I was thinking about this the other night, with so many "plain" fantasy settings out there what would or does it take to draw you into a new one? Or what features of your favorite ones keep you coming back, as a player or a DM? Personally I like an interesting history riddled with points that aren't fully explained, things that make me stop and wonder, as a DM anyway, I don't really play enough to have an opinion on that front.

Another related question is just what is a vanilla fantasy setting? If such a thing exists exactly.

I like my settings "medium".  There needs to be some content there, or I will pick something else, but there can't be so much that I can't easily drop in material from other sources.

I like rather plain settings with not a great deal of development done, like the Known World from the B/X expert set. Cool maps and brief bits of information about the major lands. Its like an open book, ready for you to make what you want out of it.

Quote from: Arkansan;688863I was thinking about this the other night, with so many "plain" fantasy settings out there what would or does it take to draw you into a new one? Or what features of your favorite ones keep you coming back, as a player or a DM?

The big strengths of settings based on the default assumptions of the D&D game (assuming that's the game we're talking about) as far as I'm concerned is that they plug into the shared experience of the game, first, that the big picture becomes easier to run because you can focus on these elements that make the setting actually unique while instantly sharing the default parameters and "language" the authors are using, second, and third because from that point on the usability of such a setting is heightened whether you want to use it as is, combine it with other "vanilla" setting which, by virtue of being "vanilla", will be more-or-less compatible with one another from a background's standpoint, or take it apart to plug some of its bits and pieces into your own setting or another one of your choosing.

Quote from: Arkansan;688863Another related question is just what is a vanilla fantasy setting? If such a thing exists exactly.

I think what people have in mind when they are talking about "vanilla" D&D/fantasy settings is the implied setting described in the D&D books: there are elves and dwarves and halflings in the world, the setting is pseudo-medieval in tone, there's a wilderness out there to explore, and dungeons under the ground, and so on. Basically worlds like Greyhawk and to some extent, the Forgotten Realms.

The thing is, most "vanilla" settings aren't, because the "vanilla" qualifier is generally a stereotype, an approximation, whereas when you study the usual suspects, you find out that they each have a specificity of their own. There is weird and unique stuff going on in Greyhawk for instance that actually doesn't happen in the Forgotten Realms, and vice versa. And if your "vanilla" setting happens to be bland and without a personality of its own, then something probably went wrong when you came up with it in the first place.

Plain settings are where it's at for me.

I like to focus on the actual game happening. What the are characters doing, what's happening, etc...

Too much focus on "setting" and making it "deep" or "unique" tends to distract from the immediate act of playing IMO.

It's similar to the way too much focus on "plot" or "rules" distracts from the actual act of role-playing.

A little is good, a lot is bad.

The most interesting and compelling thing in the game pales in comparison to the act of discovering that thing. So much so that the exact details of the thing aren't really that important.

If that makes any sense.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;688870I like rather plain settings with not a great deal of development done, like the Known World from the B/X expert set. Cool maps and brief bits of information about the major lands. Its like an open book, ready for you to make what you want out of it.

Yes, that too. Because the language describing the setting is shared, you are then empowered as user/DM to actually shape the setting as your own, more so than you would be if you had to tackle a completely foreign language/feel first to then knowingly tweak its components to have the setting accomplish what it is you want out of your game.

Quote from: Benoist;688872The big strengths of settings based on the default assumptions of the D&D game (assuming that's the game we're talking about) as far as I'm concerned is that they plug into the shared experience of the game, first, that the big picture becomes easier to run because you can focus on these elements that make the setting actually unique while instantly sharing the default parameters and "language" the authors are using, second, and third because from that point on the usability of such a setting is heightened whether you want to use it as is, combine it with other "vanilla" setting which, by virtue of being "vanilla", will be more-or-less compatible with one another from a background's standpoint, or take it apart to plug some of its bits and pieces into your own setting or another one of your choosing.



I think what people have in mind when they are talking about "vanilla" D&D/fantasy settings is the implied setting described in the D&D books: there are elves and dwarves and halflings in the world, the setting is pseudo-medieval in tone, there's a wilderness out there to explore, and dungeons under the ground, and so on. Basically worlds like Greyhawk and to some extent, the Forgotten Realms.

The thing is, most "vanilla" settings aren't, because the "vanilla" qualifier is generally a stereotype, an approximation, whereas when you study the usual suspects, you find out that they each have a specificity of their own. There is weird and unique stuff going on in Greyhawk for instance that actually doesn't happen in the Forgotten Realms, and vice versa. And if your "vanilla" setting happens to be bland and without a personality of its own, then something probably went wrong when you came up with it in the first place.

Right, I agree that a "vanilla" for lack of a better term, setting has a lot of strengths. They have this shared set of assumptions that create a sort of shared vocabulary of world building that I think is a good thing. I don't mean vanilla in a derogatory sense. I think what I was getting at is what you talked about in your third paragraph here, each of the classic "vanilla" settings are unique, but what sort of things do you look for in a "vanilla" setting that set it apart from others? Is it unique takes on the standard assumptions, an interesting history, that sort of thing?
 
Of course that is not to say that it has to be particularly unique, a world could follow all of the classic D&D assumptions to the letter and still be really interesting. Another thing I am interested in as someone who has only really ever DMed, I may have played three or four times in the last five years, is what exactly as a player do you come across in a setting that makes you go "Ohh neat!"

Quote from: Benoist;688872I think what people have in mind when they are talking about "vanilla" D&D/fantasy settings is the implied setting described in the D&D books: there are elves and dwarves and halflings in the world, the setting is pseudo-medieval in tone, there's a wilderness out there to explore, and dungeons under the ground, and so on. Basically worlds like Greyhawk and to some extent, the Forgotten Realms.

