TheRPGSite

Lately I've been thinking a bit about the level of setting details players tend to want.  In most cases, it seems like the answer is: not a whole lot.

This is a feeling I can empathize with; I've studiously avoided settings that encourage reading gigantic books of setting information just to get a grasp on what the place is about and what is going on there--Tekumel, Glorantha, and post-gray box Forgotten Realms are all examples of settings that demand way more reading and memorization than I'm willing to give to a game.

Generally, I use my own homebrew setting.  I've been thinking of ways to present the flavor of my setting and some gameable story hooks in a minimum of space so as not to test my players' patience.  Then I stumbled upon the idea of the elevator pitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch).  I could easily write-up a half-page sheet giving an "elevator pitch" about what the major areas of the campaign world as like.  Some examples:

Caligari: Weimar decadence-meets Warhammer's Empire-meets-Melnibone.
The Island of Jade Mysteries: Isolated realm of holy shrines, warrior clan warfare, ceaseless bureaucracy, and an immortal queen.
Midian: Carnivale vs. the Spanish Inquisition with duelists prowling ramshackle border towns.
Mord-Stavian: Pseudo-Egypt ruled by Githyanki despots; strange cults abound.

These "elevator pitches" are short and sweet; their purpose is to give just enough flavor for players to get the basic gist of what these places are like.  If the players want more information on a place (say perhaps they're choosing where to go next in the sandbox) they can turn to the next section of the setting handout that further details these locations.  These further details will also be short and non-exhaustive; the bulk of the setting will be conveyed through Keywords and sensory details by way of Taste, Sound, and Image.  For example, a "complete" entry on a location might look something like this:

The Shae Islands
Elevator pitch: Fey-touched realm of storytellers and pagan cults that follows the logic of warped fairy tales.
Keys: Ruled by clan chieftains and druid hierophants; worship of pagan nature gods by witch cults, warlocks, and druidic initiates (think Wicker Man); banshees howling across the moors; the Seelie and Unseelie Courts of the fey; treants, shambling mounds, and wilden as protectors of the forests; bards and magical storytelling; blue-tattooed warriors; elf bargains, blood contracts, hollow hills, and the Wild Hunt; curses and hexes—wandering hex-breakers; green dragons; perytons, bog mummies, animate scarecrows, families of cursed ghouls
Taste, Sound, Image: Irish whiskey, Current 93's Swastikas for Noddy, Aubrey Beardsley's Merlin and Nimue.

Again, the goal isn't to present an avalanche of detail for full immersion, but rather to give just enough imagination-sparking detail to be immersive enough to be gameable.  I dunno, what do you think of this method?  Does it convey enough "necessary" information?  Is it not detailed enough/too detailed to hit the goal?  Is this format/method daft altogether?

I'm in total agreement. It's not like I don't see the attraction of a rich, dense and original setting, but at the end of the day all the stuff it's really just a barrier between the player and his character.

Quote from: Soylent Green;489605I'm in total agreement. It's not like I don't see the attraction of a rich, dense and original setting, but at the end of the day all the stuff it's really just a barrier between the player and his character.

Yeah, personally I find really rich, dense setting fun to read but an absolute nightmare to present in play.  

For example, I love how strange and off-beat Talislanta is but I'm stymied at every turn trying to explain what the world is like to players who haven't read the setting book.  Even when you "zoom in" to a smaller area (like the Seven Kingdoms) there is still far too much for me to adequately convey.

What I might try next is "converting" an established, published setting (maybe Ravenloft) to an elevator pitch and some associated key phrases.

I've always been torn on the idea of how much setting details to include.  How much is too much and how sparse is too little.

I think the "elevator pitch" might be a bit more towards the too little aspect.  It sounds great for a pitch to give a player the idea of what a game might be about in the absolute broadest sense, but I don't think it contains quite enough description.  A person getting just an elevator pitch might end up with one idea but only later discover that their impression was different than the actual detail of the setting.  

Perhaps something akin to an elevator small talk would be better.  That way you get a slightly more detailed description but not so much that a person feels they have to read for 10 minutes or that they will be constrained on their character based on the setting.

Quote from: Grimace;489613A person getting just an elevator pitch might end up with one idea but only later discover that their impression was different than the actual detail of the setting.  

Well one way to deal with that to start with a loose setting and adapt it the setting to match the players impressions/expectations rather than have a setting all worked out and then educate the players about it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;489614Well one way to deal with that to start with a loose setting and adapt it the setting to match the players impressions/expectations rather than have a setting all worked out and then educate the players about it.

