Maybe this is just me, but I think in that huge gap between canon fidelity and setting parody, there are different tripping points.  If I'm going to bother to run an established setting, I don't care about canon but I do care to know enough about the setting to understand its feel.  Running Forgotten Realms, I wouldn't feel compelled to honor anything after the (early) established campaign point, but I do want the kinds of adventures that happen in the various FR media to set the tone and expectations of what is possible.  I wouldn't, for example, want to run a FR campaign with an ancient Greece myth feel.  (I might start with a "FR as Ancient Greece" mashup concept, but I wouldn't pitch that to the players.  I'd just steal shameless from FR locations and maps and so forth.)  Roughly, I think of this as "taking the setting seriously", or at least as seriously as you can take any pretend elf games.  Maybe "taking the setting on its own terms."

This is why I never will run Star Trek and will never run Star Wars again.  I'm incapable of running either as anything but parody, because I take both less seriously than even "own their own terms."  I don't have players that care about canon.  I do have players that do want to take those on their own terms. 

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 22, 2021, 07:34:58 AM

Quote from: S'mon on March 22, 2021, 05:14:18 AM
BTW last night I checked how my 2 mile/hex map above compared to the S John Ross Medieval Demographics Made Easy numbers.

The typical fantasy map is indeed silly, but bear in mind that most rpg settings are "the marches" - they're more like Dark Ages Britain than medieval Britain. 600, not 1200. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire, waves of plague, some climate change reducing crop yields, are all thought to have dropped Europe's population from 400-600, with it being more or less stable overall 600-1000, and growing from there.

It's not commonly-appreciated, but the setting of the world of Greyhawk is essentially like that, with a (former) Great Kingdom which has after many wars and plagues shrunk, leaving behind many smaller principalities ruled by - well, barbarians. With far fewer people, and much poorer.

Into Dark Ages Britain came waves of invaders and migrants - there was land to spare, and even when not spare it was poorly-defended. This was the time of Beowulf and Sigurd and the Rheingold, a time where an ambitious man who fought and led well could make himself a king - of a small kingdom, of course, only small - but a king nonetheless.

So while a population density like that of a typical rpg fantasy map makes sense, one lower than medieval Europe makes sense, too. War, plagues and barbarian invasions bringing about the destruction of many lives and the fall of a great king - D&D is commonly a postapocalyptic setting. It's Mad Max with swords.

Nice post. Yeah, I tend to go for that dark age/post-apoc feel, so populations more around 10/sq mile not 100/sq mile. A lot of fantasy settings are under 1/sq mile even in supposedly settled areas & that really strains my credulity though.

This is why my system's default setting consists of a single 100 x 150 mile map with a few names for places just off the map (i.e. if you follow the Ironspar River upstream you'll reach the kingdom of Ironhold; the old King's Road leads through the mountains to the Blood Wastes of Bestia) and split all the details on this region into the player species history sections and as example results when using the Region Building chapter (not anything an experienced GM would need, but the world is full of amateurs).

The result should be enough to play in the region while still having plenty of open room to add whatever details you wish.

Total population density for the whole map is ridiculously low (c. 10/sq. mi.), but this is a bit misleading as maybe 10% of the map is actually "civilized lands" (along the fertile banks of a Mississippi-sized river with good fishing and yields augmented by magic) where population density is extremely high (c. 200/sq. mile.) and the remainder is monster-haunted wilderness (less than 1/sq. mi.).

So even on the basic regional map there's room to plop another few good sized (for the setting) realms down onto it if you needed to... or, just as easily, run through the Region Creation guidelines and drop your own region onto the map dozens, hundreds or even thousands of miles from the default setting.

There's also a lot of flexibility inside the player species too. There's no pre-set number of types of beastmen, eldritch or mutants and the backgrounds and classes are deliberately setting agnostic to help you shape your region and make it yours.

My follow-up plans are to stick close to the default regions and add more to the places just off the borders; so as to leave as much of the world as possible open to aspiring GMs. By my rough estimates, the total area I care to detail amounts to about 0.01% of the Earth's landmass so for those worried about too much detail the other 99.99% (plus all the seas which are three times that) is yours to do with as you wish.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 22, 2021, 07:34:58 AM
War, plagues and barbarian invasions bringing about the destruction of many lives and the fall of a great king - D&D is commonly a postapocalyptic setting. It's Mad Max with swords.

An option for sure. That was then, this is Now.
You might know what Was there ...

Quote from: S'mon on March 22, 2021, 05:01:08 AM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 21, 2021, 11:06:58 PM
From my experience, you are the exception. What I've found is that people that want to play a game in a specific setting are also the same people that want the setting to match the published material. (Otherwise, what is the point?)

