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?

I did not see anything separating them in the OP, so I apologize.  
And I always took the words in the early books literally about the purpose of the game to be creating worlds.  The idea of a canned setting is sort of in opposition to how I see the game, personally.

Canned settings can have a lot of detail, but so do the older, well played ones.  and they are often different detail.  My well-played areas (like Igbar) and her environs get totally built up and worked with, while other areas are more sparsely built and framed.  
I think that may be one difference, that the amount of detail that evolves in a well played area (like, for decades) is really hard to replicate.

Quote from: LordVreeg;734838I did not see anything separating them in the OP, so I apologize.  
And I always took the words in the early books literally about the purpose of the game to be creating worlds.  The idea of a canned setting is sort of in opposition to how I see the game, personally.

Canned settings can have a lot of detail, but so do the older, well played ones.  and they are often different detail.  My well-played areas (like Igbar) and her environs get totally built up and worked with, while other areas are more sparsely built and framed.  
I think that may be one difference, that the amount of detail that evolves in a well played area (like, for decades) is really hard to replicate.

I was thinking of your game when I posted last, actually.

Quote from: flyingmice;734843I was thinking of your game when I posted last, actually.

I have a very low save vs flattery.

Who is the market for the setting?

A skeletal setting may be fun for the DIY crowd, but that represents a much smaller segment of the hobby market than the RPG Collector Crowd who want to read detailed settings like others read novels.

Personally, I am most impressed with settings whose detail is all about inspiring adventures and giving me usable game content that shows itself at the table. I want minimal backstory and only backstory that gives me context to create better adventures and help deepen immersion for the players.

I don't want setting books to be novels, but I loved novels about RPG settings, even if they are cheesey dime novels.

Quote from: LordVreeg;734838I did not see anything separating them in the OP, so I apologize.  
And I always took the words in the early books literally about the purpose of the game to be creating worlds.  The idea of a canned setting is sort of in opposition to how I see the game, personally.

Canned settings can have a lot of detail, but so do the older, well played ones.  and they are often different detail.

I presume you mean a well detailed setting with "canned setting"? What is a well played setting? Literally you just played it a lot and it grew? Is this a homemade setting?

Quote from: Spinachcat;734850Who is the market for the setting?

A skeletal setting may be fun for the DIY crowd, but that represents a much smaller segment of the hobby market than the RPG Collector Crowd who want to read detailed settings like others read novels.

This skeletal setting is exactly what the new WoD is. For example there is a book about the Underworld, where it's up to the GM to decide which kind of underworld it is. Based on Egyptian, Japanse or Greek culture? That's up to the GM. I actually don't like this at all.

I like it either fleshed out or I prefer a really broad setting. Or both. That's the best. I find kitchen sink settings to be more flexible. I mean with Fading Suns you can easily go Han Solo, do some plotting and scheming with nobles, infiltrate with a spie, fight as a mercenary or go ancient relic hunting. The flexibilty of skeletal settings are usually a bit limited. The car is already there, you can only give it a paintjob.

Quote from: Spinachcat;734850Personally, I am most impressed with settings whose detail is all about inspiring adventures and giving me usable game content that shows itself at the table. I want minimal backstory and only backstory that gives me context to create better adventures and help deepen immersion for the players.

I don't want setting books to be novels, but I loved novels about RPG settings, even if they are cheesey dime novels.

I get what you mean. The backstory must give some focus to a game. It must tell you what you can do with the game. Non relevant backstory is worthless.

My problem with official settings is they tend to be shit. The designers are that designers and they are trying to find a way to squeeze in all the elven races or make sense of the how can we run dwarves in this mesomerican aztec setting.
Basically too much compromise.

Authored settigns for novels and films tend to be far better constructed and far more interesting. Despite there being a lot of common ground between say forgotten realms and Westeros I would much rather play Westeros because it has character.

I don't need settings resources in actual play. I want the feel and texture of a setting more than the detail. On the other hand I really dislike the generic D&D default setting becuase when A DM uses it they are basically saying "I have given no thought at all to my game world"

So my ideal setting is one where the backdrop is a well known literary one but the detail is constructed by the DM but it s non invasive way... hmm... its actually pretty difficult to explain now I think about it

So I want the DM to have thought through how everything works. I want the barkeep to ask for 2 silver florins I want the troop of lancers that ride past to be wearing the sigil of the Legion of Dread. I am totally comfortable with the DM mixing literary settings,dropping things in whole cloth. I myself have lifted the gods of Westeros, specifically The Seven, and dropped them into fantasy games. They are well understood by the players easy to grokk and add a load of colour whilst allowing me to run a truely polytheist religion (ie you pray to different gods for different things) and it takes 3 minutes to do.
Little stuff makes the world seem real.

I have been testing out the hypothesis that you can write a whole fantasy setting and make it evocative and interesting with enough setting detail to be playable, on one sheet of paper say 400 words and a list of race and classes. I might have a stab at it later maybe we can start up a design thread and give it a go as a group.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734861I presume you mean a well detailed setting with "canned setting"? What is a well played setting? Literally you just played it a lot and it grew? Is this a homemade setting?

when I say 'canned', I mean a bought setting.  Something someone may or may not have played themselves, then fleshed out, edited, and sold on the open market to other people who need /want a whole setting or just pieces of it.  

