What makes a Campaign setting Interesting to You?

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

The #1 thing that makes campaigns interesting to me...

... is prepublished adventures. As far as I'm concerned, the setting is just a backdrop for things to happen in. The adventures are what I care about. If a campaign setting has good adventure support, I'll consider using it (hence Greyhawk and Ptolus are my two all-time favorite campaign settings). If not, it's not worth my time.

 

[ChristianW]

Middle Earth

I am starting to tire of the whole orcs and elves thing. That was something Tolkien did well, but why does every setting need to be a copy of his work? I've been guilty of this and I resolves to change my ways.

 

[genshou]

• It has to be internally consistent. If things in the campaign world don't make sense together, that's a big problem.
• The changes and additions to game rules have to be for more than metagame reasons, and any changes to the availability of magic can't be made on false assumptions and misconceptions.
• The setting has to offer something that no other setting has. I want it to break ground, not to be the same as some other setting but in different packaging.
• The setting should not have metaplots forced down the DM's throat.
• Details, but not too many. I want to know enough that I can fill in the rest myself, but not so much detail I can't add anything of my own.
• Living, breathing world. Though big metaplots are frowned upon, I want to get the feeling that the setting is dynamic. Things change over time, and even when the PCs are not responsible changes should be taking place like in a real world.
• Last but not least, the setting has to be a world people would enjoy running and playing games in.

Edit: Some more.

• No new races just for the sake of not using the standard ones. There needs to be a world-based reason before a metagame-based reason.
• Please, for the love of Pelor, no more Waterdeeps! One is enough.

 

[seskis281]

Christian - appreciate the pov, and as I've said I think it's hard to please everyone. There are many who are wanting new and different fantasy archetypes, then they're are others who are nostalgiac and want to go back to them - I'm in the latter. Can't really say I'm tired of Elves, though, because I can't remember a campaign in the last 5 years where one cropped up either as a player of part of game - except when I gave in on the one attempt to do Dragonlance and had Dalamar show up briefly.

Genshou - I appreciate the comments - the "breaking new ground" part is I think the hardest thing to do, since I want to keep the setting classically based. Hence my new idea for psionics (I wrote about it in previous post) as one possible new twist. The rest I agree with totally and am already feeling pretty good on.

Thanks!

John Maddog Wright

 

[Mr. Draco]

I won't run a campaign in an established setting. I don't even run modules. There's just something about it that doesn't work for me. I'm one of those DMs that has to create the world/adventure himself.

That said, I love campaign setting books. At least, I love campaign setting books with good art, great ideas, and lots of little crunchy bits that I can lift and drop in my own campaign with a minimum of work. At this point, I'm dying for Ptolus to come out. :-D

 

[genshou]

Genshou - I appreciate the comments - the "breaking new ground" part is I think the hardest thing to do, since I want to keep the setting classically based. Hence my new idea for psionics (I wrote about it in previous post) as one possible new twist. The rest I agree with totally and am already feeling pretty good on.

Thanks!

John Maddog Wright

No problem.

I hope I didn't misrepresent myself. I do like classic settings, but there has to be something noticeable that sets it apart from others.

 

[GSHamster]

I want good, competant, stylish villians. I usually DM, and I like having villains which are competant, dangerous and worthy adversaries for the PCs.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

It helps if the writing style is interesting/good

 

[Darrin Drader]

I think the breaking new ground bit is the hardest thing to manage, given the goal of the setting. I believe that with fantasy, like most other genres of fiction, there really aren't any new ideas. The secret is the execution. A campaign setting is like a blender. You take the elements you like, toss them in, turn it on, and hopefully you like the taste of whatever you come up with. If you use the right ingredients in the right amounts, it will probably be pleasing to you. If you don't use enough ingredients, or too many, or too much of one thing and not enough of the other, the final flavor may will not be pleasing. If you look at all the major campaign settings, from Greyhawk to Eberron, they all have more in common than they have differences (Planescape being the only exception I can think of).

 

[Quickleaf]

John,

I'm curious are you writing your setting with your own players in mind? In that case what they find interesting is most important. I wonder what kind of players they are and where you fit on this spectrum (e.g. action hero, method-actor, explorer, favorite character, power gamer, storyteller, tactician). Don't be afraid to create your own core story, if your players would like it and it suits your setting. See Mike Mearls article on "Core Stories": http://mearls.livejournal.com/97347.html

Personally, I find the following elements of a setting & its design interesting:

Takes the players (and their characters) into account: Only an RPG provides an interactive setting, and only a homebrew campaign can be tailored to your players.
If your players are all graduate students in Medieval European history, avid SCA members, can quote Thomas of Aquinas, and love exploring settings, then you'd better do your research, and better yet include them in the world design (if they wish)!
If your players love bartering, then include a robust system of exchange (you might create an entire rules system just for bartering based on Spycraft's conflict resolution cards, perhaps with various witticisms, e.g. "but my wife and children will starve").
If one player wants to be deeply involved in church politics/theological debates and another wants to explore the low-life world of thieves, then create a tie between the church and the thieves' guild.

Read, read, read: Since its sounds like you're using Medieval Europe as your model, definitely research the era. At least this way if you choose to deviate from the historical model, you will be aware of what you're doing and have the opportunity to ask yourself: Why is Ilshara different in this regard?

Big beautiful maps: I love maps, what can I say. I have a feeling your poster maps of Ilshara are going to be a hit with your players!

Room to make mistakes: Don't overwhelm yourself with details, because if your players are anything like mine, they'll know when you're being inconsistent. Keep your information manageable and stick to what you know best. Provide yourself with room to improvise and the players won't be able to tell a "mistake" from a "awesome GM foresight."

Write the setting without rules: I want to feel as if the setting were written independent of the rules, or better yet that the rules were written to serve the setting (in other words, the exact opposite of Eberron's approach, which was "Ok, we have a continual light spell, so...every city has permanent magical lanterns"). This first-draft should be understandable to non-gamers. Once you've finished, then go through and do the rules.

Setting Core: Create a one-page (or less) "Setting Core" for your setting, and whenever you're stuck in your writing come back to this core. This keeps the setting tighter, less scattered. As a player I want to feel like there's a cohesive idea that's binding this world together.

Avoid appropriating D&D "isms" & stock fantasy: I'm not excited when I hear "...ah! But my orcs have a Roman-esque empire and are Lawful Neutral." My ears hear this as: An old idea, not necessarily appropriate to this setting, has been appropriated and given a new guise. I don't believe creativity is the art of hiding the source. Sure, most of us (myself included) are guilty of doing this, but that doesn't mean we should *strive* to emulate others' works. (see "Nyambe" by Atlas Games & "Hamunaptra" by Green Ronin for excellent examples of appropriating D&D races into a new culture). Nothing wrong with this, just I'm more interested in what's fresh and unique to your world.

Power to change the world: If the PCs are going to be traversing your world, then they need to have the power to change it, even dramatically altering the world you envisioned. Otherwise it will remain in the background. Personally, I enjoy it when after taking a setting-shaking action the GM raises the bar the next adventure, such as taking that event to its logical conclusion. "You did what??" "Ok then, this is what happens..."

Aaron Infante-Levy