L5R, Kult, Amber... Those settings are definitely awesome and open enough that a GM could run just about any type of game within them without losing the feel of the setting itself.

Star Wars, of course...

My friday group tends to create its own settings/systems, which leads to interesting sessions.

D&D-wise, WoD games, I really don't know them enough, and as a GM I wouldn't involve myself enough to use the Official setting. For exalted for instance, I'm tempted to run a mini-campaign for it but leave a lot of the setting loose enough for me to use any way I like.

I suppose that in the end, the only setting I try to keep official is L5R (as long as it's pre-Scorpion Clan Coup), but I haven't run that in almost a year I think.

I tend to use nearly all of the default settings as a foundation on which to build my own additions. Of course, that's much easier with the scope of Creation in Nobilis (where the bulk of humanity fails to notice vast cities and seas hidden away even on Earth) than the relatively claustrophobic and overpopulated city-states of Jaconia in Praedor.

I am a firm believer in universal systems not tied to a setting, so I tend to make my own (both games and settings).  I have done anything from fantasy to cyberpunk with supers, espionage, and horror stops inbetween.  

That said, I like to run open canned settings.  Cyberpunk 2020, I used the setting as it was, and did my own thing with it. It was a sandbox to play in. I used the parts and some of the process, but most of it was open. The same with Serenity, my current campaign.  The setting is a playground that I can use.  (In fact, I could not force people to play Traveller, but they are willing run an even odder setting doing the same things a Traveller group would do. Because, lets face it, Firefly is a Traveler campaign done right.. random people stuck in a ship, traveling places - and doing odd missions for shady characters... adding in Chinese and Western Elements

Sure I could make the same kind of settings, but most players would go, "eh" and dodge the game.  Tell them you want to run Serenity (instead of Traveller), Gundam (Mekton), Max Headroom (Cyberpunk 2020), Star Trek (well okay, Star Trek FASA), X-Files (My game sysetm), and so on, and they will jump at the games because they already are familiar and invested in the settings.

And these same people who don't want to learn a new system, will learn a new system to run in these games. (And are somewhat relieved when you tell them it is in a system they know).

In certain settings where the canned setting is closed, and does little to allow anything except "what the PCs should do". Those I can't take and usually avoid.  I usually back away from cannon in those *cough*WoD*cough* games, and use most of the familiar elements and create my own "sand box" to play in.

Aside from Middle-earth (back when I was running MERP regularly) I've always run home-brew settings.

However, I'm thinking about trying either Mystara or the Wilderlands for my next campaign.  Or perhaps Cyradon, if the Rolemaster Classic version comes out in time.

I think the best thing about using a pre-made setting is that you don't have to name shit.  Or make up your own maps.

Because really, naming shit gets old fast.  And map-making is hard and time-consuming, and unless you're a great artist, generally not worth the time.

You guys who create your own campaign worlds, how much detail do you cover before you start play?  I tend to burn out after detailing one small nation, or trying to write down a metaphysical system and develop gods/powers, and I've always ended up going back to published settings because I figure by the time I've finish scratch-building a world, I'll be an old man and my players won't be available anymore.

I've known DMs who had their own scratch built worlds that they put together in only a few months or years, but I've never seen anything that even comes close to being as well put together as the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk or Mystara.  I just couldn't see why they bothered.

There's a tough question:  If you run in a entirely custom built world, would you say it's better than the three I mentioned above, or about the same, or not as good?  Like, try to be objective.  If someone else wanted to run a game in your world, or create a character for your world, and had your materials to prepare from (but not access to you) would they find your material to be better or worse or about the same as using an Official Setting?

Quote from: JackalopeYou guys who create your own campaign worlds, how much detail do you cover before you start play?  I tend to burn out after detailing one small nation, or trying to write down a metaphysical system and develop gods/powers, and I've always ended up going back to published settings because I figure by the time I've finish scratch-building a world, I'll be an old man and my players won't be available anymore.

I just detail a local area, and then for the larger area and abstract things like gods I just steal from history.

For my modern espionage game I developed Bidawal, fictional coastal capital of Australia - put it on the spot of the real town of Mallacoota, stealing from google maps and so on for the rest of the country. For my dark ages low fantasy game I developed Tiwesdaeg and surrounds. And so on.

Sometimes the PCs explore further than that, but that's okay - once I know they're determined to wander, I distract them with something else for the rest of the session, then take the next week to develop the next bit they're visiting.

There's a theory of teaching that says the teacher only needs to be one chapter ahead of the students in the book. I reckon it's the same with game worlds - so long as the GM knows what's just over the horizon, everything will be okay. The horizon after that can be dealt with tomorrow :cool:

I only detail as far as I want the players to go in the first place. Because no matter how much I prepare, they will go outside of the prepped area and wander somewhere unknown, which I enjoy because it forces me to think on my feet.

