everything already posted...:hatsoff:

I sum it up as a lack of ambience.
Goes without saying that these are not so much an issue in a gonzo game or "lets go through this module to check it out!" session.

Inconsistant naming of people/places etc. (irks me the most for some reason) given the langauge/culture implied (if any).
Tolkien is a great example of getting it right. With internet sources of info available, it is unforgivable not to have something coherent.
Post Apoc. settings are more forgiving in this regard.

No cultural detail is boring as well. I like to know what sort of food, music and social customs are prevalent in an area.

I like to know some basic info on the season, flora and fauna...ya know all those things I notice in the real world wherever I go...they don't have to be exhaustive but a few details helps breath life into the situation.

"The chatter of a startled troop of 'Robber' Jays greets you as you enter the copse. The scent of Cedar thick upon the mellow airs of evening as the first star of night winks bright. You settle in for camp. Who has first watch?"

Senses invoke feelings and attitudes...they are an integral part of reality.

Some history is nice, a bards tale around a travellers camp is a great way to impart some flavor regarding all of the above and maybe even pick up a few clues regarding an adventure!

Some of this depends on the length/style of the game. For a short module etc. not so much of an issue but in a world that will be used for a lengthy campaign not solely focused on leveling up, cohesiveness/ambiance becomes much more important.

great thread!

Here's an example of me actually doing world-building.

I'll discuss it some other time, as it's getting close to bed, and explaining the exact process is more complicated than simply demonstrating it.

Quote from: skofflox;478709"The chatter of a startled troop of 'Robber' Jays greets you as you enter the copse. The scent of Cedar thick upon the mellow airs of evening as the first star of night winks bright.

Personally I'd find that description really hard to follow, coming from a typical DM.  I'd hear "robbers" and prepare to roll init; I'd hear "yellow airs" and think we were under gas attack...  I find that at-table you really need to break description down into very short, single-element sentences if you want players to follow it; don't try to do text that would look good in a book.

I'm not much of a world builder. I'm a fan of the implied setting and things players will just get without any exposition. I find it helps the players be proactive.

I also find that starting off with just loose ideas and then molding the setting around the player character works better for me than starting with fixed ideas on the setting and expecting the players to adapt to it.

The above preferences may in part be due to my overall experience of roleplaying games right from the start has been through shorter games - mini-campaigns which on average span 6 to 9 sessions rather than 6 o 9 years.

That said I am a huge fan of foreshadowing (thank you Stan Lee - everything I know about plotting I learned from you!) and do put some effort in my NPCs. At the end of the day I find individual NPCs much more interesting than history, landmarks and culture.

Quote from: S'mon;478782Personally I'd find that description really hard to follow, coming from a typical DM.  I'd hear "robbers" and prepare to roll init; I'd hear "yellow airs" and think we were under gas attack...  I find that at-table you really need to break description down into very short, single-element sentences if you want players to follow it; don't try to do text that would look good in a book.

Well, the Ranger already identified the type of Jay a while back after some swooped down and stole a bit of food and shiny bauble and if you heard "yellow airs" and thought you were under gas attack I would get a good laugh!
You should pay more attention! :rolleyes:
(My fave Magic system uses "astrological correspondencies" so this sort of info can be important and actualy effect play.)

Many DM's never explore this type of  delivery for whatever reasons.
Once again it depends on the group and the skills of the DM. It is easy to tell what players appreciate by watching their reactions at the table as well as discussing the style of play beforehand.
I would make adjustments in delivery to fit the groups expectations (to a degree, we all should be having fun, yes!) or be more selective.

Games with lackluster delivery that don't engage all my senses are a bit dull IMO and since a good story could come of the sessions I think a bit of descriptive text does wonders to make it complete and engaging. It can lead to cool/funny RP situations as well.
Subtle clues may be contained therein...

I am a bit of a book hound and one of the things I like to do is mine passages from books for words/phrases that I find evocative and use them in play.
I do this with combat and magic descriptions as well.

I reckon I have used this sort of aproach for over 25 years now.
It grew naturaly from enjoying books, hiking and martial arts. I have never had a complaint in this regard and many times out right praise. I find that players seem more engaged with the game world.
It can encourage players to be more descriptive in their delivery as well which some DM's actualy reward. I dont as I expect it as the default.