The original D&D books (and 1E as well) implied that, and more than that: a wide open universe of fantasy, with something perhaps like the Free City of Greyhawk or the village of Blackmoor as a starting point of reference.

So, there may be a distinction between that kind of "generic" (genre fantasy) game world, and one in which "vanilla" means only a certain stereotyped mix of elements -- one the Tough Guide to Fantasyland perhaps not only adequately covers but already goes beyond.

Quote from: Arkansan;688863I was thinking about this the other night, with so many "plain" fantasy settings out there what would or does it take to draw you into a new one?

The personal touches of the GM and the players. To put it most bluntly, I don't care a bit -- one way or another -- about commercial products. Whether the GM has a stack of glossy books, a binder of hand-written notes, both, or neither, is irrelevant. What matters is the game.

Right, a good DM can make a fun game even in a boring setting. I just wondered what kind of things people see in the context of a classic D&D setting that they take notice of.

They don't. But I'm not against gaming in them on the players' side.

Quote from: Arkansan;688878Right, I agree that a "vanilla" for lack of a better term, setting has a lot of strengths. They have this shared set of assumptions that create a sort of shared vocabulary of world building that I think is a good thing. I don't mean vanilla in a derogatory sense. I think what I was getting at is what you talked about in your third paragraph here, each of the classic "vanilla" settings are unique, but what sort of things do you look for in a "vanilla" setting that set it apart from others? Is it unique takes on the standard assumptions, an interesting history, that sort of thing?

Might be yes, or just cool sounding names like "Theocracy of the Pale" or "Iuz" or "Pomarj". Might be some cool bad guys like Thay in the Forgotten Realms. Might be some awesome maps, like the Wilderlands of High Fantasy. A cool vibe of some particular areas like Baldur's Gate, Waterdeep or Cormyr, or the Underdark with Menzoberranzan and all that, or even more specific setting elements like the set up of the Ruins of Myth Drannor. Some really good modules like Tsojcanth, Tharizdun or Temple of Elemental Evil. And so on.

It could be big picture, small picture, something innocuous like the names, some particular NPCs or factions in the world that make me think of cool situations or adventures...
 

Quote from: Arkansan;688878Of course that is not to say that it has to be particularly unique, a world could follow all of the classic D&D assumptions to the letter and still be really interesting. Another thing I am interested in as someone who has only really ever DMed, I may have played three or four times in the last five years, is what exactly as a player do you come across in a setting that makes you go "Ohh neat!"

Opportunities to play the character I want to play, to face challenges and threats I actually want to face when I think "I'm going to play Dungeons and Dragons!" You know: dungeons, and dragons, and giants, and hobgoblins, and kobolds, and medusas, and drows, and beholders so on. Some weirdness and horror and surprise and wonder. Some beauty, and some ugliness in the world. A freedom of decision and movement, my ability to choose my own objectives in a setting ready for just that. Those are the kind of things coming first to my mind. Notice how a good "vanilla" experience has a better chance of satisfying those wants of mine.

Quote from: Phillip;688886The personal touches of the GM and the players. To put it most bluntly, I don't care a bit -- one way or another -- about commercial products.

Yep.  Someone using the RAW setting out of the shrink-wrap is someone who's given no thought to the setting, and someone who likely to be flatfooted at any question about or reference to anything that isn't written down on those glossy pages.

For my part, I'm a realism bug.  I want the setting to make sense.  I don't want to see hundred thousand person city-states in the desert, and I don't want to see pervasive magical technology with ten wizards in town, and I don't want to see rows of gleaming new weapons and armor off-the-rack, and I don't want to see 11th century metal- and carpentry-tech with late 19th century Age of Sail clipper ships.

Quote from: Phillip;688886The personal touches of the GM and the players. To put it most bluntly, I don't care a bit -- one way or another -- about commercial products. Whether the GM has a stack of glossy books, a binder of hand-written notes, both, or neither, is irrelevant. What matters is the game.

I care about the products obviously, since I'm creating some of those right now, and I think these are words of wisdom. I think good game products actually help make what Phillip wants happen: they provide the context, leave room for personal touches, empower players and DM to breathe their own life into the thing. To play THEIR own game. To unlock their own imagination, and run with it. That is key, to me (wink wink, nudge nudge, looking at my avatar: pun intended).

Quote from: Ravenswing;688894Yep.  Someone using the RAW setting out of the shrink-wrap is someone who's given no thought to the setting, and someone who likely to be flatfooted at any question about or reference to anything that isn't written down on those glossy pages.

For my part, I'm a realism bug.  I want the setting to make sense.  I don't want to see hundred thousand person city-states in the desert, and I don't want to see pervasive magical technology with ten wizards in town, and I don't want to see rows of gleaming new weapons and armor off-the-rack, and I don't want to see 11th century metal- and carpentry-tech with late 19th century Age of Sail clipper ships.

I kind of sit the fence on realism, I like things to make sense, but I am not tied down to a particular notion of realism in the context of a game. However you do hit one thing that bugs the hell out of me, I just don't like it when every shop keep has a whole rack of magic items for sale. It take the magic out of magic for me, it hits a point where the fantastic becomes mundane.

As far as what makes "vanilla" interesting, what I am getting out of this conversation is that it really just depends. Which is fine and kind of what I expected, so here is the same question in reverse, is there a bad way to go about a "vanilla" D&D setting? Can it be done "wrong"?