Quote from: Akrasia;689387This is awesome, IMO, and I really wish that I was in a position -- in terms of time, location, and player continuity -- to do something similar.  (I do have an older setting that I've used for a couple of different campaigns with different groups, but I've left it 'on the shelf', so to speak, over the past few years.)

I have some questions for guys like you and Estar: do you ever get tired of your main setting?  After almost two decades of running a campaign, do you ever decide to try something entirely different?  Or do you find your setting to be rich and varied enough to keep you interested?

Thanks

Well, I do run new campaigns, while keep moving the old ones. And I do have a d20 simple bronze age game I created as well.  
And it is big enough that there are varied locations, and frankly, some of the original plot lines are still moving forward.   And it is a Divset world, with many plotlines and multiple themes.  But I can say my live games are very, very vital, and the players are so very invested in their place in the world.  We still average about a PC death every 3-4 sessions, though.  Deadly world.

And I do enjoy experimenting within it. My current online game I am preparing, the Collegium Arcana Game, is very experimental...both in format and in content.  The players are playing pre-beginning characters, students of the largest College of Magic in the setting, as they arrive at that school.  So we'll be very much playing a social/RP/mystery/discovery/become what you play game.  SO I am still experimenting.

But I went all in more than you know, in a way that makes me stick with what I do.  I didn't just write a setting, I wrote, from the ground up, the complete ruleset to fully represent and embody the game.  
My feeling has always been that a ruleset is a physics engine that synergizes with a setting it is built for, and also gamestyles it is better and worse for.

Honestly, Akrasia, I speak for myself only, but the more I do this, the more it all ties together and builds a sort of momentum towards creating itself.

Thank you for asking, BTW.

I've lived in a number of different places over the past 15 years, and have played with 7 different groups during that time.  One thing that I've discovered is that 80% of players just aren't interested in reading much about the setting in which they're playing.  Anything more than 1-2 pages is too much for those kinds of players.  I don't blame them -- people are busy, and such players often can be very good 'in game' (i.e., they get into their characters and role-play them well).  But it's led me to rethink my approach to campaign building (at least in those cases when I don't simply use a pre-established setting, tweaked to my taste).

I have found that in groups mainly comprised of casual and/or time-stressed players (i.e., most groups comprised of players aged 30+), a "vanilla-with-sprinkles" kind of setting is a good way to go.  The world is 'vanilla' enough for the players to get into without having to read too much (e.g., "this society is quasi-Celtic, that society is an ersatz Viking one, the dwarves who live in the Tartan Mountains are hard-drinking faux Scots", etc.).  But it also includes some 'sprinkles' that make it stand out (e.g., "the rulers of all the kingdoms are either dragons or liches"; "the elves loathe humanity as a plague, and are trying to devise a way to eliminate the short-lived pests"; "halfling pirates plague the Green Sea and are feared by all"; etc.).  You can save some of these 'sprinkles' as surprises, but a few should be well-known, in order to give your otherwise vanilla setting its distinctive flavour.

Sure, if you have players who are committed RPGers, willing to invest in learning a lot about your highly unusual setting, then different rules apply.  Unfortunately, while I've had some players like this, they have not all been in the same group!  

Sketch with optional purchasable detail. That still leaves a lot to be decided by the author of the published setting, though. There's canvas size, tooth, canvas color, shape, etc. Then with optional suggested palettes or even paint-by-numbers portions I'm quite happy.

Nothing but vanilla bores me. However too much leaves it annoying to separate out. So french vanilla caramel ripple with pralines, chocolate sprinkles, and crushed peanuts, though delicious if expected, often is a preset that is hard to pick out your favorite bits. I want the 31 flavors and toppings bar. And as fun as home brewing is, I don't always want to buy my ice cream at the supermarket and make my sundae at home. Stuck always creating my own pralines, caramel, and toppings can be a drag.

I find vanilla fantasy so dull that even when I decided to turn out an H&H fantasy treatment I wound up doing folklore-inspired urban fantasy instead.

I just find that other than Tolkien (which I've never been interested in actually gaming in), the only vanilla fantasy worlds I tend to find any inspiration in are ones I write myself, but the market is flooded with those and no one really wants to learn the DM's world if its not already printed, so I just go and do something else.

Huh, so here is another question that is kinda on topic. Just how much info should the players have about the world in question up front. I was thinking that maybe one page they can read real quick, a paragraph or two about the world and another couple about the region play will start in?  It does seem like front loading players with too much info is a good way to make them just ignore that shit.

See I like vanilla D&D settings for many reasons, however I am finding that for many people I meet out there that it is hard to create that sense of wonder that I would like to see. The standard fantasy thing has so much exposure that I think many people are desensitized to getting any sort of awe out of it, that is what has had me leaning more toward the weird and outlandish in some of the design work I have been doing in the past few weeks.

Another thing I was thinking about that was talked about earlier in thread is that the literature and source material people are likely to be familiar with has changed dramatically. It seems like many of the potential players that I meet these days outside of my circle of friends are only familiar with the Lord of The Rings films, some anime stuff, JRPG video games or things like Skyrim. Not all of these are bad things, I like Tamriel as a setting for instance, but much of what is out there I just don't click with. Anyone else run into this? I guess it is not really a problem just a thought.

Quote from: LordVreeg;689213Well, to each their own.  

I can see the uses of some level of familiarity....but I applaud gms who put in the work.