The point of using the setting is a GM resource to make the game easier and more fun. Nothing to do with canon-wank.

FWIW I have one Faerun fan in my groups, he has never complained about deviations from canon. He likes to make long posts about his PCs' backstories, about the cultures of the Realms. I've never found this harmful to my game; usually it adds to the game. If something was different IMC I'd point it out, but I've never seen an issue. He did once refer to Gareth Dragonsbane being King of Damara, but for an outsider PC that would be an easy mistake for his PC to make IC.

I think GMs worry about canon far more than players do.

I am similar to S'mon. I like using familiar settings because it is a resource to make the game easier. Especially, I like well-understood settings because they can cut down on the learning curve - and let you jump into gaming without asking lots of questions about what things look like, how people think, etc. The real world (including historical settings) is especially great for this - but some common settings can function like this too. If I run a Star Wars game, players can jump in instantly and have character ideas they create and start playing - rather than having hours of explanation about what ships are like, what technology is, etc.

I also agree with S'mon that GMs are more likely to worry about canon. That said, I have seen cases where players complained about canon. I think it is better to draw a harsh dividing line over what you include or don't include - so players who know more about the setting have a clear idea about what they can expect and what they can't. For some examples:

1) I ran an original-series-era Star Trek campaign where I specified that the TV episodes should be treated as if they were in-character "based on a true story" fiction in that world. This easily allows that there is dramatization, and I don't have to stick to specific lines of dialog or little details, but the broad strokes were accurate.

2) As S'mon says, working in a smaller-scale pocket within the setting. It can also help if the campaign setting is a little off-center from the canon. For example, I also ran a campaign based on Naomi Novik's Napoleonic-era fantasy series Temeraire - but the setting was in a country *not* visited in the series. (It was set in Korea, while the books touched on England, France, South Africa, China, Japan, and Russia.)

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2021, 01:51:53 PM
Total population density for the whole map is ridiculously low (c. 10/sq. mi.), but this is a bit misleading as maybe 10% of the map is actually "civilized lands" (along the fertile banks of a Mississippi-sized river with good fishing and yields augmented by magic) where population density is extremely high (c. 200/sq. mile.) and the remainder is monster-haunted wilderness (less than 1/sq. mi.).

Now I'm imagining a fantasy world that borrows from middle 19th century America, with steamboats running up and down a grand old river between fortified cities and towns, and vast stretches of farmland. But a day or two travel from the shores, and it's wilderness. Orcs, dragons and other monsters rules the lands. Could mix it up with a bit of the Nile, with fantastically opulent priest kings trying to keep things like gunslingers and floating casinos in check. The PCs come from the disaffected classes, seeking their fortune in the wilds, and finding patrons or going it alone to push back the borders.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 05:38:50 PM
Now I'm imagining a fantasy world that borrows from middle 19th century America, with steamboats running up and down a grand old river between fortified cities and towns, and vast stretches of farmland. But a day or two travel from the shores, and it's wilderness. Orcs, dragons and other monsters rules the lands. Could mix it up with a bit of the Nile, with fantastically opulent priest kings trying to keep things like gunslingers and floating casinos in check. The PCs come from the disaffected classes, seeking their fortune in the wilds, and finding patrons or going it alone to push back the borders.

Sounds a bit like DJ Butler's Witchy Eye series.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30753675-witchy-eye

I definitely do think that TTRPG settings are generally better off having a few well defined areas where the GM can mine ideas if they want, but also having plenty of undefined space; the classic "here there be monsters" area on the map.

In a sci-fi setting, this can be having a few example planets which are deeply defined, 1-2 each from the various planetary classes, but without defining most planets across the galaxy. For fantasy it should generally be easier, as the nature of magic should make less known by characters even in-setting.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 05:38:50 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2021, 01:51:53 PM
Total population density for the whole map is ridiculously low (c. 10/sq. mi.), but this is a bit misleading as maybe 10% of the map is actually "civilized lands" (along the fertile banks of a Mississippi-sized river with good fishing and yields augmented by magic) where population density is extremely high (c. 200/sq. mile.) and the remainder is monster-haunted wilderness (less than 1/sq. mi.).

Now I'm imagining a fantasy world that borrows from middle 19th century America, with steamboats running up and down a grand old river between fortified cities and towns, and vast stretches of farmland. But a day or two travel from the shores, and it's wilderness. Orcs, dragons and other monsters rules the lands. Could mix it up with a bit of the Nile, with fantastically opulent priest kings trying to keep things like gunslingers and floating casinos in check. The PCs come from the disaffected classes, seeking their fortune in the wilds, and finding patrons or going it alone to push back the borders.