Yeah, I'd say that's always been part of my sandbox method too: I like the world to be sketched out so that it's an interesting place to go on adventures, but I like it to be open enough that I can add a dot to the map without seeming like I'm revising history.

I try to work some of the mood I'm trying to convey into the place names, or as in the case  of the Metal Earth, the name of the setting itself- which, at least for my players hints at old Den comics and the Heavy Metal movie/magazines and all the stuff that goes with the same.  

Furthermore, mechanics can communicate a lot- such as only X race can wield magic, or only certain races are available. Having a setting with humans only gives a particular feel, as does a setting with elves, dwarves and such or allowing PC lizardmen, minotaurs and sasquatch.

Among the other things I try to do is paint the social order in broad strokes, and try to come up with unique motivations to adventure. An example of the former in my setting is everyone hates humans and they aren't allowed inside the walls of some cities; an example of the latter is the near universal fear folks have of coming back from the dead as a zombie or some other form of undead, and how it motivates families to pay crazy sums of money to hire people to recover the remains of their loved ones from the wilderness.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that the setting is best communicated in the form of gamables for example:

monsters; diseases; extreme/unique weather/hazards; interactions with the law; taboos; what is served at the inn for supper (insect paste or bacon?); and so on.

Here (http://themetalearth.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-07-27T07%3A19%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7) is a recent blog post of mine that provides a some data for the referee regarding overland travel in a certain area, but also provides several ways to mechanically integrate this knowledge into the actual game, and thereby communicate it to the players.

I find this method is the best when presenting written information to players. My philosophy is to world-build through characters and plots though, so my need for brevity is a bit different. I strive for tight ideas that remain loose enough to be improvised at will.

I think the troublesome part is, what is the "necessary" information? With imaginations working differently, what seems necessary to one player might not be evocative for another.

Personally, I think if you can't achieve the essence through 50 or 100 words then it's too convoluted and players probably won't be interested anyway.

I handle it by doing a one on one talk/session with each players to establish their character's background within the setting. But process this doesn't go much into history but rather focuses on who does the players know, what complications are present in their lives, and what resources they have.

During play I rely on a combination of standard tropes, and working in important details into my descriptions.

Specifically I do is try to distill my setting detail into now it effect individual NPCs lives and then let the roleplaying. If the player don't care that is the further it goes, but a player wanting to know more can dig further and try to figure why people act the way they do.

This is the essence of presenting setting detail. Not the writing of that 10 page history but rather how it impacts what the players see and how the NPCs act.

For example, the City-State is ruled by the Overlord. The current dynasty are recent descendents of the Tharian Horselord who conquered City-State from the Mitra worshiping Ghinorian people a hundred years ago.

I ran a all-thieves campaign at one point. The following is the practical effect of the background above.

1) The Brotherhood of the Lion which started as a resistance against the Tharian Overlords and now just a gang of thugs.

2) The Beggar's Guild which are comprised of dishonored Tharians, those without horses. They are mostly smugglers, and dealers in information as befits their wandering lifestyle.

3) The average inhabitant of City-States are split between collaborators with the Tharians, and those who still support the Brotherhood.  Along with those who think it all screwed up and turned to alternatives.

The players were all members of the Brotherhood. This is what they saw at first.

The obvious bit that they are in conflict in with the authorities. The fact the authorities were Tharian has little to do with this point.

Beggars are rivals although they since they are more into smuggling there is little direct conflict. When the beggars band together it is to stop the Brotherhood from exploiting them.

Some of the common people support them. As well as a small faction in the Church of Mitra.

I usually have a three prong approach to this for fantasy settings. I start by giving each player a brief overview of the setting (preferably face to face, but email works). Then I put together a power point slide show with maps, images, text and music (sort of like a 2-5 minute movie trailer). This usually covers the broad details through a quick history. The power point I send to players by email and it is up to them if they want to watch it.For actual play I put together a reference sheet for the players (making each person a copy). This includes info on people, places, gods, races, langauges, etc. That way players have all the key details in front of them.

Quote from: misterguignol;489551Again, the goal isn't to present an avalanche of detail for full immersion, but rather to give just enough imagination-sparking detail to be immersive enough to be gameable.  I dunno, what do you think of this method?  Does it convey enough "necessary" information?  Is it not detailed enough/too detailed to hit the goal?  Is this format/method daft altogether?

I think it's pretty good, conveying enough detail (esp the "complete entry" example) to establish mood and tone. However it does seem to me to rob the game of a little mystery. The thing is, I never give my players any written handouts about the setting, any infomation they come by is through the perspectives of their characters.

