I never heard of the Burgess Shale before! Thank you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

Very much depends on how much i like the setting in question. Also, it depends a lot on how detailed the setting is in the first place.
Most TSR and DnD settings are not "sacred" to me, so i change what i want to change. Or most of the time, i have not read all there is to read, so i will probably get some stuff "wrong" anyway...and i could not care less.

Some settings on the other hand are so detailed (and i like that they are), that i don't want to change a thing....for example i'd rather NOT play in Middle Earth than play in a distorted/butchered version of it. That means that most often, i will not play in it. Why? Because most of my players have no clue about it and if that is the case, as i said, i'd rather play in a different setting than letting them ruin Middle Earth

So settings fall into two categories for me - 1) light enough that i don't care about canon and therefore i make shit up and 2) very detailed stuff (that i love) that i want to keep as close as possible and therefore would need to have "compatible" players for it to be any fun for me to play or GM in.

I cut my teeth in the Burgess Shale. For me to use a published setting I have to really like it. Often I am happiest with a short core rulebook and make the rest up out of whole cloth. The published settings I like best tend to be single author creations with a strong vision of what the setting is about. Ken Spencer's "Rocket Age" is a good example of a published seting I like. The World of Darkness, the Forgotten Realms, and Rifts have all lost focus and drifted into lack of defining vision.

Even in settings that I like I have no compunctions about twisting them to suit my needs and visions. You are playing in Dave's Game, not the author's.

What I keep, I keep because it inspires me or makes my life easier, not out of any sense of "loyalty."

Quote from: Spinachcat;923016I am very loyal to the parts I like. The rest, not at all.

And this creates weird conversations. I say I'm a RIFTS fan, and then people say "well, what about X, Y, and Z? And I shrug because I never used those bits.

Also, I'm a corebook guy and rarely enjoy splats, so when I say I am a Planescape or Dark Sun fan, I get "well, what about metaplot X or totally new change Y"? And I shrug because I never used those bits.

Haha that's me.

Usually I run my own setting material but if I run a published setting I will generally stick to the material as intended with minor tweaks here or there for taste. The one setting I tend to run frequently would be Ravenloft. I use all the material for that from the boxed sets up to about the death of Van Richten (the quality seemed to drop around some of the later modules and the metaphor with Death taking over Darkon is where I stopped using any official changes). The 3E setting material I almost completely ignore.

But a setting like that, and I think most settings, starts to deviate from sourcebooks if you run it long enough (even if you are loyal to the setting).

Fold. Spindle. Mutilate. A published setting is either just a time saver, or I want to do something specific with it that's going to blow up the status quo.

I don't use settings--I use modules. I've just never played in a group or ran a group where setting mattered.

I really dearly love that Burgess-Shale article - and pretty much everything else from Ken Pick. It's pretty inspiring stuff. When I first read that a number of years ago it was a real revelation and directly led to my own decision to basically start from the beginning and stick with the beginning. I've seen it referred to as Proto-Traveller as well - and to me, that's all Traveller ought to be about. Far too often, discussion seems to devolve into some guy beating his chest and pointing out that his .sig identifies him as an official Duke of Sylea who just will not tolerate the very idea of jump torpedoes.

Quote from: Tod13;923060I don't use settings--I use modules. I've just never played in a group or ran a group where setting mattered.

Wow, that's just...incredible. No offense to you of course, only that your approach is so totally alien to me and the people Ive gamed with. The setting IS THE GAME to us. I cant imagine playing a game without a fairly thorough understanding and familiarity with the background, and I mean pretty extensive. I have seen some other groups at conventions and such just start off in a generic tavern or whatever, go beat the bad guy, take his stuff and finished off having a ball but like I said, totally weird to me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;922977How loyal are you to published settings you choose to game in?

I don't see it as a matter of "loyalty". "Interpretation" is the word I'd much rather use:).

QuoteDo you stick to the vision of the author pretty closely or is it merely inspiration?

Usually I do stick closely to it, because if I didn't...why not use another setting entirely? I've got settings I like already. Why am I not running one of them, if I have to rewrite a large part of the setting?

QuoteIf you discover a follow up publication that conflicts with something you fleshed out on your own in a particular setting, do you change it?

I'd change what was written in the publication, yes, but nobody's offered me that option! Or were you asking whether I'd change what I had fleshed out:D?

(Jokes aside, I'd only change what I've fleshed out if 1. the PCs have never interacted with it so far, whether they know it or not, and 2. it wouldn't disrupt anything and 3. it makes sense. All of them have to be cumulatively true for me to even try and salvage stuff that contradicts my campaign - meaning, events almost never get salvaged. And yes, that means I've got no use for metaplots, unless revealed in the corebook).

QuoteDo you move it elsewhere?

That's a change in order to salvage stuff, and has to fit the conditions above.

QuoteIgnore it completely?

That's the default.

QuoteObviously the answer is probably "It depends" but Id be interested to hear how folks generally feel about published settings. Are they do be 'gamed in' or merely used to help conjure up a setting of your own?

Both are possible;).
I prefer having a setting that's usable without too much work on my side. Some work is fine. Rewriting stuff from the ground up isn't, not anymore. Been there, done that, will skip it next time;).

it's hard to stick closely to a setting that is highly detailed, but my desire is to experience it as closely as possible to the way the author presumably did. we tried to do that with Night City, for example. but really there is no way that you'll be able to avoid inserting your own spin on things. inevitably you miss some of the details in play, or contradict them-- and there are always going to be gaps you'll have to fill in on your own.

Quote from: rgrove0172;923071... The setting IS THE GAME to us. I cant imagine playing a game without a fairly thorough understanding and familiarity with the background...

Well, D&D itself is a setting, or at least a set of setting parameters, premises, and presumptions. When I ran Temple of Elemental Evil, I didn't bother with a setting beyond "This is D&D universe. The rest will emerge through play."

To answer the OP, I don't follow published settings, but I will use them as a springboard to go off in my own direction. I mean, my Star Wars campaign was certainly not loyal to any canon or sourcebooks, though the mood was Star Warsy and it did have wookies in it.

Quote from: AsenRG;923074Usually I do stick closely to it, because if I didn't...why not use another setting entirely? I've got settings I like already. Why am I not running one of them, if I have to rewrite a large part of the setting?

I am similar, with a caveat. I'm more inclined to make a few big changes to the setting, rather than dozens of little customizations. Basically, for reference purposes, it's easier both for me to look things up and for the players to understand the differences if I have just a few changes, though they can be big. If there's a little difference where I think "I'd do that differently" but it's not a big deal, then I'm probably not going to change it just for convenience.

On the other hand, I have no loyalty at all and will kill any number of sacred cows if I don't like them or I want to do something different. For example, I'm sort of running in the Forgotten Realms at present, but at the start of the campaign, a plague of dragons descended on the surface world - wiping out all the big cities and essentially destroying civilization. So while I'll use some FR material, most of the stuff is largely irrelevant.

Quote from: Chainsaw;923052What I keep, I keep because it inspires me or makes my life easier, not out of any sense of "loyalty."

This is pretty much all that I can say on the matter too.