Sounds like an interesting variation on the 'points of light' style setting. Civilization is only strong along the river where it can remain connected and support each-other, while in the wilderness people sometimes just vanish. You could even add fluff as to why many of the scariest beasties avoid being too near the river.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 22, 2021, 06:09:48 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 05:38:50 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2021, 01:51:53 PM
Total population density for the whole map is ridiculously low (c. 10/sq. mi.), but this is a bit misleading as maybe 10% of the map is actually "civilized lands" (along the fertile banks of a Mississippi-sized river with good fishing and yields augmented by magic) where population density is extremely high (c. 200/sq. mile.) and the remainder is monster-haunted wilderness (less than 1/sq. mi.).

Now I'm imagining a fantasy world that borrows from middle 19th century America, with steamboats running up and down a grand old river between fortified cities and towns, and vast stretches of farmland. But a day or two travel from the shores, and it's wilderness. Orcs, dragons and other monsters rules the lands. Could mix it up with a bit of the Nile, with fantastically opulent priest kings trying to keep things like gunslingers and floating casinos in check. The PCs come from the disaffected classes, seeking their fortune in the wilds, and finding patrons or going it alone to push back the borders.

Sounds like an interesting variation on the 'points of light' style setting. Civilization is only strong along the river where it can remain connected and support each-other, while in the wilderness people sometimes just vanish. You could even add fluff as to why many of the scariest beasties avoid being too near the river.

Yep, I'm inclined to double down on the points of light aspect. Instead of a monolithic empire strung along a waterway, or a great nation of the floodplain, I'm thinking a string of city states, divided by natural barriers. That allows the trip along the river to be an adventure in itself, exploring new cultures and facing new and unknown dangers. The Nile and the Mississippi are the main real world inspirations, but only very loosely. The great wheels of the paddle boats might provide a reason for the monsters to stay away -- they also allow the river to be quickly traversed, meaning force can be quickly projected up and down river very quickly, but much slower inland. In 24 mile hexes, only the hex or two along the river would be safe.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 05:38:50 PM
Now I'm imagining a fantasy world that borrows from middle 19th century America, with steamboats running up and down a grand old river between fortified cities and towns, and vast stretches of farmland. But a day or two travel from the shores, and it's wilderness. Orcs, dragons and other monsters rules the lands. Could mix it up with a bit of the Nile, with fantastically opulent priest kings trying to keep things like gunslingers and floating casinos in check. The PCs come from the disaffected classes, seeking their fortune in the wilds, and finding patrons or going it alone to push back the borders.

That actually IS exactly the feel I'm going for. A cataclysmic event caused extreme depopulation coupled with monsters and so pockets of humanity gathered around the most accessible resources (or some other feature that gave them an edge in survival) with the wilds as a more dangerous frontier littered with ruins of the empire that fell 200 years earlier.

There's a small representative republic, a feudal theocracy, an imperial remnant caught in a civil war, a traditional feudal kingdom, a merchant plutocracy, several pirate havens, and scattered barbarian tribes along the length of the river that is navigable by sailing ship.

Inland from the riverlands are heavily forested hills akin to the Appalachians filled with the ruins of a vast metropolis that once filled the entire valley region before the Cataclysm. the hills eventually transition into mountains along the north and east of the region while the south partially collapsed into the sea during the event leaving a ruin-filled saltwater swamp/marsh.

The idea was basically to create an "ideal" adventuring region for GMs who don't want to create their own region with enough empty space for GMs to customize with ruins and isolated settlements and the like.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 07:15:18 PM
Yep, I'm inclined to double down on the points of light aspect. Instead of a monolithic empire strung along a waterway, or a great nation of the floodplain, I'm thinking a string of city states, divided by natural barriers. That allows the trip along the river to be an adventure in itself, exploring new cultures and facing new and unknown dangers. The Nile and the Mississippi are the main real world inspirations, but only very loosely. The great wheels of the paddle boats might provide a reason for the monsters to stay away -- they also allow the river to be quickly traversed, meaning force can be quickly projected up and down river very quickly, but much slower inland. In 24 mile hexes, only the hex or two along the river would be safe.

One thing that might work even better than paddleboats (if you want to go all-in on the points-of-light) is air-ships. You don't even need extra fluff for why monsters don't mess with the cities - just have them all be high in a series of mountain ranges, and the scariest monsters are all big don't fly. (I played around with switching my setting around after coming up with my boarding rules for my 'swashbuckling space western' system as I came up with it really early on, as the mechanics would work just as well or better for an airship. I stuck with sci-fi because I think the scaling rules mesh better there.)

