Do ambitious campaign worlds make the game more enjoyable, after all?

Xanther · January 03, 2018, 10:26:42 PM

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017584On 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......

Damn Ravenswing! That's hardcore. I always found exploring a GMs world (when thought out and internally consistent) to be one of the most fun aspects of play especially if knowledge of it, for example political factions, can be used to advantage in the game. I'm the player that would read that 10 page write up.

Given the age of your world we must have started from the same time period, circa 1977, where everyone had there own world as there was not commercial settings available. Ohh the days of showing someone the hex map you created last night.

Think need to check out your blog...

mAcular Chaotic · January 04, 2018, 12:20:47 AM

Eh. The setting as described is too weird and random for me.

As for detail -- it's good for the GM to have behind the scenes, and dribble out when asked. But don't go shoving an entire wikipedia in the players' faces or you'll be disappointed when they fall asleep.

Ravenswing · January 04, 2018, 12:51:27 AM

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1017592I 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.

Oh sure. It's a big YMMV, after all. There are players who want to dive into the detail, and relish that they know what it means to run into a dude wearing a silver medallion on a rainbow cord, and how the number of silver or gold rings threaded onto the cord matters. There are those who don't. Having fun doing it your way? It's all good then.

Quote from: Xanther;1017639Given the age of your world we must have started from the same time period, circa 1977, where everyone had there own world as there was not commercial settings available.

Well ... not quite. By the time I started, Judges Guild had the CSIO and the Wilderlands of High Fantasy out, and I latched onto those. I was quickly dissatisfied, though; medieval demographics is a study of mine from early days, and I just could not wrap my head around JG's practice of having large, glittering cities somehow sustaining high civilizations while there were hordes of howling barbarians within bowshot of their walls, unchecked, or that the original CSIO writeup was little beyond the name of the business, the statline of the proprietor, and the occasional random generator rumor. So while I kept the maps, I pretty much tore everything else down and built from scratch, putting in actual nations, geopolitics and the like. I'd do it differently if it was 1978 all over again -- gods, the mistakes I made! -- but I keep the maps and my bolted-on setting just through sheer weight of all those decades of work.

Omega · January 04, 2018, 12:55:34 AM

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.

Exactly. You dont have to use it all. In fact you may only ever use parts. Or even only using one part. But you have fallbacks in place. This is especially useful for DMs who arent good at on the fly worldbuilding as you go. This is why published settings attract some DMs.

Gronan of Simmerya · January 04, 2018, 01:36:54 AM

Quote from: Ravenswing;1017660Oh sure. It's a big YMMV, after all. There are players who want to dive into the detail, and relish that they know what it means to run into a dude wearing a silver medallion on a rainbow cord, and how the number of silver or gold rings threaded onto the cord matters. There are those who don't. Having fun doing it your way? It's all good then.

Well ... not quite. By the time I started, Judges Guild had the CSIO and the Wilderlands of High Fantasy out, and I latched onto those. I was quickly dissatisfied, though; medieval demographics is a study of mine from early days, and I just could not wrap my head around JG's practice of having large, glittering cities somehow sustaining high civilizations while there were hordes of howling barbarians within bowshot of their walls, unchecked, or that the original CSIO writeup was little beyond the name of the business, the statline of the proprietor, and the occasional random generator rumor. So while I kept the maps, I pretty much tore everything else down and built from scratch, putting in actual nations, geopolitics and the like. I'd do it differently if it was 1978 all over again -- gods, the mistakes I made! -- but I keep the maps and my bolted-on setting just through sheer weight of all those decades of work.

By now, the mistakes are part of the charm.

Shawn Driscoll · January 04, 2018, 05:08:15 AM

A setting is only as good as the players around a table.

estar · January 04, 2018, 08:35:06 AM

Quote from: Turanil;1017545So, an ambitious campaign setting. But is this truly necessary to have fun?

The point of any setting is to provide interesting NPCs to interact with. While you can get some mileage out of characters versus the environment the only thing that has long term legs are the NPCs and how the PC fit amidst them. By NPCs this includes anything with a will and a need to survive including animals.

Religion, politics, interpersonal relationship, ecology, all of these serve to shape the behavior of the inhabitants of a setting. If mishmashing disparate genre elements into a gonzo setting allows you to make interesting NPCs then it is the right choice for your campaign.

Steven Mitchell · January 04, 2018, 11:22:40 AM

A certain amount of setting development is its own kind of fun. For some GMs, it is a great deal of fun. How much of that you do is largely whether you find it fun or not.

How much of that setting you impart to the players, at what speed, in what manner, is a separate question, and very much depends upon individual and group interest(s). It's why, for example, I often write about 4 or 5 times as much setting material as the players immediately get, saving the rest to bring out as the occasion demands or not.

Madprofessor · January 04, 2018, 04:32:03 PM

In my experience, the most essential element of any setting is that it fires the GM's imagination. After that, the players will feed off the GM's leadership and enthusiasm, and everything else falls into place. In all of my years, I've never had a player go "meh, this setting isn't my cup of tea." I've seen them react negatively to systems, but never to settings.

TheShadow · January 06, 2018, 01:09:09 AM

As I GM I enjoy making rich settings, with secrets, timelines, the works. But I accept that most players won't care and will only interact with bite-size chunks. To an extent, my world creation and gameplay are two separate pastimes, I don't browbeat players with the former.

Gronan of Simmerya · January 06, 2018, 02:15:51 AM

"I suffered for my game world, now it's your turn."

soltakss · January 06, 2018, 05:07:30 AM

Quote from: Turanil;1017545So, an ambitious campaign setting. But is this truly necessary to have fun?

Not really, players can have fun in short snappy campaigns as well as long, ambitious campaigns.

However, a campaign such as the one described would be a good one to play in.

RPGPundit · January 08, 2018, 07:21:37 AM

Quote from: Turanil;1017545I 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?

Necessary? No.

But based on what I've seen of your work in FH&W, I think this might play to your strengths.