For published settings, I want little history beyond some vague allusions.  I do not want ant set in stone timelines.  I pretty much only want the present described.  Set history limits the scope of adventure.  As GM, I will create my own history as needed and focused upon such aspects as I am interested.

Star Wars A New Hope is a wide open setting wherein the GM can go in a bazillion different directions.  Star Wars of today is a more calcified setting with fewer stories my group could tell than what we were doing in the early '90s.

Greyhawk '83 boxed set was already pushing the line of too much official history.  But it still had enough leeway for me to bring my own interpretation of its history with the destruction of Vecna causing the Bright Desert, etc.  All the historical tidbits that I crafted according to my own interests were invalidated by later development of the Greyhawk setting.

Most history written in published settings is irrelevant to gameplay.  None of my Deadlands games have ever gone in the direction of Raven mattering; they focus upon what the players choose to do.  The book space would be better served further describing another Weird West region in the here and now, some place the players can actually explore.  

So, published setting history is pretty crappy in my opinion.  My personally crafted history as based on the present of a published setting by way of me exploring my own interests is good stuff.

Quote from: Old One Eye;802697All the historical tidbits that I crafted according to my own interests were invalidated by later development of the Greyhawk setting.

You know that can only happen if you say it does. I have made up stuff for Greyhawk, Mystara, FR, Yrth, etc. and none of it was invalidated by later material as far as MY campaign was concerned.

Published stuff is just suggested history. Actual history is up to the DM, which is why I don't mind how much crap gets published for a setting. If I lke it, then perhaps it will get used, if not then my own stuff gets used.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;802704You know that can only happen if you say it does. I have made up stuff for Greyhawk, Mystara, FR, Yrth, etc. and none of it was invalidated by later material as far as MY campaign was concerned.

Published stuff is just suggested history. Actual history is up to the DM, which is why I don't mind how much crap gets published for a setting. If I lke it, then perhaps it will get used, if not then my own stuff gets used.

While true, it also means half the Living Greyhawk Guide is wasted space for me.  Whereas, if the LGG had focused on making more adventure locations instead of making more history then a substantially larger portion of the book would be useful for me.

Aren't most D&D settings without backstory? Dark Sun doesn't have much of a clue what has lead to the Desert Age. It simply is and the book encourages you pick up a character and just play. In that way it is similar to the new WoD games. It invites playing. So there is something to be said for such an approach. It just isn't my taste. I don't mind playing such a game. I just don't get a lot of ideas from such a game as a GM.

The only way I like to see (or do) timelines in RPGs is front-loaded.  In the sense that you don't have a series of sourcebooks that advance a timeline, but that in the very first or only book you make for the game, you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run; and two, that the timeline only represents what will happen in the case that the PCs don't radically alter events through their actions.

That's how I did it for Arrows of Indra, and how it will be one for Dark Albion.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803460...you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run...

I guess there are people for whom this is not an underlying assumption and thus needs to actually be said.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803460The only way I like to see (or do) timelines in RPGs is front-loaded.  In the sense that you don't have a series of sourcebooks that advance a timeline, but that in the very first or only book you make for the game, you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run; and two, that the timeline only represents what will happen in the case that the PCs don't radically alter events through their actions.

That's how I did it for Arrows of Indra, and how it will be one for Dark Albion.

This. So much this. +1, or whatever the kids are calling it nowadays.

I've found with a lot of folks these days that this is not a common way of looking at things. I know people who, for instance, slavishly feel they have to follow the Star Wars timelines and storylines for their games to the point where the PCs only get to do meaningless crap or act as observers for events.

I want my PCs to have as much effect on the world as they want and are capable of. As a player, I want the same thing.

Quote from: Atsuku Nare;803489I know people who, for instance, slavishly feel they have to follow the Star Wars timelines and storylines for their games to the point where the PCs only get to do meaningless crap or act as observers for events.

Some people want to overturn the movies. Some don't.

There are plenty of important things to do in the Star Wars universe besides what we see in the films. Being relegated to doing meaningless crap has more to do with the GM and the players than it does a timeline.

The best Star Wars game I ever had was one where we assumed that the movies (the original three - that was shortly before the first prequel aired) were basically in-universe propaganda products and not particularly accurate. It eventually became silly the other way around - praising the Empire at each opportunity and what not - but it was fun as long as it lasted.
Metaplots (and setting material in general) is an opportunity. You can use them, and they can add to a game. If they become restrictive, it's probably time to emancipate from them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803460The only way I like to see (or do) timelines in RPGs is front-loaded.  In the sense that you don't have a series of sourcebooks that advance a timeline, but that in the very first or only book you make for the game, you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run; and two, that the timeline only represents what will happen in the case that the PCs don't radically alter events through their actions.

That's how I did it for Arrows of Indra, and how it will be one for Dark Albion.

Agreed 100%. This is how it should be. Have you ever done or do you want to do an RPG without any timeline? I know this shouldn't really matter to the players, but like front-loaded timelines. It gets my creative juices flowing.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;803593Agreed 100%. This is how it should be. Have you ever done or do you want to do an RPG without any timeline?

Yes, plenty.  But being a historian, I kind of like timelines.

I like sci-fi timelines but not fantasy timelines. I have no idea why. I even wrote one for a Justifiers RPG game that never got off the ground. I still enjoy reading it every few years. the one in Cyberspace is quite good.

Quote from: Tetsubo;804148I like sci-fi timelines but not fantasy timelines. I have no idea why. I even wrote one for a Justifiers RPG game that never got off the ground. I still enjoy reading it every few years. the one in Cyberspace is quite good.

Maybe because fantasy timelines can be cliche and bombastic?

I like timelines. To me it all starts with a timeline. I don't like it if a setting falls right out of the sky. Here it is, now play. I was incredibly annoyed by the God Machine for example. The most interesting part about the damn thing (What does it want and where did it came from? What did it do the last couple of centuries?) isn't in the book. Wait, let me do frustrated anger shout: :rant:
So that's better.