The PCs could be part of the tenuous link between the cities by manning an airship, and occasionally dive into the jungle/forest/whatever to scavenge the ruins of the ancient world before monsters and daemons roamed the earth. Hint at some ancient wizard who delved too deep with magic and opened a Doom style portal - and there you go.

duplicate and couldn't figure out how to delete 

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2021, 08:04:33 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 05:38:50 PM
Now I'm imagining a fantasy world that borrows from middle 19th century America, with steamboats running up and down a grand old river between fortified cities and towns, and vast stretches of farmland. But a day or two travel from the shores, and it's wilderness. Orcs, dragons and other monsters rules the lands. Could mix it up with a bit of the Nile, with fantastically opulent priest kings trying to keep things like gunslingers and floating casinos in check. The PCs come from the disaffected classes, seeking their fortune in the wilds, and finding patrons or going it alone to push back the borders.

That actually IS exactly the feel I'm going for. A cataclysmic event caused extreme depopulation coupled with monsters and so pockets of humanity gathered around the most accessible resources (or some other feature that gave them an edge in survival) with the wilds as a more dangerous frontier littered with ruins of the empire that fell 200 years earlier.

There's a small representative republic, a feudal theocracy, an imperial remnant caught in a civil war, a traditional feudal kingdom, a merchant plutocracy, several pirate havens, and scattered barbarian tribes along the length of the river that is navigable by sailing ship.

Inland from the riverlands are heavily forested hills akin to the Appalachians filled with the ruins of a vast metropolis that once filled the entire valley region before the Cataclysm. the hills eventually transition into mountains along the north and east of the region while the south partially collapsed into the sea during the event leaving a ruin-filled saltwater swamp/marsh.

The idea was basically to create an "ideal" adventuring region for GMs who don't want to create their own region with enough empty space for GMs to customize with ruins and isolated settlements and the like.

I was thinking more sixguns & khopesh, but there's a lot of variation possible on a society strung along a great river. It has one advantage over a standard hex crawl -- a sense of direction. You're not picking a random direction, you have a binary choice, whether it's up or down river, or between staying on the river or hitting the wilderness. That can help focus players; an open map sometimes causes decision paralysis.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 22, 2021, 10:07:53 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 07:15:18 PM
Yep, I'm inclined to double down on the points of light aspect. Instead of a monolithic empire strung along a waterway, or a great nation of the floodplain, I'm thinking a string of city states, divided by natural barriers. That allows the trip along the river to be an adventure in itself, exploring new cultures and facing new and unknown dangers. The Nile and the Mississippi are the main real world inspirations, but only very loosely. The great wheels of the paddle boats might provide a reason for the monsters to stay away -- they also allow the river to be quickly traversed, meaning force can be quickly projected up and down river very quickly, but much slower inland. In 24 mile hexes, only the hex or two along the river would be safe.

One thing that might work even better than paddleboats (if you want to go all-in on the points-of-light) is air-ships. You don't even need extra fluff for why monsters don't mess with the cities - just have them all be high in a series of mountain ranges, and the scariest monsters are all big don't fly. (I played around with switching my setting around after coming up with my boarding rules for my 'swashbuckling space western' system as I came up with it really early on, as the mechanics would work just as well or better for an airship. I stuck with sci-fi because I think the scaling rules mesh better there.)

The PCs could be part of the tenuous link between the cities by manning an airship, and occasionally dive into the jungle/forest/whatever to scavenge the ruins of the ancient world before monsters and daemons roamed the earth. Hint at some ancient wizard who delved too deep with magic and opened a Doom style portal - and there you go.

I think that's an interesting alternative, but it does weaken the connection to the river. Airships can go in any direction, so society would tend to spread out more. In fact, I think it would work well, to borrow from a completely unrelated property, with the basic concept from SJG's Car Wars -- fortified cities, separated by vast tracts of dangerous wilderness. It might make for a great Gamma World campaign, as well, where the flora and fauna can be ridiculously deadly (cf. the story of a patch of grass that ate a fleet of death machines in one of Ward's games), allowing relatively safe passage between the isolated sanctuaries. Though to borrow more from the Car Wars model, another alternative is to bring it back to ground, and have some kind of road, and caravans that travel along the roads at high speeds, somehow. Could be sleds in the far north skidding along glaciers and seasonal ice flows, giant running beasts with howdahs on top or pulling half-carriages half-trains down paths carved by ancient juggernauts/golems, whatever.

Quote from: Greentongue on March 21, 2021, 05:11:42 PM
There are a number of settings that are great to read but when I go to play in them. they are like straight-jackets.
There is so much information available for them that I am second checking myself all the time.
Players have access to the information as well and have expectations on the setting that if not met them, they are disappointed.

How do you deal with this??

With most game sessions, players chit-chat about rules while their minis sit on the same spot on the map for 3 hours. Meanwhile, nothing about the setting is ever brought up.