What makes a great campaign setting?

[Jupp]

To me a good setting is one that doesnt explain everything that happens in this world. I want some white areas on the continent where I can place things to my liking. Also the setting needs to be diverse in its population and its view on how the world works/should work. I dont want to have a black/white world but also the shades of gray that lie in between.

Lot's of politics and factions is another must-have because it gives the players the ability to choose sides and it gives me the chance to play the opposing factions. That means I have much more to do in that world than running from dungeon to dungeon. Another thing is the pantheon. It needs to be as diverse as the political landscape of the setting. Again, no only black/white but also all the stuff around it.

Then comes the history of the setting, the time that was before the players enter the stage in this world. I love placing hints and tidbits about things and events that are long forgotten/lost. Perhaps the players will never be able to find out what the information really means that they gathered in the last adventure. But it will keep them interested in the history and the past of the setting. Give them an ancient tome talking about a place long lost and forgotten, an amulet with a very strange symbol of a lost deity or those old tales you hear in the tavern from the old folks sitting in front of their pints. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in one of those tales. Then its up to the players to decide if they want to hunt for the truth behind all the myth. If the y choose to I am more than happy, if not then perhaps the next thing they find will interest them *shrugs*.

Then I want the players to feel that they CAN play a role in the future of the setting but I dont want them to feel either dwarved by too powerfull NPCs walking around every corner of the world and I certainly dont want them to think that they are the only reason that the setting exists, like "hey, we have to save the world? no problemo, easy as pie!"


Essentially all those things written above are the reason why Planescape and Greyhawk are my favorite settings.

 

[Mystery Man]

Yeah. In fact, I won't run Forgotten Realms, ever, unless I can come up with a group of players who have never read any of the novels. I think they get in the way of the DM.

Hm. Isn't it odd how that's so..not true? If you never will, you'll never know that they don't now will you?

 

[Desdichado]

I think a good setting features a number of elements. A good setting might even not feature an element or two from this list, but if not, then it better be damn good in the other elements to make up for it.

• A good setting tends to feature some kind of hook, twist, or some other way in which it stands out from the crowd. These hooks can be subtle or not-- here's a just a few examples:
  • Eberron has the pulp*noir feel in terms of politics, magical "technology", society, etc.
  • Iron Kingdoms has a strong steampunk vibe going through it; it's darker than standard D&D as well.
  • Dark Sun -- the whole "against the environment" bleakness of the setting is quite different.
  • Dragonlance -- had a strong, built-in conflict -- the return of the dragons, and the previous loss of clerical magic.
• Closely tied to theme/twist is a sense of focus. A good campaign suggests adventures, and usually of a certain type. Campaigns like FR that lack focus also tend to be fairly bland, and DMs have to put a fair amount of work to give their actual game focus. Similarly, the focus needs to suggest adventure and conflict, or what's the point?
• Campaigns need to make sense. I can naturally suspend some disbelief, since I like playing fantasy RPGs and whatnot, that by default feature some kind of magic. However, the "classic" D&D settings make no sense, and therefore tend to turn me off right away. Greyhawk exists for little more reason than to serve as a vagueish backdrop for dungeon adventures. FR is no more than a mishmash of transparently renamed earth cultures existing next to each other with a modern-liberal society and a bunch of high level characters and challenges that apparently do little more than wait for PCs to get to high enough level to interact with.
• Novels aren't bad per se, as if done well they can help flesh out the setting, provide a good example of the kinds of themes and tone and sample campaigns that could be run in the setting. I'm quite looking forward to the Eberron novels, for instance. However, TSR/WotC has dropped the ball on novel usage twice -- and for pretty much the same reasons. In both DL and FR, the novels became the most important thing going on in the setting. The authors couldn't resist making the novels too epic, which made it difficult to account for the novels and the PC's adventures. And both also "blew up" the setting, so to speak, within the novels, which means the game material had to change substantially.

 

[Psion]

Good thing SL only did one set huh Psion?

There's a difference between having them and needing them.

That said, AFAIAC, if there is any metaplot (which I hasten to mention should be kept to a minimum), all the important details should be in the game products. Don't make me buy a novel. Let me rephrase, you WON'T make me buy and read a novel. As a GM, I expect all salient points to be clearly and succintly summarized.

The one SL novel was annoying, but tolerably limited.

I will highlight what I like about Scarred Lands.
First, I like that all the major D&D archetypes and tropes are given a role, a reason to be. Like giving a real reason that druids are different than clerics. That sort of self consistency and interface with the system just makes me feel all warm inside. It makes it feel like the setting BELONGS, but is not just tacked on.

Further, I like that it transcends the "battle good versus evil" archetype for underlying conflict, but still has the feel of great threat to it.

Finally, it has lots of tasty crunchy goodness.

 

[Psion]

More generally, let me add that all campaigns need
- A driving conflict(s) that can be used as a common source for adventure ideas and plot development. (IMO, lacking this is what killed spelljammer.)
- A default activity/model for PC groups.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

1. Enough room for a variety of things to be going on; a small, volcanic island with two major factions, both different yet the same, and in an everlasting war would be on bad footing despite whatever other good features there were, so long as it wasn't just a part of a larger setting.

2. A Consistant Theme; A campaign setting needs a theme, and it has to stick to it. The more abstract and vague the theme, the better. A setting with the theme 'Petty Kingdoms Vying for Power' would be good because of its open scope and potential (yet specific enough to potentially give the whole setting a particularly dark-age feel), whereas 'Vikings...But With Katanas!' would be bad because it's too specific, and it doesn't really add much depth beyond the fact that most people in that setting are probably pillaging seafarers, and they use katanas for some reason. That said, a setting can have more than one driving theme, though its best to have them at different levels of abstraction and vagueness(sp?).

