Quote from: RPGPundit;756848I want to like Greyhawk more but, and I know I commit sacrilege here, its always seemed a bit slapdash to me.  I'm not saying that a lot of it isn't great, but its also never struck me as a case of "excellent backstory".

RPGPundit

I pretty much agree, but with the caveat that I never expected anything more out of Greyhawk than a polishing of some dude's generic homebrew campaign setting.

On a semi-related note, I may be the only person who likes the 4E cosmology revision far better than any previous incarnation. Despite the hokey results brought on by a perhaps unnecessary symmetry (e.g. The UnderShadowDarkBad) it just all hung together better for me.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;756910I pretty much agree, but with the caveat that I never expected anything more out of Greyhawk than a polishing of some dude's generic homebrew campaign setting.

On a semi-related note, I may be the only person who likes the 4E cosmology revision far better than any previous incarnation. Despite the hokey results brought on by a perhaps unnecessary symmetry (e.g. The UnderShadowDarkBad) it just all hung together better for me.

I actually liked 4e's cosmology just fine. Though I have no particular leaning to either TGW or 4e's take on cosmology.

Quote from: RPGPundit;756848I want to like Greyhawk more but, and I know I commit sacrilege here, its always seemed a bit slapdash to me.  I'm not saying that a lot of it isn't great, but its also never struck me as a case of "excellent backstory".

RPGPundit

Back in 1979 or whenever I bought it, it was great; but I was 12 also.

Quote from: P&P;756167But my call for the winning backstory is Glorantha, because it's got about 400 mutually contradictory backstories all of which are true and it also has several ways in for people who haven't read the backstory.  That makes it the gold standard of backstories as far as I'm concerned.

I wanted to like Glorantha, and I've played Runequest through Hero Wars in various groups over the years and I still don't.  Except the Dururlz, I think they are great, including those following Humakt.  I appear to like the one thing a lot of people hate about Glorantha.  Though I've mostly been lucky that the world seems to attract people who are fun to game with, else I wouldn't have played in Glorantha much at all.

Ironically, given that it was designed in stages and fairly nuts, I always found Mystara more consistent than Greyhawk.

In my experience, a great setting background is less a question of overflowing creativity and unique weirdness for the sake of weirdness, but for the most part lies in the execution of the setting. A rather mundane, but well written and sufficiently complex setting, say HarnMaster, is definitely preferable to something that's just weird for the sake of weirdness (like the atrocious setting of Reign).

Well, I'm not sure about all of that, but I would say that for a "Gonzo" setting to be truly great it needs to be internally coherent/consistent.

What is actually your definition of backstory?

My definition is a plot that explains the setting.
A plot that changes the setting is what I call metaplot.

Quote from: BeagleIn my experience, a great setting background is less a question of overflowing creativity and unique weirdness for the sake of weirdness, but for the most part lies in the execution of the setting.

For me, there's a kind of hierarchy (note that the examples are all totally subjective and some may disagree):

Best

- Well-executed novel/unique settings (example: Dark Sun, Numenera, Planescape)

- Well-executed mundane/cliched settings (example: Warhammer World, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms)

- Poorly executed novel/unique settings (example: Spelljammer)

- Poorly executed mundane/cliched settings (example: Points of Light)

Worst

So I'd rather have weird, unexpected, exotic settings full of new ideas and creativity, but only if the execution's good, otherwise I'd rather have a really well-made mundane setting.  But the absolute worst settings are those that take no creative risks at all and aren't well executed.  I'd rather play in a crazy but sloppy setting than a hackneyed and poorly made one.  In other words, particularly excellent execution makes up for a dearth of original ideas.

Quote from: RPGPundit;757767Well, I'm not sure about all of that, but I would say that for a "Gonzo" setting to be truly great it needs to be internally coherent/consistent.

Internal Coherence and Consistency are  pretty much the only truly important criteria for the quality of a setting; anything else is a pretty much matter of taste and preferences, but when the cracks in the world-building concrete are more visible than usual, the illusion of a cleverly cconstructed fictional world is harder to maintain. Actually, unique and truly novel settings are therefore a lot harder to write, and much easier to completely ruin than a more mundane one, because with a mundane setting, you always have "realism", "verisimilitude" or  "historical accuracy" or however you want to call it, that offer a safe retreat from the pressure of dramaturgical logic and genre conventions. The more 'unreal' the setting becomes, the more pressure it shifts onto the author(s).

Quote from: BeagleActually, unique and truly novel settings are therefore a lot harder to write, and much easier to completely ruin than a more mundane one, because with a mundane setting, you always have "realism", "verisimilitude" or "historical accuracy" or however you want to call it, that offer a safe retreat from the pressure of dramaturgical logic and genre conventions. The more 'unreal' the setting becomes, the more pressure it shifts onto the author(s).

Totally agree with this.  Producing good and useable but unique and novel settings requires a particularly skilled creator.

As a result, the thing about generic settings is that there are just more of them - which is partly, of course, why they're "generic" in the first place.  It's relatively easy to produce a decent generic setting that hangs together well and functions as a good platform for a game.  But that's precisely why it's really not worth the effort to create new ones.  There's already an abundance of mundane, generic settings of great complexity, verisimilitude, and richness.  Creating new ones that, by their very nature, don't attempt anything especially novel or unique is kind of pointless - it's just adding another redundant, homogenous setting to the pile.  A new setting has to provide a compelling reason for its use above its competitors.  Novel settings can always answer that question, because their content is new and original.  Mundane ones have to be incredibly well-fashioned to justify their use over the wealth of other, preexisting settings, I think.

I mean, if a setting is really, really well executed but still generic it's definitely worth creating, but for the most part I think it's better to try and perfect the execution of strange new ideas catering to a wider variety of tastes than to spend a great deal of time and effort creating yet another superfluous faux-medieval setting.

Yes.  A game setting can be completely insane and irrational from the outside point of view, so long as it makes sense INSIDE the setting itself.

In theory yes. In practice I have serious doubts that any RPG enthusiast  can effectively manage to create an internally consistent setting without heavily borrowing from his or her personal experiences and environment to create this consitency. The track record for setting that is both actually good (i.e. cosnsistient, interesting and has a minimum level of depth) and truly, outstandingly innovative and a clear deviation from reality, is accordingly low. As in: I'm pretty sure they are as common as unicorns. In Sheffield.

Quote from: Beagle;758469In theory yes. In practice I have serious doubts that any RPG enthusiast  can effectively manage to create an internally consistent setting without heavily borrowing from his or her personal experiences and environment to create this consitency. The track record for setting that is both actually good (i.e. cosnsistient, interesting and has a minimum level of depth) and truly, outstandingly innovative and a clear deviation from reality, is accordingly low. As in: I'm pretty sure they are as common as unicorns. In Sheffield.

Oh, I'd say I generally agree with what I think you're saying, which is why its important not to go Full-Weirdo. The idea would be to bring in weird stuff within a context of sufficiently-relatable stuff, and that is also consistent internally speaking (that is, that the weirdness has a reason, even if its a reason never understood by the players).