So you like big settings, but they have to be movie or book settings everyone is familiar with. I agree I love big settings, but metaplot it crap, because of über NPC's taking the lead role instead of the players. That's why I am so hung up about the new WoD. They axed the metaplot (:cheerleader:), but they also got a rid of a lot the background (:jaw-dropping:) and replaced it with some sort of unfinished painting background. I quit talking about that setting now.

I now seem to get interested in Hellfrost. It's really broad, but it isn't so detailed (one or two pages per factions/region) that is works suffocating. Interesting. I think it's a bit like oldschool D&D before the Forgotten Realms become mega detailed.

Quote from: flyingmice;734648Exactly, or Classic Traveller before the Third Imperium.

Burgess Shale Traveller?

Quote from: JeremyR;734653Classic Traveller annoyed me, mapping out the entire galaxy, basically, and what few areas remained got licensed out to third parties.

WTF? Where was the entire galaxy mapped out in Classic Traveller?

Quote from: Old One Eye;734637I do not want any historical detail.  Just explain the here and now.

This. I was jazzed at the premise of Earthdawn. But the setting books are full of historical metaplot bullshit, with very little concrete in-game content.

Quote from: jeff37923;734796Burgess Shale Traveller?

Exactly, Jeff! My Traveller universe back in 1977-78 was very different from the Third Imperium indeed! Much of the flavor - and a few places, and more names  - managed to make it into StarCluster 1e and 2e - 3e dispenses with a default setting entirely in favor of setting generators - but it only shared the concepts common to the implied setting of the original boxed set.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;734805Exactly, Jeff! My Traveller universe back in 1977-78 was very different from the Third Imperium indeed! Much of the flavor - and a few places, and more names  - managed to make it into StarCluster 1e and 2e - 3e dispenses with a default setting entirely in favor of setting generators - but it only shared the concepts common to the implied setting of the original boxed set.

-clash

I started playing Traveller in 1982 and it was not until about 1984 or 1985 that I realized that there was an Official Traveller Universe. Everything I did was in my own homebrew setting created through the rules.

Big detail guy.
But I write it for my games and my players, some of whom read a lot of it some don't.  That being said, I also believe the less often it is obvious the GM is making it up as they go, the better the immersion.
It allows for better consistency, which keeps the PCs more 'in the game world'.  But more importantly, is this 'illusion of preparedness'.



"The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion. Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position. The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability.

I think we are talking about purchased settings here, but what about settings that we have had for decades in which things have organically grown through use in Actual Play? How do the two instances compare?

Quote from: Haffrung;734800This. I was jazzed at the premise of Earthdawn. But the setting books are full of historical metaplot bullshit, with very little concrete in-game content.

Wait, what?

Quote from: LordVreeg;734813Big detail guy.
But I write it for my games and my players, some of whom read a lot of it some don't.  That being said, I also believe the less often it is obvious the GM is making it up as they go, the better the immersion.
It allows for better consistency, which keeps the PCs more 'in the game world'.  But more importantly, is this 'illusion of preparedness'.

Or a GM has to do a lot of work fleshing it out himself.

Btw, I think I like Traveller a lot better with the Third Imperium supplements.

The 3I for Traveller is Marc's homebrew campaign, so it grew as it was played and documented, but like a lot of things Taveller, it was latched onto by grognards and away you go. It wasn't integral to the game though, more of a response to people who wanted it.

As someone who's getting back into Glorantha, I have a big appreciation for detailed settings.  The thing I like about Glorantha though is that it's about cultures and cult organizations and opportunities for connections to the world for the PCs.

I've also noticed that the approach of Runequest is that you start off very young and ignorant of the world, so players literally need no real setting knowledge and the referee needs only slightly more.

Quote from: Old One Eye;734637I do not want any historical detail.  Just explain the here and now.

I like having historical information. I find this helpful. What i do not like is needlessly complex history that is difficult to grasp.

Quote from: mcbobbo;734821Wait, what?

I got the Nations of Barsaive books and they were page after page of dwarven history and the politics of t'skrang trading houses. Almost nothing at the encounter level. No cults for the PCs to do battle with. No lairs of monsters. No maps of kaers. No encounter tables for traveling on the river. Just a few hundred pages of backstory and metaplot that the characters will never come face-to-face with. You'd think with over 500 pages of content I'd have some tangible game material to help me kick of an Earthdawn campaign. Nope. I'd have to make up everything the players actually encountered in the world from scratch. So I said piss on it, and sold the books.

Quote from: jeff37923;734814I think we are talking about purchased settings here, but what about settings that we have had for decades in which things have organically grown through use in Actual Play? How do the two instances compare?

Absolutely utterly in love!

-clash