This is my major problem with FR; it doesn't seem to have an underlying theme. What it really has is too much variety. If it was five or ten smaller settings, I think most would be pretty cool...but no, it's one big 'value pack' where literally everything exists. If The North, The Sword Coast, The Dalelands, The Unapproachable East, The Shining South, and Calimshan were all settings of their own, usable by themselves or together, I think it would be a lot more game-friendly, at least for me personally. It would sure screw up their precious novels through, truth be told...

That said, I don't think whole worlds or continents ever make truly great campaign settings, simply because it's so hard to pin a definate theme onto such a large tract of land without making it seem artificially homogenous.

3. Internal Consistency/Verisimilitude/Believability/Authenticity; a setting has to make sense. Period.
Now, I can suspend my disbelief when a dragon flies, or when an elf lives for a long time, or when there's a metal superior to steel for arms and armor. What I can't help but cringe/scoff/laugh/puzzle at is when people don't act like people in a setting; if magic is common enough for most people to have seen, no ruler would be stupid enough to let his local supply be open to anybody. If magic is powerful and common enough for spellcasters to be a major contributing part of an army, no general would be stupid enough to fight on an open field.

4. Realism where it counts; unless there's a very good reason for otherwise, rivers should run down hill, people should die quickly from arterial wounds (and arterial wounds should happen rather easily with almost any sharp weapon that gets past the skin), armor should protect, metals should melt at the right temperatures, and things should fall at 9.78m/s^2, to a terminal velocity approaching 150kph (for suitably flailing and baggy-clothed humanoids). Nuff said.

Please tell me you're playing in the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting. It sounds like just what you're looking for.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

To me a good setting is one that doesnt explain everything that happens in this world. I want some white areas on the continent where I can place things to my liking. Also the setting needs to be diverse in its population and its view on how the world works/should work. I dont want to have a black/white world but also the shades of gray that lie in between.

Lot's of politics and factions is another must-have because it gives the players the ability to choose sides and it gives me the chance to play the opposing factions. That means I have much more to do in that world than running from dungeon to dungeon. Another thing is the pantheon. It needs to be as diverse as the political landscape of the setting. Again, no only black/white but also all the stuff around it.

Then comes the history of the setting, the time that was before the players enter the stage in this world. I love placing hints and tidbits about things and events that are long forgotten/lost. Perhaps the players will never be able to find out what the information really means that they gathered in the last adventure. But it will keep them interested in the history and the past of the setting. Give them an ancient tome talking about a place long lost and forgotten, an amulet with a very strange symbol of a lost deity or those old tales you hear in the tavern from the old folks sitting in front of their pints. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in one of those tales. Then its up to the players to decide if they want to hunt for the truth behind all the myth. If the y choose to I am more than happy, if not then perhaps the next thing they find will interest them *shrugs*.

Then I want the players to feel that they CAN play a role in the future of the setting but I dont want them to feel either dwarved by too powerfull NPCs walking around every corner of the world and I certainly dont want them to think that they are the only reason that the setting exists, like "hey, we have to save the world? no problemo, easy as pie!"

Essentially all those things written above are the reason why Planescape and Greyhawk are my favorite settings.

My last comment applies to you, too. You sound like a perfect Kingdoms of Kalamar recruit.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The best settings for a DnD game are the ones closest to the default setting implied by the rules - Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. That's why they're the most popular. Not sure if that makes them great though. My favourite setting is Glorantha cause it's the richest and smartest.

 

[rrealm]

I love Ravenloft because it is full of mystery but it can be hard to create custom adventures because the lands are so specific and small. I also run Forgotten Realms and I have much more freedom to place an entire city where I need it since it is not so detailed when you “zoom in” and look at the landscape in a 25 mile zone.

 

[irdeggman]

I find that the thing that makes a setting most appealing to me is the flavor of the setting. Does it feel special? Is there some commonality throughout that ties things (or regions) together or is it just a mish-mash of everything thrown into one pot? Is there a feel of the epic or is it just an adventure at a time?

Novels sometimes add flavor/history to a setting, but aren't necessarily one of the most important factors.

My two favorite published settings are Dark Sun and Birthright.

Both had a unique flavor that made them separate from the "all worlds are connected" theme of TSR/WotC (in the olden days).

Dark Sun has a unique flavor where survival is desparate and everything is deadly. The commonality of psionics, rarity of magic (arcane) and metal make it very unique. There are quite a few well written novels that accompany the line also - they add but don't detract from the game itself.

Birthright has a world conquest theme. Characters are supposed to shape the world and create/destroy empires. Their actions define what will happen to the common folk who depend on them for survival. The introduction of bloodlines and the death of the 'old' gods made it very unique. The domain level of play and mass combat system added other unique elements to the setting that didn't exist in any other at the time. It has an epic feel, performing bloodtheft {and the similarity to Highlander where there can be only one} adds a feeling of desparation to the game. There were a few novels but not many. The biggest problem with the campaign itself was that it was published when TSR was going broke and so never got the kind of development support (and quality editing) that it deserved.

Another of my favorite settings was a home-brewed one by my DM. He called it Ice World and it had a real Maztica feel to it, but modified. It might have just been the quality of his DMing that made it so good though. There was a strong totem animal tie to it, where characters were expected to find a totem animal and behave as if they were connected in some way. My main character was a mongrelman priest/magic-user whose toem animal was a beaver. He was always trying to take care of the other characters and morning their deaths. Most of his friends died at some time or another. One of his best lines was when a Player's gnoll character called him a human to which he replied "I wish". The setting had very unique weapons and armor not the typical medieval D&D setting ones {Frostburn would have been an ideal book to have at the time} and the clerical magic was spiritual in natural. There was an epic feel to it since the characters were involved in a mission to save the world from the ultimate evil.