In all fairness, I don't think you can accuse P&P of not putting in the work: he's tremendously expanded the scope of the giants series of modules prior to and while running them, for instance, IIRC, and he's the guy with 250,000 words of AD&D house rules or some such. So it's not that guys like him don't want to put in the work, it's that they prefer to put it elsewhere.

The thing with that is, it's all very vanilla-flavoured.

I mean, 239,000 words of house rules is a lot, but you don't have to read it to play.  The house rules don't contradict anything it says in the core book.  Want to play a magic user, you can, and all the spells you already know are there and they work like it says in the rulebook you've already read.  So when you start play those are the thirty first level spells that you know about.  

But if you're bored with the basics, there are another thirty "rare" first level spells, which are all written in the house rules.  So if you want, you can play a magic user who has none of the same spells you've been playing with since 1979.  Or a mix.  Whatever floats your boat.

If you're playing one of the custom classes or one of the new races, then yeah, you'll need to read about them.  The custom spellusing class comes with a complete spell list, so don't play that unless you want to do some reading.

But all the options are vanilla.  They draw on generic fantasy films and literature and they do exactly what it says on the tin.  So you can be an elf fighter/magic-user, and you know what that is.  You can also be an amazon barbarian/thief, and even though that doesn't appear in the OSRIC core book, you know what it is and roughly how it'll work, don't you?

On the other hand, there are GMs who'll give you a character concept that says, right, you're a Yaziji in the service of the Haseki Sultana in the Despotate of Morea, and it's a Friday night so you've gone to the kahvekane to listen to a recitation from the Shahnameh.  And, well, listen, mate, I'm here to play a game, I'm not here to explore your conworld.

To me, vanilla fantasy settings have a sandbox feel to it.  Options are there, options to go one way or another.  There's no timer on things, where the game will suddenly ratchet up in importance --like an Orcish or Goblinoid invasion-- but there's plenty of opportunity for adventuring into nooks and crannies all over the area without a major story arc.

But hey, if you want a major story arc, you can do that too.  That's the beauty of the setting.

Quote from: Benoist;689434In all fairness, I don't think you can accuse P&P of not putting in the work: he's tremendously expanded the scope of the giants series of modules prior to and while running them, for instance, IIRC, and he's the guy with 250,000 words of AD&D house rules or some such. So it's not that guys like him don't want to put in the work, it's that they prefer to put it elsewhere.

Once in a while Ben, I am too busy working on my shit to go beyond and try to find when a poster is contrandicting themselves.  I'm perfectly willing to have the conversation an read their stuff.  But I have 5 games I run myself and things are tight at work, heloing run the company.  Happy you brought it up, happy to make friends with him, but no guilt here at all.

Quote from: Arkansan;689419Huh, so here is another question that is kinda on topic. Just how much info should the players have about the world in question up front. I was thinking that maybe one page they can read real quick, a paragraph or two about the world and another couple about the region play will start in?  It does seem like front loading players with too much info is a good way to make them just ignore that shit.

My rule is a maximum one page of background and one page of personal stuff they can use to make their initial choices.

This is what I use for Traveller
http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Adventure_Handout.pdf

For me, it has as much to do with the maps as anything.  A purty map like Anna is doing with Greyhawk makes me want to game there.  An average map like Mystara makes where I can take it or leave it.  An ugly map like 4e Forgotten Realms makes me care less about the setting.

Generally, the more vanilla the better.  One of the reasons I am not that big a fan of modules is that they so often try to bring the weird, when a cave with some generic orcs and ogres flows far better IMO.  Give me standard DnD clichés.

Quote from: Arkansan;689419Huh, so here is another question that is kinda on topic. Just how much info should the players have about the world in question up front. I was thinking that maybe one page they can read real quick, a paragraph or two about the world and another couple about the region play will start in?  It does seem like front loading players with too much info is a good way to make them just ignore that shit.

See I like vanilla D&D settings for many reasons, however I am finding that for many people I meet out there that it is hard to create that sense of wonder that I would like to see. The standard fantasy thing has so much exposure that I think many people are desensitized to getting any sort of awe out of it, that is what has had me leaning more toward the weird and outlandish in some of the design work I have been doing in the past few weeks.

Another thing I was thinking about that was talked about earlier in thread is that the literature and source material people are likely to be familiar with has changed dramatically. It seems like many of the potential players that I meet these days outside of my circle of friends are only familiar with the Lord of The Rings films, some anime stuff, JRPG video games or things like Skyrim. Not all of these are bad things, I like Tamriel as a setting for instance, but much of what is out there I just don't click with. Anyone else run into this? I guess it is not really a problem just a thought.

as they are makingup their character make hte process a conversation. they ask to be a ranger explain that they can be a wilderness warrior or join one a military unit either one of the free companies or one of the kingdoms. Maybe have add a reknown group of rangers known as the Beggermen who only accept those who dedicate themelves to the orders shadowy beliefs. They can go light go easy solo guy or take another path and you just adlib the stuff to fill it in and add it to the setting.

The best settings are those that include stuff people want to play so add this stuff in if players take an interest just roll it into a hook. So the Player wants to be a viking but you can't see that working becuase your premise was more of that romanesque thing I sketched out above, so you say ... thereare no real vikings but the Jartel are a group of firce clans , more goths than viking who inhabit this region. then give him some options, they have shamen that worship a nature patheon, they have runic magic or so it is believed and they have a strong warrior code. No no beserkers but etc ...

Talking at character generation can help you come up with ideas and flesh out the world and make it one the players liek the feel of. It also gets you close tot eh PC so you know what to expect from them.