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"?
Quote from: Arkansan;688890Right, 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.
No, boring is just boring. The question, I think, is (a) where the familiar comes in, and (b) where the novel comes in.
I personally found Empire of the Petal Throne and Metamorphosis Alpha easy to get into because the essential game structure (as well as the mechanics) was familiar: home base, dungeons, wilderness; monsters, traps and treasures. The colorful peculiarities of the planet Tekumel or the starship Warden -- both generally, and each GM's take -- were cumulatively of the same order as what I might expect in a campaign more prominently featuring the baseline material in D&D (pseudo-Tolkien, Greek mythology, touches of various fantasy and SF writers, monster movies, etc.).
There was also the factor that some of the inspirations for EPT and MA were as familiar to me as some of those for D&D. Coming from a background of SF fandom (of that particular era, one of a renaissance in publication of much old material) helped, as did a general interest in history and anthropology in the case of EPT.
On the other hand, some people find the first impressions of those worlds too strange. They more quickly get their bearings in a milieu strongly reminiscent of Tolkien's (or Norse Mythology's) Middle Earth, Howard's Hyborian Age, popular depictions of Arthur's or Robin Hood's England, or some combination of like evocations.
Quote from: Arkansan;688897is there a bad way to go about a "vanilla" D&D setting? Can it be done "wrong"?
If it's too bland, has no personality of its own at all, doesn't help the users to plug their imagination into it in any way, shape or form, that there just isn't anything in the world that just begs for a band of adventurers to "get out there, and get exploring", I believe something would be wrong in D&D's context, yes. I think it basically can be done wrong.
Quote from: Benoist;688895(Good game products) ... 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.
Just so. The original
Wilderlands of High Fantasy and
City State of the Invincible Overlord, the Gygaxian folio and boxed editions of
World of Greyhawk, and so on, provided a foundation of preliminary matters. At the same time, they did not dictate very much beyond that even if one chose to modify nothing presented. I would include the first edition of the Forgotten Realms boxed set in that category, although the detailed supplements on various regions start to go beyond.
Later products have tended to pin down so much that "canon" easily becomes a burden. At the extreme -- what seems par for the course today -- they do not so much relieve the GM of labor as impose a lot of work in study, as if playing the game were supposed to be like going to school or holding down a professional job.
Sort of similar to a lot of what's been said: the vanilla elements are good grounding material, a backdrop that's instantly familiar.
But what makes such a setting "pop" for me are those bits of localized weirdness, like Greyhawk's cambion-lord Iuz or the white pudding mother in the adventure outlines chapter of the '83 box.
That said, I do enjoy settings that are a bit left of center, like Aos/Gib's Metal Earth, but even they still retain a certain familiarity.
Can't say I find anything of interest in a vanilla setting to be honest. Give me sweeping canyons with cities hanging from the spanning bridges, give me wastelands where jewels on the wind have eroded pillars of rock into glyphs telling the secrets of aeons past, a different one from each point of arcane compasses, give me acid seas sailed over by great and wise stone ships, jungles where cocooners dwell under silverine moongroves and civilisations formed of whispers drive men mad.
I don't want to wander through fantasy analogues of historical countries in a fantasy game unless the game is specifically sold on the basis of being 'fantasy Europe' or something, like Ars Magica, which is a lot of fun. Takes on Tolkien meets trope aren't of much interest either.
That's not to say everything has to be breathtaking, inns and markets exist in most places, but even 'normal' countries should be different and unique, it shouldn't take much more than a couple of paragraphs for players to find their feet.
I totally get why other people like them and play in them though. Having something to focus on and connect with immediately can be very useful, then the game can be built on that basis.
NO Elves or Dwarves - I'm Sick of them.
Stuff that looks 'familiar' - yet somehow still breaks stereotypes somewhat.
- Ed C.
Quote from: The Traveller;688935I totally get why other people like them and play in them though. Having something to focus on and connect with immediately can be very useful, then the game can be built on that basis.
Yes, and different people can immediately focus on different things. My friends can't "connect with" superhero games because they have no background as fans of the comicbooks. Past a few levels, D&D becomes likewise too ludicrous to them. They have little acquaintance with the sword & sorcery genre apart from D&D, so references to Dunsany, Howard, Le Guin, Leiber, Norton, C. A. Smith, Vance, etc. -- indeed, to Tolkien's work as opposed to movie adaptations -- are likely to bewilder them.