This is in contrast to a homebrewed or homemade setting, something created specifically by that GM or group.  

I made the point that the well-played homebrew often suffers from an plethora of data in areas that have been played a lot, whereas other areas are much more barebones.  But then, when you keep players and campaigns going for yers and years, they can gt very deeply immersed and entangled in the intracasies of every little thing, and can take it quite seriously when things change.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734829I like having historical information. I find this helpful. What i do not like is needlessly complex history that is difficult to grasp.

Perhaps paradoxically, real history is far and away my favorite subject matter.  Joke with my wife about how I wish a person could get laid by talking up a girl at the bra how, for example, the introduction of the mouldboard plow was crucial in shifting the balance of European power away from the Mediterranean.  But alas, never once got laid that way.

Gaming is like trying to get laid, waxing historical takes one further from the goal at hand.

Quote from: Old One Eye;734893Perhaps paradoxically, real history is far and away my favorite subject matter.  Joke with my wife about how I wish a person could get laid by talking up a girl at the bra how, for example, the introduction of the mouldboard plow was crucial in shifting the balance of European power away from the Mediterranean.  But alas, never once got laid that way.

Gaming is like trying to get laid, waxing historical takes one further from the goal at hand.

I just find having the historical background helps me GM a setting. I also find it gets me more interested in the setting as well. I do think playability is important but there are going to be some elements that are like roots: players might not see them directly or always be aware of them, but they are still supporting a lot of things they do see. At least for me, a good chapter on the setting history is a plus.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734601How much detail should a setting and it's history have? What is your favorite (un)detailed setting and why?

I like detailed settings, but I don't like NPC's taking over the lead roles from the players. Some settings that I like, because they are very detailed, are Fading Suns and Godlike/Wild Talents. I am also interested in Hellfrost and that seems to be detailed, but not as detailed as Forgotten Realms. I am always a bit struggling with the new world of darkness settings, because of their lack of detail.

So that's where I stand. How about you?

I tend to like a good idea of the areas history. What has gone before, what has lead up to the current state of things.

Greyhawk boxed set was my first introduction to a campaign world.

Before that it was revised ed Gamma World which was virtually blank. And Star Frontiers which just had very minor guidelines on the systems overall.

Greyhawk presented the idea of a setting with lots of info you could call upon if you so desired.

Dragonlance for me oddly was a very blank setting. The RPG book gave you very little details overall. I assume alot of this was fleshed out in the modules.

As for NPCs and NPC intrusion. That is a DM problem. Not a setting problem. DMs can have personal NPCs totally unconnected to the settings.

On the reverse, a setting can have tons of fleshed out NPCs and the players might never see them if the DM never uses them.

Quote from: Old One Eye;734893Perhaps paradoxically, real history is far and away my favorite subject matter.  Joke with my wife about how I wish a person could get laid by talking up a girl at the bra how, for example, the introduction of the mouldboard plow was crucial in shifting the balance of European power away from the Mediterranean.  But alas, never once got laid that way.

Gaming is like trying to get laid, waxing historical takes one further from the goal at hand.

All depends on the specifics of the campaign within the setting.  almost all my games are rooted in historical data that all ties together, and the players who bother to pay attention and keep track can solve stuff others don't.

Some more than others.  My current online game is rooted very, very deeply in a historical net, the ancient affecting the old affecting the recent influencing the now.  Since it is online, all of it is archived, and the game itself is very non-trad, the players are first year students in the largest and oldest campus of the Collegium Arcana.  SO it is more about learning magic, making friends and connections, dealing with the inner workings of a storied place the outside world can only dimly imagine, as well as tying together the disparate and strange pieces of mysteries that they find.  So, in this particular case, right, wrong, or neither, traditional exploration is rare and combat has yet to happen in 13 full sessions and almost 30 'intermezzo' sessions.

so, the depth and feel created by history can be vital, though it is not needed in all cases.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734898I just find having the historical background helps me GM a setting. I also find it gets me more interested in the setting as well. I do think playability is important but there are going to be some elements that are like roots: players might not see them directly or always be aware of them, but they are still supporting a lot of things they do see. At least for me, a good chapter on the setting history is a plus.

I like that too. Causality. Why are the things the way they are? The Blizzard War gives an explanation why the Hellfrost is there and makes the setting more interesting for example.

Quote from: jibbajibba;734877Entire post.

Isn't it possible you like book and film settings better, because you don't like generic settings? It seems to me you never read a good RPG setting, only generic ones. And yes, I am looking at you D&D settings.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;734605I loved the OWoD for the most part, but ditched a lot of the NWoD.

To be fair to nWoD.  The setting was made to be a toolbox so that the GM can decide on.

Back to topic.  It depends on what you want out the setting.  I mean if your going for a setting in which its history is lost to the ages you can only give out so much information.