Does setting really matter in your games? (and how to make it matter more)

johnsemlak · Jun 14, 2005

So there have been A LOT threads over the years I've surfed EN World about people's favorite settings.

ONe question I have -- does the setting REALLY matter in your games? Does it play a major role in the campaign? Do the players get a good feel for the setting, and develop an interested in events that happen in the setting?

I ask this because the exeperience in my group is that interest in the setting amongst the players is very little unfortunately. The setting tends to only be used as a skeleton--a source of deiteis and their domains, and a map. Other than that, we could be playing in generic D&D-esque locations that could be located anywhere.

We've tried playing in various settings, and are currenlty in FR. But most of hte players, including myself, don't really know the setting. I man, if someone says 'Sembia' to me, I have to look at the map to find where it is, and it doesn't mean much culturally to me. Most of the players in my group are the same. A lot of us have a simple favorite setting, but the they tend to be different.

So my question is, if I start a campaign and want the players to be more involved with the setting, and I want the setting to play more of a role, what do I do?

I've thought about using several settings I know well--Greyhawk, Mystara, Scarred Lands, Kalamar, the Wilderlands, or even city locations like Bluffside. But again, while I know these settings, the players don't, and it would take a lot of time for players to really get a feel of the setting. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my feeling is for the players to really get into the setting we would have to have several campaigns in it, which weave events in a way that make the players really care and look forward to later campaigns. Also, other players may simply not have the interest I have in these settings.

One solution that occured to me was to choose a setting hte players know through literature/history, such as a medieval Europe-based setting, Middle Earth, or perhaps Dragonlance. The first two choices are very challenging to adapt to D&D. Dragonlance would definitely be a good option in that all the players ahve read a few of the novels and would get into the setting much quicker, and it's a D&D-ready setting. Still, it's not really the setting I want to run as a DM.

Another idea a player put forward was to have a campaign in a very confined locale (an island), and allow to the players to have their characters play a very direct role in that location's development--sort of letting them build the setting from scratch.

Anyone have any other ideas?

Runesong42 · Jun 14, 2005

johnsemlak said:
Another idea a player put forward was to have a campaign in a very confined locale (an island), and allow to the players to have their characters play a very direct role in that location's development--sort of letting them build the setting from scratch.

Yup. I fully endorse this idea. I'm currently running a campagin that was built entirely from scratch based on the desires of my sole player.

The only major influences you need to have pre-planned are the races, classes, and religions you plan on implementing in your world, and perhaps a few social structures (ie government) of various territories. You'll need to know how the multiverse came to be, and what the peoples of your multiverse know and/or believe.

My campaign began as a "New World" scenario where the PC began play in a newly forged community in a new tropical world. The community was attacked by a lesser deity, and caused his community to become fragmented into a chain of islands. He was believed to be killed, but was actually placed in stasis by a sympathetic deity, and was returned to the living several years later. He then quested to each island for survivors of his original rule. In doing so, he discovered the various new races that got caught up in the destruction as well as his survivors.

This is a great way to go, because you can make it all up as you tell the story.

Silveras · Jun 14, 2005

In my experience, the key has been to make the setting a part of the characters. My games are typically run in my homebrew world. What drew the players in was that the history of the world provided clues to the adventures. In addition, the politics of the world influenced the encounters. Patrols of suspicious soldiers when they crossed borders, religious figures who considered them "not holy enough" and so on.

Example: One sect of the main religion in my homebrew believes that only priestly types should be allowed to wield magic. They consider secular magic use improper at best, because they feel that secular mages will fall to a lust for power sooner or later. So, the party of adventurers with someone openly casting arcane spells had a rough time when they needed to enter a monastery owned by this order. The place was warded against arcane magics, to the point where the party wizard decided to spend the night outside, camped next to the walls, rather than suffer the "hospitality" of these priests.

Example 2: I wrote up the realms of my world in the style of the Birthright setting. Some rulers are more ... devious... than others. They hatch plots, and hiring adventurers to make one or another part of them happen is commonplace. A party that had people from realms that had a long history of rivalry and friction proved most interesting.

LordBOB · Jun 14, 2005

the setting of the game is indeed an important aspect. From the sounds of it your players just want to kill things. thats all right but it will get boring adventually. I honestly dont care what the cities look like in great detail b/c my party wants to race through the town as quickyl as possible. Its tough being a Paladin and try to roleplay a Paladin when everyone else wants to kill stuff for no reason.