Quote from: The Traveller;688935I totally get why other people like them and play in them though. Having something to focus on and connect with immediately can be very useful, then the game can be built on that basis.
I went with a sort of 'fantasy Europe' aesthetic for my own recent campaign (in the other subforum there). In defense of that sort of thing, a campaign world doesn't exist just for PCs to explore; it also gives them places to come from, so that players have a range of character concepts.
A little bit of humor. I'm not turned off by the ducks in RuneQuest, for example.
Personality. Those little touches where the personality and obsessions of the GM shines through. The Clint Eastwood gags in in the 1st Ed Warhammer FRP adventures, for example.
Cool names. Early Forgotten Realms was great in this regard.
A sense of swashbucklery and roguish freebooting. Heroes that smile and laugh and jump around and romance girls. Corny old-movie stuff. The stuff that made the first Star Wars movie great.
Quote from: Piestrio;688873Plain 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.
I don't use canned settings, but I always find that it is in the details that vanilla gains subtle favors.
I'm not much for 'vanilla fantasy'... if by that you mean the vaguely Eurocentric Faux-Tolkienesque stuff that most fantasy double-dodecadologies are written about. Like a bad ren-faire with LOTS of magical doodads.
I do like the early Warhammer setting though... at least as filtered through the Enemy Within Campaign. Maybe it's the lower magic level and dark humor. Maybe it's because I can picture the peasantry there, out working on their farms and not wandering very far from them. A pack of wild dogs (or beastmen) still feels like a viable threat.
If magic starts to be ubiquitous then I'd just as soon go full Planescape/Spelljammer/Arduin Grimoire kitchen sink.
I have a review show, which does not make me more qualified but it does mean I try to be articulate about what works and what does not. The terminology I came up with is a setting should be a bit like a salad bar; well stocked with good options so the participants can assemble the "meal" they want. Warriors, wizards, etc... so long as the setting presents a good spread in terms of decent material, then the setting is doing its job. It need not be cutting edge or "great" but it should facilitate a game with possibilities that can be combined to make something great.
This is why I hate 4E FR, because in this metaphor all the little pots of bacon bits, sweets peas and tuna salad were replaced with pots containing nothing but wilting lettuce. And not even wilting romaine lettuce, just regular ol' wilting lettuce.
setting is really important for me. I see the D&D rules and monster lists as providing a rich range of options for a DM to add to their setting.
I think when a DM makes no effort with setting the immersion fells less partly becuase the PCs have no context but mostly becuase the DM hasn;t really thought about settign and so can't convey it well to the palyers.
Now Settings can be broadly described so, Meltibor is a quasi Roman world. The Bachian Empire that rules this are they impose a common language and have a strong military based on legions that recruit ... to the east are barbarian lands of the great stepps, the to south the dense jungle kingdoms of Jan home to the Elven Hos tribes and to the west the great Ocean adnd the island of ...
Just from writing a paragraph the players get a feel for how the world is different and how its the same as default D&D. Will there be triefilings, Dragon born etc how do those races fit in to the wider world? What classes or kits are open to elves? what goss are there etc etc ...
The setting need to be a little cliched and must be grokable almost from the get go but little things like Brachian empire coins being described as Gold Eagles, or coppers as Denari or whatever just add a little colour. The same is then true of food, technology, this setting doesn't have Plate mail its more iron age than medieval etc.
I think a DM spending a few minutes coming up with a setting is worth hours and hours of work on an individual dungeon or a bunch of NPCs.
I have impatience with DMs that use the generic D&D setting with no thought of how it fits together. Dave plays a Dragonborn, where do they come from? is there is kingdom of them are they common rare? how are they treated by the other races? what are the other races etc etc ...
Now this gets worse when you add the extra splats or go to later D&D with more and more races and classes and so on.
When I was younger the trapping of genre was what important the cool swords, spaceships, whatever. But now what I find what hooks me is cool characters and good acting.