Before the campaign I give them a brief overview of the setting - creation myth (if any), races, cultures, magic etc. I tell them what books or films that inspired the setting (heck sometimes the set design and costume design of a movie, is enough for them to get a feel of the setting. For a SF campaign I asked them to refer to Alien Resurrection (a movie I loathe) for the way how this particular setting "looks"). All this is done before character creation, so they can come up with ideas for their characters that may influence the setting in some way. And once we start actually playing the details about the setting filter in during play.

Regards,
David R

I'm generally with David R on this - settings are best presented during the course of play, and from the character's perspective, IMO. Unlike David, I do provide written material, but it's mainly for reference. I find the player's don't all read it before play, but begin to refer to it later. Some probably never read it, but that's OK - it's a tool, not a straight jacket. What I present is a view of the world from the character's perspective, including cultural notes and what they would know of the broader world. I don't usually give an empirical view of the setting - that's for them to discover.

The best way to present large settings is to present give a small bite at first, then reveal the setting layer by layer through play - both in the voice of the NPCs and by description of what the players can see around them. The more detailed a setting, the more alive it seems. There's a reason that Tekumel, Glorantha, Harn, Middle Earth, etc. are still popular today and have loyal followings - because they feel real.

Personally, the sound-bite descriptions turn me off more than on. If you can distill your setting down to a single sentence, one impression that you are conveying (true or false) is that the setting lacks depth. I prefer to have somewhere between a paragraph and a page before I can really evaluate whether I'd like to play in it.

Another risk of the quick little elevator pitches is that you need to reference other things in order to make them. Not everyone will get your references, of course, so then they have to go an look them up and by then they've spent as much time researching your sources as they would have if you had spent more time describing the setting. I mean, I could describe my setting as "Naram-Sin meets Thesiger in the Arabian Nights, as told by Southey" but that would be pretty meanlingless to most people - even me, and I get the references!

Lastly, I'm sure that 99.9% of settings are derivative of something, but when you define it by it what inspired it, you basically say 'my setting is a pastiche'. Rather, I think, you should define it in a way that makes it seem more original - define it by what makes it special, not what makes it derivative. If you don't reveal your sources to the players, then they just might find it more interesting and unique than if you had. This, I think, is part of the mystery that David R is talking about.

Quote from: misterguignol;489551Caligari: Weimar decadence-meets Warhammer's Empire-meets-Melnibone.
The Island of Jade Mysteries: Isolated realm of holy shrines, warrior clan warfare, ceaseless bureaucracy, and an immortal queen.
Midian: Carnivale vs. the Spanish Inquisition with duelists prowling ramshackle border towns.
Mord-Stavian: Pseudo-Egypt ruled by Githyanki despots; strange cults abound.

I think you're right, the elevator pitch is good, however these are not elevator pitches, these are high concepts.  You need to flesh them out a bit more to be elevator pitches.  :D

I'm pretty lucky, since I play a post modern game it's pretty easy for me to acclimatize new players. In fantasy games I involve the players in creating the setting-which if you can do this invests them in the setting. Obviously not a one size fits all answer.

I'm sure I'm be tarred with the swine-brush for saying this, but this is exactly like FATE Aspects or HeroQuest2 traits[1].  I kept wanting to tag your list of phrases :-)



[1] Or PDQ Descriptors, or Story Engine Characteristics...

Quote from: Thalaba;489707If you don't reveal your sources to the players, then they just might find it more interesting and unique than if you had. This, I think, is part of the mystery that David R is talking about.

Yeah. I mean my games aren't the most original out there but what I do well in, is subtly alluding to sources familiar to the players all the while making them seem unique to the setting.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;489720Yeah. I mean my games aren't the most original out there but what I do well in, is subtly alluding to sources familiar to the players all the while making them seem unique to the setting.

Regards,
David R

Fair enough; you guys have convinced me to swap out my allusions to media-type-things and substitute my own descriptions.  Thanks for that, the feedback is appreciated!

Quote from: CRKrueger;489708I think you're right, the elevator pitch is good, however these are not elevator pitches, these are high concepts.  You need to flesh them out a bit more to be elevator pitches.  :D

Heh, I probably need to look up what an actual elevator pitch looks like.

Quote from: David R;489720Yeah. I mean my games aren't the most original out there but what I do well in, is subtly alluding to sources familiar to the players all the while making them seem unique to the setting.

Nothing wrong with this. I mean when I present a setting in Shadowrun I use a familiar base line and then modify as we go. So Seattle is often as not our setting, so I'll print an area up from Google Maps-keep a few locations (Burger Joints, Coffee Shops, maybe a few others that fit the feel) and then I add to it. Works real good for us.

