What makes a Campaign setting Interesting to You?

[Glyfair]

As a side to this discussion I am also curious if other people find some of the "famous" settings out there too cumbersome to play in now because of too much history, too much material - when I tried to run a Dragonlance campaign I found it was impossible to escape player expectations based on most of them knowing the books by heart (they had to start at the Inn of the Last Home in Solace, they were bored with my adventures and kept wanting to meet and interact with the "famous" people like Dalamar). I think this is also true with FR (which I also think is overpowered) and, sadly now, Greyhawk.

I think this is depends on when you get in. If I get into a Forgotten Realms campaign now, there is an expectation you'll start with the current canon. Part of the reason players want to play in an established setting is because of what they know is there (DMs have many other possible reasons).

Every DM is expected to make their own mark on a setting, but when you change too much of what the players know, then you are essentially playing in a different setting. It's not an easy thing to judge.

However, if you started with a setting and diverged, then it's a different matter. If I started a Greyhawk campaign in 1985 and my players dealt with Iuz and reunited the Great Kingdom, then it would hurt their enjoyment if I decided to start a new Greyhawk campaign under the current canon.

On the other hand, a new group in that campaign will have the old issues. They often don't want to hear that the Great Kingdom was reunited because of the acts of other players of the DMs. That treads very close to the "watch as the cool NPCs save the day" that some complain about.

So, it certainly can be done. However, you do have to be very careful about not diverging too far from your players wants and expectations about the setting. Very probably a good thing to ask them when you decide to run a campaign in those worlds (even if you've been doing it for ages with other groups) is why they want to play in that setting.

 

[reason]

...

What to like: that it has ideas - possibly just one idea - both shocking and huge at its core: large enough to spawn endless fractal consequences; simple enough in its essence to be written in a single sentence that gives you shivvers; imposing enough to cast a terrible, endless shadow of implications that scarce need to be hinted at.

Reason
Principia Infecta

 

[rounser]

I mean bottom-up, and a setting which allows itself to be explored by having stuff out there of interest, such that you can stumble upon a lair, or a mini-adventure just by wandering around. Wilderlands goes some way towards this; my ideal is smaller (about Thunder Rift in size, you can walk across it in a day or two, but there's so much out there it would probably take far longer unless you ignored or avoided all the status quo encounters and locations), and represents wilderness-as-dungeon, city-as-adventuring-environment. This being D&D, if they're not there to directly support the game like a dungeon is, what are they there for? Usually the answer is verisimilitude, something which is held a bit too sacred at times, IMO.

You don't need that much space to get to level 20...I think this is borne out by the limited scope of adventure paths and "single city settings" like Ptolus. The payoff is that it doesn't come across as epic when there isn't hundreds of thousands of miles and people. On the other hand, keep the scope smaller and you might get a detailed world for PCs to explore.

IMO, setting should come about as a side-effect of something like this:
What encounters and NPCs/monsters/traps/puzzles/areas of interest do I want to run?
What adventures will support these encounters?
What campaign arc will support these adventures?
What setting will support that campaign arc, those adventures and those encounters?

IMO, that's the correct order to do things in, and by the time you get to thinking about the setting, it's probably already made for you from what the encounters, adventures and campaign arc imply. The default of "top-down" can be nice for purposes of inspiration and keeping a cohesive theme, but I think that it hinders by imposing restrictions (i.e. this city goes here, just because, not to serve a game need) more than it helps in those ways.

 

[Nightfall]

*hint...* If it has a lot to do with my Sig...it's probably interesting to me!

 

[seskis281]

Glyfair -

That's probably why I find Dragonlance the most problematic - it's great story and so many great books, but no way to engage without dealing with enormous "canon."

 

[seskis281]

rounser -

I appreciate the advice - I can tell we do come from different points of view and that's cool...

My own design is a world setting, so it's probably bigger than you would like, and I'm definitely in the school of slower advancement (I'm pretty much devoted to C&C now). But I take to heart some of the things you mentioned - so I think it's important that as I proceed I look to make each area of my overall setting a potential limited campaign setting. I think the idea with a world setting is that you offer enough differing regions (with enough variety) that different styles and flavors can be found contained within that larger setting.

I imagine you're looking forward to Ptolus.

Cheers,

John Maddog Wright

 

[Glyfair]

That's probably why I find Dragonlance the most problematic - it's great story and so many great books, but no way to engage without dealing with enormous "canon."

I have to admit, I wandered away from Dragonlance after the first trilogy of books. I briefly dipped in when I picked up all the Saga books, because the system intrigued me. But it didn't really click with me.

However, there are ways of dealing with such issues, even if those involved are the most stubborn canonical players. The most obvious way is to keep the players away from the main action.

A friend of mine ran a Star Wars scenario years ago that covered something off screen. At the end of the adventure, the players discovered that they were among the people who got the death star infomatlon to Leia at the beginning of Star Wars. Everything had happened off screen, and the only thing that had to happen to keep things "canon" was that the information had to eventually get to be sent (if they completely fail, Star Wars never happened).

 

[Turjan]

I don't belong to those people who like settings with one big hook dangling above their head. I know that Midnight is one of the most beloved settings out there, but I could never get into it. It's not only the overwhelming plot, but also the bleak outlook.

I like the FR, because it's easy to find something interesting for a campaign on the vast menu. I like the early Scarred Lands because of their great backstory ("The Divine and the Defeated" is the centerpiece of the setting) and their openness. I like the Wilderlands because they feel like playing as the Argonauts. And, finally, I even like settings that I don't like if I can plunder them for my homebrew .

 

[Wraith101]

One element I have always wanted emphasised in a setting is vast logical trade routes. I find many settings leave them bland and undetailed which is a great pity because there are so many campaigns that can be built out of them.

I also like internal consistancy in my campaigns.

 

[evilgamer13]

Almiky and time

So I played in a plainscape game a few years ago and we spent some time on a plane called almiky that was a homebrew of the dm's. I really enjoyed it because it was so different from normal dnd settings. For instance the culture bearers were the dwarfs and the Orks. Humans were exclusively barbarians that fulfilled the role normally reserved for Orks while the Orks took a great deal of the role normally reserved for elves and the dwarves combined their normal role with that of humans (living both in city's and in normal dwarfish warrens. The halflings were one of the civilized peoples but the gnomes were tribal cannibals and tinkerer's that lived in the woods (rather then the plains inhabited by the human barbarians). As an elf I was viewed as a sort of first class slave, everyone assumed I belonged to who ever we were claiming the leader was at the time and was so valuable that any action towards me was tantamount to that action being taken toward our leader. The whole thing was kind of crack-mad but I really enjoyed it for the novelty of the setting.


I would also have found that one of the best way around canon or excessive NPC hero cameos is to advance the time line. So instead of some heros reunited the the seven kingdoms years ago, make it a century or two so at least all the humans involved are dead and the longer lived races are now much older, or advance the time line far enough that everyone involved is now dead. I have had great fun with some games run by one of my friends in palladium fantasy where we have taken the result of old games and then advanced the time line so that he can change the society and institutions so that a new game can occur without nifty NPC syndrome.