While RPGs are not tv or film, I also had a similar shift in that is that what hooks me is good character both PCs and NPCs and interesting situations revolving around characters. Cool guns, tech, magic, have lost much of their former fascination. Sure I am always interested in something new and good, but I find what hold my interest more is people and the situation around them.
There are only a finite number of guns, spells, and monsters and eventually a player will become become familiar with all of them. The only thing left that is interesting is what you do with them or what occurs that involves them.
One way of dealing with this is to switch games. Even within a narrow genre a new game and the new campaign for that game can bring back much of the novelty as you learns to master the system. But even that will get old as truly different designs in RPGs only come along once in a great while.
But luckily RPGs are not just a game but also about roleplaying which revolves around characters (PC and/or NPCs). A good campaign engages what I call the Soap Opera Effect, taking advantage of the fact that for many people what most interesting is other people. When properly done the Soap Opera effect allows even a mundane situation to become compelling and capable of holding interest for many sessions or an entire campaign.
And that bring me around to the original OP. Even a well used set of rules in a well trodden can create be used to create a great campaign if the referee create interesting and compelling situations and characters Even the most fantastic setting full of flavor can result in a dull campaign if the situation and characters are weak. I am sure most here have experienced both.
What makes a vanilla fantasy setting interesting are the folks the referee chooses to populate it with. And the situations that he throws his players into.
I had to face this situation early on when I decided to stick with the Majestic Wilderlands as my main fantasy campaign. Especially with one group of players that I been with for nearly 25 years. Two things allowed it to remain fresh to this day. One that the players are able to create lasting changes small or large. Two that I have a wealth of interesting characters and situations for them to interact with that engages the Soap Opera effect.
An observation is that one reason that vanilla fantasy stuck around is that its familiarity allow it tropes to fade into the background and gamers can focus more on other aspects of the campaign, including those that are most apt to ignite a Soap Opera effect.
You can have a game with all the standard vanilla fantasy tropes, without making them inert cliches.
Portray the dwarves as intensely greedy for gold and suspicious of outsiders. The elves sapped with ennui and fatalism. The halflings as parochial yokels who care only for their creature comforts.
Knights and Kings and all that stuff? Okay, the knights are arrogant superjocks, kings are scheming and intolerant of any dissent, the peasantry dull-witted and resentful.
Orc and goblin invasions? They enslave those who they don't kill, and the orc and goblin camps swarm with slave traders. Communities that don't want to be looted secretly bribe the orcs. Allied defenders who stand up to the orcs in battle are defeated because of squabbling and incompetence. Refugees clog the roadways, and are locked out of towns and castles, leaving desperate mobs roaming the countryside.
Laboratories beneath wizard towers? Let your imagination run wild with experiments gone awry, arcane artifacts of ancient providence, and weird mystical effects.
Undead haunting graveyards? Evoke them as genuinely horrifying, corpse-devouring abominations.
Dragons? Fuck yeah. Think of an ancient and cunning wizard, obsessed with treasure, and then think of him in the body of a huge reptile.
Simply exaggerate every one of those tropes and you have a setting pulsing with color and drama.
Quote from: Phillip;688955They have little acquaintance with the sword & sorcery genre apart from D&D, so references to Dunsany, Howard, Le Guin, Leiber, Norton, C. A. Smith, Vance, etc. -- indeed, to Tolkien's work as opposed to movie adaptations -- are likely to bewilder them.
Good grief, and I thought my young Swedish players were literacy-challenged... although it might explain why they were so shell-shocked from playtesting my Monster Island campaign. ;)
Seriously though, younger generations coming to the hobby are not reading the classic fantasy authors, instead being drawn into what's available on book store shelves - the more modern door-step soap-opera style fantasy - if they read at all. So many of the original tropes of the genre are lost to them. Hence an incomprehensible disconnect with some, or an overwhelming sense of wonder with others, to whom this stuff is mind-blowingly new.
Quote from: Pete Nash;689174an overwhelming sense of wonder with others, to whom this stuff is mind-blowingly new.
That... is exactly what we
should be going for.
Quote from: Pete Nash;689174Seriously though, younger generations coming to the hobby are not reading the classic fantasy authors, instead being drawn into what's available on book store shelves - the more modern door-step soap-opera style fantasy - if they read at all. So many of the original tropes of the genre are lost to them. Hence an incomprehensible disconnect with some, or an overwhelming sense of wonder with others, to whom this stuff is mind-blowingly new.