Any new game, setting or adventure really needs to be summed up in a couples of minutes explaination. Or if its more involved circulated a week before the session starts.

Quote from: daniel_ream;489715I'm sure I'm be tarred with the swine-brush for saying this, but this is exactly like FATE Aspects or HeroQuest2 traits[1].  I kept wanting to tag your list of phrases :-)



[1] Or PDQ Descriptors, or Story Engine Characteristics...

Tarred with the swine-brush? Go to this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21237) and you'll see with your own eyes the degeneracy of the posters of this site.

I am going to answer this thread eventually.  
Damn it.

Quote from: misterguignol;489551Again, the goal isn't to present an avalanche of detail for full immersion, but rather to give just enough imagination-sparking detail to be immersive enough to be gameable.  I dunno, what do you think of this method?  Does it convey enough "necessary" information?  Is it not detailed enough/too detailed to hit the goal?  Is this format/method daft altogether?

THis is indeed interesting. I would love to see an rpg rulebook presented this way - would it work?

I think the key, in gaming, is atmosphere. The GM is trying to create an atmosphere, a vibe. No player is going to want to be the recipient of an infodump, and in reality no denizen of a setting is going to know everything that ever happened, not even in his own corner of the world. Does Frodo know the history of Middle EArth? Elrond might because he was there, but not even Boromir knew of the true bloodline of the king.

So it's about presenting a given setting/location in terms of creating the vibe so the players are hooked. This is why star wars the movies work: because they show you, they don't tell you several thousand years of galactic history. Tatooine is a haven for smuggling because it's on the rim, it has that north african casbah vibe and because fat greasy criminal overlord monsters run the place.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;489934I think the key, in gaming, is atmosphere. The GM is trying to create an atmosphere, a vibe. No player is going to want to be the recipient of an infodump, and in reality no denizen of a setting is going to know everything that ever happened, not even in his own corner of the world. Does Frodo know the history of Middle EArth? Elrond might because he was there, but not even Boromir knew of the true bloodline of the king.

So it's about presenting a given setting/location in terms of creating the vibe so the players are hooked. This is why star wars the movies work: because they show you, they don't tell you several thousand years of galactic history. Tatooine is a haven for smuggling because it's on the rim, it has that north african casbah vibe and because fat greasy criminal overlord monsters run the place.

This rings completely true to me.

Fun = watching Star Wars
Not Fun = reading all of Wookieepedia in one sitting.

there are a few things I do.

One is the layering of detail.  It helps to give an overview of any subject that gives players the feel and basic idea of a data set or subset.  The feel includes all the atmospherics.  But giving more detail deeper in, especially with linked access (the beauty of a wiki).
See the Overview section of Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955656/Igbar%2C%20Capital%20of%20Trabler) as an example of the first and this history (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955333/Basic%20History%20and%20Information%20of%20Igbar) as a good example of using links to allow players more of an access to go deeper.  Feel free to tell me if I am nuts, BTW. I freely admit all games are different.

Another is frankly rewarding players who delve into the histories.  Not with actual rewards, but I have (for decades) given more 'spotlight' time for the players who invest their characters into the histories and minutiae.  

I also want to draw a distiction between some of the comments made already.  Yes, watching star wars and enjoying needs that light brush strokes and hints of more, but that is more like the equivalent of a one-shot game.  Different levels of game investiture exist.  And while I always agree that overviews are important; for a longer term game a different level only enhances the game and increases immersion.
That is why the,"reading the whole Wookipedia in one sitting"  comment is not really analagous; one does not play 30 sessions worth of game in one sitting.

Quote from: LordVreeg;489972Another is frankly rewarding players who delve into the histories.  Not with actual rewards, but I have (for decades) given more 'spotlight' time for the players who invest their characters into the histories and minutiae.  

This is a good point. It's esp relevent for players who enjoy "discovering" the setting. I'm not talking about only doing research or anything like that but more often it's about how they approach the setting, interacting with NPCs or using established "details" as  launching pads for something else. In one game for example, a PC resurrected a "dead criminal guild" as the basis  for a rebel group.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;489981This is a good point. It's esp relevent for players who enjoy "discovering" the setting. I'm not talking about only doing research or anything like that but more often it's about how they approach the setting, interacting with NPCs or using established "details" as  launching pads for something else. In one game for example, a PC resurrected a "dead criminal guild" as the basis  for a rebel group.

Regards,
David R

Great example.

The name of the system we use is called, "GuildSchool'.  It is called this as it is a skill based game, but one where guilds or schools take the part of classes in that the speed and ability of the character's skill is determined mainly by where they learn it.
I mention this because character generation in this obviously involves the main or sub 'guilds' the character belongs to.  This give the player much more of a starting 'hook' into their social position and how they fit into the local and larger society.  
In terms of 'presenting setting data', this give the PC a really nice 'springboard'.

