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

[Li Shenron]

Sounds a question like "does plot really matter in your game"? If a group plays just hack'n'slash or dungeon crawl, neither the setting nor a plot really matters. But of course I am in the league of believing that good plots and a good setting can really make a RPG worth its name. Otherwise I might just play minis...

 

[Shemeska]

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.

Very true. The latter is especially true for me and my group. We play 3e Planescape, primarily the planes, but using FR/Greyhawk/Ortho/random homebrew worlds as secondary locations. The setting is a backdrop to supply an atmosphere for the PCs to inhabit while the plot involving themselves develops set against that backdrop, and it matters.

 

[Hand of Evil]

To me you have to break down a setting into components;

• Premise
  Concept
  Presentation

Then build from that, what are you looking for, what do you want, what meets those requirements.

I feel this post is weak and does not explain my thoughts well.

 

[Buttercup]

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?

It depends. In one campaign I ran, the setting was really flavorful and really mattered. Unfortunately two players left due to changing life circumstances, so we folded the campaign. I didn't want to start the next one with the same schtick, so I created another campaign world, based loosely on Kalamar and some other, literary influences. It was good, I liked it. Perhaps not as flavorful as the first one, but over time it was getting there. Then I lost several players, again due to changing life circumstances, so the remaining 4 players and I decided that we should just do a campaign out of the box. I started a Freeport campaign. Sadly, I don't think any of us ever really got a good feel for it, and eventually the players made Freeport too hot to hold them, so now I'm back to making things up as I go along, but I can't seem to get out of my blandness rut. Sigh.

 

[GlassJaw]

Add me to the "it depends" list.

Of all the "traditional" fantasy campaigns I've run, either homebrew or Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, as much as I've tried to make the setting unique and a major factor in the campaign, they usually end up being pretty interchangeable. That could be just my fault but once you introduce orcs and wizards and dragons and +1 longswords, they all kind of feel the same.

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.

I heartily agree. When your main ruleset changes, the setting around you inherently changes and therefore has to become a major player in the campaign itself. If you are designing a low-magic campaign, the setting itself is going to be different.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

It sounds like the group I DM for is rather similar to yours. It didn't bother me for years. But eventually, I wanted to run something that felt less like jumbled up Greyhawk!


Best success I've had so far is with tying PC background to the setting:

Sat down and gave a brief explanation of the setting before starting. (Kalamar in this case) Offered the players extra character building points for getting their background merged with the setting. Talked through the parts each player found interesting in more detail.

Ended up with a bunch of really interesting setting specific hooks, al of which were the players own creations. I just tied them into my metaplot. It cut down on the prep work I needed to do, served to introduce some interesting bits of the setting to the PCs and got them involved right from the start.

Found the 'carrot' of extra building points worked really well with my group. Also made me feel less guilty if there were bits of peoples backgrounds I never touched on.

I coupled this with using a small area of the setting - PCs ruled a small town (Eb'Kakido, IIRC). The rest of the setting would intrude from time to time, but they got to know their local area very well.

Wasn't perfect, but much better than my previous attempts!


Some other thoughts:

Having the PCs all belong to the same organisation can help. Especially if the organisations goals interact heavily with the setting. Makes things feel very different from the 'typical' adventuring party. Ex: Played in a Star Wars campaign - we were all Jedi Padawans - worked very well.

In the way of familiar worlds: IMO Warhammer adapts very well to DnD and a lot of players are likely to be familiar with it. The mix of magic, chaos and gunpowder works really well for me.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

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.

Not sure I'd agree about the 'genericness' of those settings - they are good for running defauly DnD, but they can be made to feel like an interesting place to be. I think the trick is to find what makes those settings different and focus on it.

For example, I noticed the hobgoblin nation in Kalamar - not a 'default' feature of many settings. Picked that out and used it. IMO, it made things feel different right from the start.

Forgotten realms isn't necessarily my favorite, but there's plenty of interesting organisations that can be used to make the setting more noticable. Thay, for example?

 

[MonsterMash]

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.

As a player in one of S'mon's games I have got an interest in the setting and fitting in my PC and his goals into the overall game world. As this character is a evangelical cleric it does matter in terms of the gods as he aims to increase the worshippers of his god therefore creating greater power for the forces of law (and presumably greater power for his loyal worshippers ). As we're only now approaching 4th level wider political ambitions can wait till its due time for them!

In my campaign in the Wilderlands I do have a number of large plots that the PCs are caught up in, but no overarching metaplot. As the Wilderlands is very much a Swords and Sourcery setting possibly there is not a huge amount of local flavour that is unique, but I think the combination does exist to keep things interesting.

 

[Kanegrundar]

The setting is key for me. I go to a lot of trouble to build an interesting world for my players to play in, and I expect an interesting world to play in when I'm not DM. Some of the more boring games I've played in have been ones in which everything was generic and towns just popped up merely as a place to stage the next adventure. There was no backstory, no detail, nothing. I was bored stupid with those campaigns, and so was everyone else in the group. Those campaigns were the ones that died very quick and quiet deaths as we moved on to another game or setting.

Kane

 

[Rel]

I've been running an Eberron campaign set in Sharn and it is hard for the setting not to make its presence felt in every session. A city consisting of nothing but huge towers is a unique environment that is constantly in the forefront of every adventure.

I also think that I've been able to get other aspects of the Eberron setting to sink in. The power of the Dragonmarked Houses, the lingering effects of The Last War, the prevalence of humanoid races living alongside the typical D&D races and even the pulp feel suggested by the setting are all things that I think I've been able to convey.

It is going to be more strenuous to keep that going for the next era of the campaign as they've now left Sharn, headed for the lost continent of Xen'Drik. But they are having a stopover at the island home of a halfling dinosaur rancher so that's in keeping with the setting too.