Well, I'll play devil's advocate here: you mean the "original tropes of the genre" as
we understood them to be. I expect the greybeards of thirty and forty years ago, raising an eyebrow at all us youngsters blathering on about Moorcock and Vance and Leiber, would have sneered at us for lacking much familiarity with the works of Lord Dunsany, H. Rider Haggard and George MacDonald.
Quote from: Ravenswing;689199Well, I'll play devil's advocate here: you mean the "original tropes of the genre" as we understood them to be. I expect the greybeards of thirty and forty years ago, raising an eyebrow at all us youngsters blathering on about Moorcock and Vance and Leiber, would have sneered at us for lacking much familiarity with the works of Lord Dunsany, H. Rider Haggard and George MacDonald.
I also read Dunsany and Haggard whilst growing up. Part of going to English schools where the library was still full of older books I suppose. :) However I admit I didn't get into MacDonald until relatively recently, when his works were finally made available on the net.
But yes, you are correct. Our interpretation of the genre is heavily moulded by available contemporary fiction. Back in the 70's when I bought my first book (The Wizard of Earthsea) via the Puffin book club and was bitten by the fantasy bug, there really wasn't so many S&S books available so you naturally gravitated to Victorian/Edwardian adventure stories (Burroughs, Haggard, Kipling, etc) whilst the more 'adult' Howard, Leiber and Moorcock books had to wait until getting to upper school.
I suppose we had an advantage back then in that the era of the personal computer was yet to start, TV wasn't 24/7 and there were only three channels (if your parents even let you watch). So reading was a primary pastime... at least it was until I discovered role-playing games!
Quote from: Piestrio;688873Plain 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...
This ever so much. I care far more about what's actually happening in the game than the setting. In a lot of ways, a game that focuses too much on setting is just asking me to coo over how brilliant the designer/GM is, much like railroad plots.
Absolutely.
If I'm rolling up a cleric, I want you to tell me whether I'm praying to Thor, Ares or Ra. I don't want to listen to a ten minute lecture about all the dark, weird deities and cults you've invented or their preferred method of human sacrifice.
If I'm rolling a human, I want you to tell me whether I'm a Northman, an Amazon or a Pict. I don't want to listen to a ten minute lecture about the available nationalities, their matrilineal social structures and their open-minded attitude to slave-ownership.
When I'm deciding where to go, I want you to tell me about the rumours of gnolls in the ruins to the east and the toad-worshipping kobold tribe in the western forest. I don't expect to have to endure an orientation briefing before I can make a meaningful decision.
Give me vanilla or gtfo.
Quote from: P&P;689211Absolutely.
If I'm rolling up a cleric, I want you to tell me whether I'm praying to Thor, Ares or Ra. I don't want to listen to a ten minute lecture about all the dark, weird deities and cults you've invented or their preferred method of human sacrifice.
If I'm rolling a human, I want you to tell me whether I'm a Northman, an Amazon or a Pict. I don't want to listen to a ten minute lecture about the available nationalities, their matrilineal social structures and their open-minded attitude to slave-ownership.
When I'm deciding where to go, I want you to tell me about the rumours of gnolls in the ruins to the east and the toad-worshipping kobold tribe in the western forest. I don't expect to have to endure an orientation briefing before I can make a meaningful decision.
Give me vanilla or gtfo.
Bye. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Quote from: P&P;689211Absolutely.
If I'm rolling up a cleric, I want you to tell me whether I'm praying to Thor, Ares or Ra. I don't want to listen to a ten minute lecture about all the dark, weird deities and cults you've invented or their preferred method of human sacrifice.
If I'm rolling a human, I want you to tell me whether I'm a Northman, an Amazon or a Pict. I don't want to listen to a ten minute lecture about the available nationalities, their matrilineal social structures and their open-minded attitude to slave-ownership.
When I'm deciding where to go, I want you to tell me about the rumours of gnolls in the ruins to the east and the toad-worshipping kobold tribe in the western forest. I don't expect to have to endure an orientation briefing before I can make a meaningful decision.