I agree that it is important to convey the situation quickly and concisely.

Quote from: Soylent Green;478800*snip*
 At the end of the day I find individual NPCs much more interesting than history, landmarks and culture.

:hatsoff:

I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

well put Sirrah...:hatsoff:

Quote from: skofflox;479031well put Sirrah...:hatsoff:

Agreed. That's a good post Pundit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Yes, I would agree.

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Certainly, I agree with you on this.

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Everyone seems to love it so ...

I agree that people need to have a logical and consistent behaviour pattern. I don't think you need to use that as a way to grind your pet hates for liberalism or whatever.
I can build a totally consistent Psuedo-historical world where the general population are atheist marxists or born-again Southern evangelists or tree hugging hippies. The structures of that would would have to make sense and its a psuedo historical world so I would have to state up front that this is not the 'real' historical setting.
Now I would be unlikely to do this mainly cos I don't play histroical games, but in a fantasy game with a Psuedo-historical setting for sure,. In fact I have set up all of these types of places in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do so again.

Quote from: jibbajibba;479102Everyone seems to love it so ...

I agree that people need to have a logical and consistent behaviour pattern. I don't think you need to use that as a way to grind your pet hates for liberalism or whatever.
I can build a totally consistent Psuedo-historical world where the general population are atheist marxists or born-again Southern evangelists or tree hugging hippies. The structures of that would would have to make sense and its a psuedo historical world so I would have to state up front that this is not the 'real' historical setting.

Except that most settings that seek to do the former, consistently fail to do the latter.  They present a just-because world where people are all atheist-marxists, or tree-huggers, or born-again Southern Evangelists, or simply accept whatever the ideological bent the writer of the setting is trying to present in his or her quasi-utopia or quasi-dystopia, and there is no actual reason why people would behave so strikingly different from actual human behaviour.

Usually this is because the person is in some way an adherent of an ideology (either the one he is trying to present in the game, or sometimes an opposing ideology) so he simply assumes that "this is how people would behave given the circumstances".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;479268Except that most settings that seek to do the former, consistently fail to do the latter.  They present a just-because world where people are all atheist-marxists, or tree-huggers, or born-again Southern Evangelists, or simply accept whatever the ideological bent the writer of the setting is trying to present in his or her quasi-utopia or quasi-dystopia, and there is no actual reason why people would behave so strikingly different from actual human behaviour.

Usually this is because the person is in some way an adherent of an ideology (either the one he is trying to present in the game, or sometimes an opposing ideology) so he simply assumes that "this is how people would behave given the circumstances".

RPGPundit

Yes, but that point applies far beyond just unpopular viewpoints like Marxism. The romanticisation of medieval society is as much an expression of it as "Lenin of Kalamar".

Quote from: skofflox;478801
Well, the Ranger already identified the type of Jay a while back after some swooped down and stole a bit of food and shiny bauble and if you heard "yellow airs" and thought you were under gas attack I would get a good laugh!
You should pay more attention! :rolleyes:
(My fave Magic system uses "astrological correspondencies" so this sort of info can be important and actualy effect play.)

Many DM's never explore this type of  delivery for whatever reasons.
Once again it depends on the group and the skills of the DM. It is easy to tell what players appreciate by watching their reactions at the table as well as discussing the style of play beforehand.
I would make adjustments in delivery to fit the groups expectations (to a degree, we all should be having fun, yes!) or be more selective.

Games with lackluster delivery that don't engage all my senses are a bit dull IMO and since a good story could come of the sessions I think a bit of descriptive text does wonders to make it complete and engaging. It can lead to cool/funny RP situations as well.
Subtle clues may be contained therein...

I am a bit of a book hound and one of the things I like to do is mine passages from books for words/phrases that I find evocative and use them in play.
I do this with combat and magic descriptions as well.

I reckon I have used this sort of aproach for over 25 years now.
It grew naturaly from enjoying books, hiking and martial arts. I have never had a complaint in this regard and many times out right praise. I find that players seem more engaged with the game world.
It can encourage players to be more descriptive in their delivery as well which some DM's actualy reward. I dont as I expect it as the default.

I agree that it is important to convey the situation quickly and concisely.

Yeah, I agree - and I know I personally should use more description at-table.