One thing to try is before a big battle tell your players what the rooms looks like and keep track of what you say. If you have a BIG Pillar or something in the room and the players dont remember it than dont let them shoot through it. Make them pay for not listening. Your sorroundings are ALWAYS important in a fight. That way your shooters have a place to hide and a place to drag the weaker ones.

The Shaman · Jun 14, 2005

The setting is what gives the players the feeling that they're inhabiting another world, so for me it's very important.

A good setting evokes curiosity - a dull setting is just scenery.

Whisper72 · Jun 14, 2005

One way is to make the setting/background an integral part of solving puzzles etc. in the game. If you can only solve something if you know who the 12th king of the kingdom of Y is, you start to care about those things. If the treasure you find is not just gold pieces but also art, and that you need to know whether some vase is from a specific kingdom and/or a specific time period to ascertain its value, this also makes ppl care...

dren · Jun 14, 2005

It depends.

If you like a good dungeon crawl, killin things and takin stuff, then no, ultimately what you are killing isn't as important as the body count and the loot.

If you like intrigue, diplomacy, social interaction, religion, moral dilemmas, and enemies that you cannot defeat with swords and spells, then yes, the more setting really does matter.

Neither side is better than the other, but if you are a type a player, then setting matters no more than a hill of beans.

But most players like a mix...for them on a sliding scale, setting can be important even if it's just to be able to identify the correct insults to yell while you are piling the bodies on the corpse pile.

Turanil · Jun 14, 2005

johnsemlak said:
The setting tends to only be used as a skeleton--a source of deiteis and their domains, and a map.

I've thought about using several settings I know well--Greyhawk, Mystara, Scarred Lands, Kalamar, the Wilderlands, or even city locations like Bluffside. But again, while I know these settings, the players don't, and it would take a lot of time for players to really get a feel of the setting.

IMO this is the point. Many settings are in fact little more than "a source of deities and their domains, and a map"; and when a setting is generic D&D like Greyhawk, Mystara, Kalamar, or FR, there is no reason for players to be especially interested in it. These are "D&D settings", and as long as you know D&D, you know the setting; i.e.: you play the same adventures in FR or Greyhawk or Kalamar or else.

To get a particular feel, you will have to choose maybe a different set of d20 rules not only a setting. For example: Conan d20 or Midnight, or even use D&D rules in the Warhammer world.

S'mon · Jun 14, 2005

My homebrew setting is definitely important in my games; some players are more interested in it than others, & that's fine - but knowledge is power, so PCs with political aspirations are usually interested in finding out what's going on. And players will often develop setting elements connected to their PCs. I'm definitely a world-building GM, OTOH it's important to remember that the PCs, not the setting, are the stars of the game.

Yair · Jun 14, 2005

For the most part, the SPECIFIC setting doesn't matter. You can use the world's history in your plots, put the characters in the middle of religious or political mayham, and so on. But you can for the most part use the same schemes on another setting, so in this respect the setting doesn't matter.

The setting matters more where it differs substantially from the standard expected backdrop and where it changes the rules of the game. If you truly want the setting to have more of a role, have it change the rules and some of the basic properties of the backdrop.
For example, Infernum offers a d20-System game with completely new classes and a few changed/new rules, where the PCs play demons, fallen angels, or abandoned mortals striving to survive and dominate Hell. I am confident this setting will have an affect in-game.

I think a key way to having the setting matter to the players is to tie the PCs to the campain's metaplot. If you play Infernum, your campaign should culminate in the PCs release or trumph over Hell (even partially). If you play Midnight, your campaign should culminate in a major defeat for the Shadow (if not its utter banishment). In my case, the Murchad's Legacy campaign, the campaign should end (if the players are succesful) with the defeat of the goblinoid invasion that is its crux.
FR, Greyhawk, and so on are campaigns without an overarching story (or the story has already been told), so IMHO are harder to connect to. Since the campaign isn't geared to the campaign's story it has a lot of "superfluus" elements that just make the players brush it off as they don't matter. They really don't matter - they are not used in the plot.
I think having the setting be built specifically for the campaign, designed to support that one tale, is another good way to make the players care about it more.