I'm liking Exalted 1st edition for that reason at the moment. Everything is very generally detailed and anything detailed more thoroughly is something I can ignore or avoid.

I make a list of places, names and such and write in a few details next to it as it comes up in the story. That's in addition to the things and folks I detail before the game.

Quote from: JackalopeYou guys who create your own campaign worlds, how much detail do you cover before you start play?

Tons and tons. And then some more. The art and the devil is in the detail for me. For the Middle Kingdoms I did a few days research into climatology, because the original concept was a game world that relied heavily on water based trade and transportation. After seeing that I had a pretty decent idea of how climate and terrain worked together to foster civilization i started designing my maps.

I have a 48 by 96 inch "World Map" of the Western Hemisphere. I designed terrain, and made climate maps. Then I started adding cities, and building civilizations. I have dozens of maps.

I began emailing players, and having discussions. All in all I put in several weeks, maybe even a few months work before we ever even played in it. (But we were also involved in an Earthdawn and Shadowrun campaign, so this didn't mean we were idle.)

QuoteI've known DMs who had their own scratch built worlds that they put together in only a few months or years, but I've never seen anything that even comes close to being as well put together as the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk or Mystara.  I just couldn't see why they bothered.

While my current presentation isn't as easily accessible as those settings, with a little work and some professional editing it could be. Very easily. But even if it's not seen as being equal to them by others I'm okay with that. For one I enjoy creating for the world. My players enjoy the games, and helping define the world.

In my case the Middle Kingdoms is a world that has stagnated. 10,000 years of Dwarven rule, prosperity, and peace have dulled the people. Ancient weapons are buried beneath the land, and magical threats are beginning to finally rise. She who won't be named is rallying her forces to destroy the world, and throw the balance of the universe into chaos. Racism is rampant, and political intrigue is everywhere. Issues like slavery, environmentalism and and political equality rub shoulders with adventure on the frontier.

Now maybe that doesn't get your blood flowing-but for that's what keeps me coming back to my setting.

QuoteThere's a tough question:  If you run in a entirely custom built world, would you say it's better than the three I mentioned above, or about the same, or not as good?

I think from an "idea" stand point it is every bit as good. From an organization and accessibility standpoint, it is not as a good.

QuoteIf someone else wanted to run a game in your world, or create a character for your world, and had your materials to prepare from (but not access to you) would they find your material to be better or worse or about the same as using an Official Setting?

Depends on the person. Someone looking to be spoon fed the setting would get upset. Someone who is a bit more of a self starter would love it. for instance Engine created the Eastern Kingdoms based on my work in the Middle Kingdoms. He added a whole new dimension to the game based on what I have posted, and our games.

I think given six months of time doing nothing but the setting I could organize it in a fashion that people could easily use. One thing that wouldn't change is that my setting material would include zero fucking rules. Not a single one.

And I should add that although it sounds like I'm a little down on people who use premade settings, I am not. I get not everyone enjoys what I do: making all that crap. Some people don't want to spend that time doing what I like doing. And that's just fine. As long as you're having fun you're doing it right.

Quote from: JackalopeYou guys who create your own campaign worlds, how much detail do you cover before you start play?

The same amount of detail I would need if I was running a campaign based on a published setting. I do a lot of "renovations" on official settings, so the amount of work is probably a little less than a homebrew. I detail as the campaign progresses. You don't need a lot when starting out, just enough detail so the players get a sense of the setting. I start off with broad strokes and zero in on the fine lines as the campaign moves forward....always remaining a couple of steps ahead of the players.

QuoteIf you run in a entirely custom built world, would you say it's better than the three I mentioned above, or about the same, or not as good?

*shrug* I wouldn't know. As long as my players are immersed in the setting I doubt they care whether it's a homebrew or an offical setting. This is the only answer I have.

QuoteLike, try to be objective.  If someone else wanted to run a game in your world, or create a character for your world, and had your materials to prepare from (but not access to you) would they find your material to be better or worse or about the same as using an Official Setting?

Do you mean presentation and utility ?

(Few would find my settings enjoyable. I tend to focus on atmosphere and theme .....subject matter would be a problem too, I reckon')

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JackalopeYou guys who create your own campaign worlds, how much detail do you cover before you start play?

Vastly too much. Far more than has ever been detailed in play.

Quote from: JackalopeThere's a tough question:  If you run in a entirely custom built world, would you say it's better than the three I mentioned above, or about the same, or not as good?

I think the worlds I build are enjoyed more by my group than the three worlds you mentioned.

Quote from: JackalopeIf someone else wanted to run a game in your world, or create a character for your world, and had your materials to prepare from (but not access to you) would they find your material to be better or worse or about the same as using an Official Setting?