There's a good reason so many fantasy novels or series start with a character that has essentially the same level of knowledge about the overall setting as the reader being thrust into a larger world a piece at a time; it's a workable technique for introducing a large and foreign world to the reader.

Very, very few fantasy RPG settings seem to even try this, though, preferring instead to dump a huge amount of information on the prospective players that they're just expected to know as natives of their particular part of the setting.

So, a thought experiment: As a GM, how would you construct a campaign introduction for 4-6 new PCs that were part of your current campaign setting, but did not necessarily know anything about the rest of it more than a day's travel from their current residence?

Quote from: daniel_ream;490006So, a thought experiment: As a GM, how would you construct a campaign introduction for 4-6 new PCs that were part of your current campaign setting, but did not necessarily know anything about the rest of it more than a day's travel from their current residence?

I've done this and found it works well. In our previous campaign, the PCs all started as brothers/cousins from a small tribal backwater. I described what they knew of the world (which wasn't much) and we played a few adventures locally - about 4 sessions - which allowed them to pick up on local customs, mores, and politics. Then, at a tribal gathering, they met some foreigners and circumstances evolved such that they decided to leave their homeland and go on a quest. This quest eventually spanned a continent.

Each new place was described from the characters' perspective. For example I might say "This place they call Telpa is the largest town you've ever seen. It spreads up a hillside behind an impossibly high stone wall about 15 cubits high. When you speak to the warden at the gate, he discourages you from camping in the streets or outside the wall, and instead suggests you go to an 'in' - a word which seems to be shorthand in this town for 'a camp in the city that you have to pay for'.

Things got weirder and weirder the further they got from home. The characters reacted differently to this - one player decided his character got the travel bug and wanted to explore more and more - while another longed for home. In response to the guard situation above, one might respond "I can't wait to see what this 'in' is all about", while the other would invariably say "They'll never believe us back home that we had to pay for a night's shelter! And speaking of which, I can't wait to get back."

Quote from: daniel_ream;490006There's a good reason so many fantasy novels or series start with a character that has essentially the same level of knowledge about the overall setting as the reader being thrust into a larger world a piece at a time; it's a workable technique for introducing a large and foreign world to the reader.



So, a thought experiment: As a GM, how would you construct a campaign introduction for 4-6 new PCs that were part of your current campaign setting, but did not necessarily know anything about the rest of it more than a day's travel from their current residence?

To the opposite side of this, most RPGs ignore how much a character WOULD or should know.  
Because 'just basic' information could (i said could; tech, etc reduce or enlarge this) include a hundred NPCs and each of their connection, religion, mythology, basic social customs including greetings, common phrases, reltionships, marriages, births, naming, surnames, inheritance, ...and so on.
The Law, property, the ruling factions and their relationships and history.
The local economy, what is produced, how to produce it, what the local food is, how it is prepared, what a delicacy might be, the local coinage and what it means, who is rich and what wealth really means, local flora and fauna, what the local buildings are made of and how they are made.

I mean, I couls go on, even for a low-tech society.  But many RPGs are not that; mine is decidely "Age of Enlightenment" analogous.

I mean, one can start with a relatively ignorant character or group of characters, but even still, there can be a lot to know.  And in most cases, players often want the choice of chracters with some world/guild/educational knowledge.

This...

QuoteVery, very few fantasy RPG settings seem to even try this, though, preferring instead to dump a huge amount of information on the prospective players that they're just expected to know as natives of their particular part of the setting

is merely the GM or setting manufacturer doing their job.

Quote from: daniel_ream;490006So, a thought experiment: As a GM, how would you construct a campaign introduction for 4-6 new PCs that were part of your current campaign setting, but did not necessarily know anything about the rest of it more than a day's travel from their current residence?

This would depend on where they currently reside, the kind of characters they are playing but most importantly how much each individual player wants to know. Info can be presented during the game and not just before it. Often times (IME) the group's dynamic also plays a part.

Regards,
David R

I guess a lot depends on what the role of the setting plays in your game.  For some games exploring the setting is a big part of the fun in it's own right. In other games, especially modern day games, the setting is just a neutral backdrop to showcase the characters and the events.

Quote from: Soylent Green;490088I guess a lot depends on what the role of the setting plays in your game.  For some games exploring the setting is a big part of the fun in it's own right. In other games, especially modern day games, the setting is just a neutral backdrop to showcase the characters and the events.

Yeah.  I think Tolkien and Morrowind infected my brain.