Give me vanilla or gtfo.
Well, to each their own.
I can see the uses of some level of familiarity....but I applaud gms who put in the work.
Quote from: Rincewind1;689212Bye. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Well, agreed: someone who has no intention of making even the slightest nod towards being invested in my setting is no one I want around.
On the other hand, look, YMMV. Everyone's going to have a different notion of what tweaks his or her sensibilities. It's not right, it's not wrong, it is what it is. I expect P&P would hate the hell out of our campaigns.
Yeah, I would expect so. I'm not the kind of person who invests in settings. And I've found a complex game world is a red flag for a GM who expects you to invest in your character and Take Things Seriously, we wouldn't get on.
Quote from: P&P;689266Yeah, I would expect so. I'm not the kind of person who invests in settings. And I've found a complex game world is a red flag for a GM who expects you to invest in your character and Take Things Seriously, we wouldn't get on.
I woudl expect my setting to be about 2 paragraphs long and I will adlib he rest of it as it plays out. You pitch what you want to play I will tell if anf how it fits into the setting.
A setting needs to be simple and a little cliched and a instantly grokable....
Quote from: P&P;689266Yeah, I would expect so. I'm not the kind of person who invests in settings. And I've found a complex game world is a red flag for a GM who expects you to invest in your character and Take Things Seriously, we wouldn't get on.
While I have a detailed background for those who want to plumb it. I deliberately wove in stereotypical cultures (viking, western medieval, rome, etc) so that players who are not into that can get along just fine in the campaign.
The only thing I require is that you act as your character was really there even if it just roleplaying a version of yourself. Basically describe what you are doing in first person rather than third person. Anything beyond that is up to the player.
Where my details go in how the NPCs act which puts the burden on me not the players. Learning the details could help the players understand and more importantly manipulate the NPCs. But since I carefully makes sure that NPCs act like people, players can just deal it with it with their everyday knowledge. Most time it is enough to
Finally I never punish a players for lack of in-game knowledge about culture and religion. Like the d20 roll for a sword swing assumes that the character is a skilled fighter, I assume a character "knows" the world in which he was born. So for novices to my campaign I will point out stuff that they would obviously know. Most times it not my particular details but things relating to the stereotype itself. Like others pointed out, the stereotypes that today youth know are not quite the same as the one we grew up with.
Quote from: P&P;689266Yeah, I would expect so. I'm not the kind of person who invests in settings.
Like most investments it does bring rewards in terms of immersion and pleasure though. Of course there are good and bad investments, a 200 page screed of tired tropes where the GM is waiting to spring a gotcha the first time you forget the name of some baron isn't going to be fun. But familiarising yourself with the new and fantastic leads to opportunities for your character and hence more enjoyment, in my experience. The more you immerse in a world you find interesting the greater the rewards can be.
I mean think about it - you've already heavily invested in learning a setting, it just happens to be historical real world civilisations.
Quote from: P&P;689266Yeah, I would expect so. I'm not the kind of person who invests in settings. And I've found a complex game world is a red flag for a GM who expects you to invest in your character and Take Things Seriously, we wouldn't get on.
It's also based on the kind of game you want to play, gang. Short and sweet and Beer & Pretzels and one-shots and limited arc games, knock yourself out, extra prep and detail is a waste.
My shit is built for the long haul and the long game. Like Estar, I built a few settings to get my chops, and then I built my main setting, back in 83. And have played it and worked it and added to it ever since. It has come up before, but both of my main live campaign groups are over a decade (the older one since 95), and my last online foray lasted 160 sessions. I play a game that attracts the player that wants to invest in the setting, and I keep those games going.
Not a better way to play, not the Right Way, but it works here. No one gets 'punished' for knowing or not knowing, but the PCs who learn and RP their characters deeply in the world gain an advantage, I think.
Quote from: LordVreeg;689286My shit is built for the long haul and the long game. Like Estar, I built a few settings to get my chops, and then I built my main setting, back in 83. And have played it and worked it and added to it ever since. It has come up before, but both of my main live campaign groups are over a decade (the older one since 95), and my last online foray lasted 160 sessions. I play a game that attracts the player that wants to invest in the setting, and I keep those games going.
This 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 :)
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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26998), 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.