So, so, so very, very much worse. As a rule, I have no "materials," and when I do, they're generally not that helpful. For my shortest campaign, I did manage to prepare perhaps 10 handwritten pages, the majority of which were never used, but normally it's either all in my head, or scribbled down in Notepad. It would be useless to anyone else.

Usually no one could play in my settings becuase they are adlibbed from the outset and grow prgianically with the stuff the players do.

If I am using a modern world I just use the modern world. If I am doing a fantasy game I will have a map of a key area a dungeon or maybe a city, but even then with a city map it tends to be abstracted out.

I might occassionally steal a city map or a map from somewhere but I won't bother to use the background information.

Say I was running a Traveller game. Chances are one of the PCs would own their ship which I would get them to map. I might map a key location like a space port but everything else is adlibbed.

I care more about NPCs, charcter and plot than locations and setting. For these I rely on a flavour which I lift from a film or book. So I might set a game in the City of Spira which I will base of Paris in the 17th centruy full of cadres of troops in hotels and petty political rivalries. I will base the setting on the musketeer films will Oliver Reed and Michael York and will make up a handful of major NPCs some just as names and some fully stated. That will be my prep for the setting complete. Not only do I know the setting well enough to adlib details as diverse as a nunnery or a leather tanners but the players are familair enough to just get it and then we are straight into immersion.

Wasn't always like this but as people have said whatever you draw and plan the players will ignore and imagination and a good memory will get you out of most tight spots.

I am pretty much as loose with my rules as well, at lease when playing RPGs.  So we played WoD  but the only ruels we had were the downloaded fast start intro and a list of the disciplines that some kid had put on the web for their PbeM game which was probably totally different to the 'official' list. But the mechanic is simple and dispite the loathing here for dice pools very flexible and simple to adapt and anything we were unsure of I would house rule. We ran the game for  8 months and had some of the best roleplaying I have seen especially when the party imploded.
I have often thought it would be interesting to sit down with a new group of players and try a fully ad libbed session. You know one player picks the rules system (or even a core mechanic like "d20 target" or "%d under" or "d10 dicepool"), the next the genre (Superhero, fantasy etc) another the setting, a third the style of play (tactical and crunchy, roleplay heavy) the last the style of the game (High powered, normal mortal, cinematic, mythic)  then I just DM it on the fly.
I guess I just think that when you get a bunch of people together who want to roleplay and enjoy themselves it will just work.

Those of you who think your setting would be difficult to access by others, how would your opinions change if you were paid, and had a staff to help get your setting into a usable format?

Would the end product be as good as an established setting? In my own case my answer is a definitive yes.

Quote from: Serious PaulThose of you who think your setting would be difficult to access by others, how would your opinions change if you were paid, and had a staff to help get your setting into a usable format?

Would the end product be as good as an established setting? In my own case my answer is a definitive yes.

No my settings would still be crap :-) There would bits were the comments would say 'you might want to put some stuff in here that your group really enjoys, we tend to use flying monkeys but knock yourselves out'.

I can imagine I could procude a professional rules book, I haven't had the desire to but I think I could. I have produced CCG games that kept my jaded playgroup occupied for months at a time. I could produce semi professional fiction, I think. and I run a professional Murder mystery company so I know I can produce professional plots, NPCs and dialogue, but settings ... nah no chance.

Quote from: Serious PaulThose of you who think your setting would be difficult to access by others, how would your opinions change if you were paid, and had a staff to help get your setting into a usable format? Would the end product be as good as an established setting?

Well, fuck yeah. I know a lot of guys who write professional settings, and they're actually quite a lot worse at it than many of the people I've met here and elsewhere. In most cases, it's the addition of staff, money, and so on that makes the difference, not the godlike powers of the developers.

In exceptional cases, of course, the talent of an exceptional developer combined with the resources of a publisher [however meager they often are] produces truly exceptional results; that I couldn't promise. Still, I'm at least as qualified to produce a fascinating setting as a Canadian library clerk, much less this douchebag:

I very typically homebrew. I often consider official settings, but back away when my ideas start to diverge from the "official" ones, either from an irrational fear of tromping on "the way it's supposed to be done", or a more rational consideration that my take on the setting and the official one diverge too much for me to get much effective use out of the setting.

Official settings I do like and run a lot tend to be pretty flexible and give me a free hand (lots of user-definable area) AS WELL as good idea fodder. Planescape and the Traveller Imperium stand out here.

Many published settings while they seem appealing on the surface have become over-detailed and/or dwell too much on low level details rather than general concepts. Many d20/D&D settings ended up this way, though I'd be remiss to not mention Rokugan in the same breath.