something to do.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1017558Phil Barker worked on Tekumel for 30 or 40 years before he started running games on it.  The advantage of a huge game world is that it is always fresh and interesting for players and referee both.  There is always something to do.

As long as your ref is cool with you upsetting his carefully constructed vision as PCs tend to do.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017552(shrugs)  People like what they like.  I've known gamers who'd eat that premise up; I've known gamers who'd sneer in derision.  If you want to do it, and you've got players who'd buy into it, why not?

This.  

In a way it's strong tea, but firmly in the tradition of gonzo type settings.  I suspect it ultimately depends on how you run it.

For myself, I like gonzo if done constrained and internally consistent; I typically don't like elves and dwarves in such a gonzo mix.  Or even if had them, they would be modified humans without any of the typical fantasy trop personalities or abilities.  

For example, "elves" may have large pointy ears and knight vision, to track down run away human slaves and serve as scouts in colder realms where the lizard masters do not wish to go.  But they would behave like humans, and likely have shorter life spans due to the modifications.  My "dwarves" in this situation would be shortened humans meant to work the mines (which are actually up) here being short cuts down on tunnel overhead.  They may be well trained in all things mechanical for their job, but otherwise have drawbacks to keep them in line, like myopia, and other reduced "non-essential" senses.  Can only imagine it was the "dwarves" that aided the humans to escape to the surface.

I guess I like gritty-gonzo or versus cartoon gonzo, unless the cartoon is Heavy Metal.

When I was younger, we ate up detailed settings. Now I have a hard time getting players to browse through a 2-page summary.

Detail can be good for you as the GM, but I have been introducing setting bits in small doses as we game. Seems like it "sticks" better.

I love it when the GM has a rich and interesting world for me to play in. During the course of the game bits and pieces of the world's story come to light it and it gives such a great context to what our characters are doing. I say go for it!

My only caveat is that you must make sure that the game is about the characters and not about the world. Their actions (and consequences) should be the focus of the game. Once the world and the activities of NPCs becomes more important you've lost me.

Quote from: trechriron;1017562When I was younger, we ate up detailed settings. Now I have a hard time getting players to browse through a 2-page summary.

Detail can be good for you as the GM, but I have been introducing setting bits in small doses as we game. Seems like it "sticks" better.

It's true that players won't care about all the background.  But it's handy for the referee; the more time spent in setup, the more the world, and the game, will continue along with little additional work needed.  And the player WILL notice that there's always something to do.

I think a vivid and unusual background is of interest to players (eg. the continuing popularity of Dark Sun, Yoon-Suin, etc) if it is revealed through the gameplay, ie. NPCs, the structures and the adventures themselves.

Avoid any 'infodumps' where a NPC or scroll or you as the GM ramble on for minutes about the history of the place. Lots of modern fantasy and sf (past and present) suffers from that lazy tactic.

Probably the best example for dropping setting details in a subtle way that doesn't disrupt the flow I can think of are more in fiction than game products: Heinlein's science fiction juveniles of the 50s are still exemplars of this technique. I'm reading Citizen of the Galaxy right now but anything from Red Planet to Have Spacesuit will Travel will do, also other writers like early Delany, Russ' Alyx stories and Le Guin's Earthsea.

[Edit - regarding the OP]

If a player is a fantasist, then probably.  There is often a presumption that the generic D&D player is a fantasist.  

But if the player is an action-oriented sort, then probably not.  The world is the necessary thing for them to trod upon.  However well-crafted the details, they are largely irrelevant if not immediately useable.  

All that really matters though is whether the DM enjoys creating fictional worlds.  For if they do, the question of whether anyone else's enjoyment is enhanced by the DM's effort isn't a material one.  Barker working 30 years on a campaign world would be nothing but a tragic waste of time if the measure of value was the increase in enjoyment during RPG play over a more typical DM's world.

On the more general question on the value of highly developed settings ... well.  This spring will be the 40th anniversary of the start of my campaign.  I've put ferocious work into it.  I know the location of every temple to every deity in the world, and the shortest writeup of those deities is twelve pages.  The kingdom in which my lead group is based?  There's at least a paragraph on eleven hundred businesses in the capital, and at least sixty businesses described in every provincial capital.  Every village within two days' ride of the capital's got a several page writeup.  There are folk holidays and folk customs, and these vary depending on where in the kingdom you are.  I can tell you the livery (or lack thereof) of every military unit, national or provincial, the name and ID of every naval ship, the numbers and tonnage of every merchantman and out of what port they're based.  I haven't named and described every mage in the kingdom, but I do know their orders and relative power level, from apprentice on up to the Grand Master in the capital.

It's an immense amount of work, but what that does for me at the table is that I have to invent damn near nothing on the spot: I already have it.  I don't have to worry that I described the lead market in Thelamie Town as being the Sufontis Market and closed in (hey, wait, that was really Seasteadholm, wasn't it?) at a run three years ago and being the Silver Acre and open air pushcarts last month.  Not only does that make plot details I already have written down, but I can devote my headspace to something else to make the run more enjoyable.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017584I don't have to worry that I described the lead market in Thelamie Town as being the Sufontis Market and closed in (hey, wait, that was really Seasteadholm, wasn't it?) at a run three years ago and being the Silver Acre and open air pushcarts last month.

I understand and agree with you for the most part, but as far as I'm concerned, if neither I nor any of my players can remember what the market was like three years ago, it doesn't matter how I describe it now.

But I totally get the love of building it all.

If world building adds to the GM's conception of the way the world works, it is likely to make him/her a better GM. I personally prefer, these days, to build from inside out, and let the world work as it becomes. Consistency of the players in it, their agendas, reactions, their evolution, alongside the characters, is what's most important to me. I'm not sure my players give a hoot in hell as to how that comes about. I mean, I appreciate a good setting, but, in the end, we're still the same kids playing make believe with dice. Extensive world building is a labor of love, sure, but, these days, I'd rather love more and labor less, when it comes to gaming.