Modules and the right amount of setting detail

[Quickleaf]

I'm curious how much setting detail is enough when it comes to adventures, particularly longer adventures?

This was how Mystara and Ravenloft and other settings got started, with a module that had some setting information in it. It seemed to work fine as long as the players kept within the bounds of the adventure.

Many adventure paths today have more comprehensive settings associated with them, either because they come with Player's guides, have evolved into whole settings like Golarian, or are based on established settings with lots of existing setting books.

It's one of those "I'll know it when I see it" things for me, but it would be good to hear others' thoughts to maybe hone it into something specific I can use for my own adventure writing.

 

[delericho]

I'm curious how much setting detail is enough when it comes to adventures, particularly longer adventures?

These days, I don't think adventure writers have a problem with not providing enough setting material; on the contrary, they seem to err towards providing too much.

IMO, for standalone adventures they should include only that setting material that is relevant to the adventure. If the PCs start off in a small village before going to the dungeon, then the setting material can probably consist of one sentence! Of course, most modern adventures will tie things together a bit more fully than that, and so more setting is justified, but it should always be remembered that 'setting' material is eating into 'adventure' material. So unless it is relevant to the adventure that the Moodies have owned the Burned Land for five generations, it's probably best to omit that factoid in favour of something else.

But...

Many adventure paths today...

For adventure paths I take a slightly different view. Whereas a standalone adventure will probably be inserted into an existing campaign and setting, an Adventure Path most likely will be the campaign. As such, I quite like them to be self-contained - all the setting material that I need should be included in the AP materials. (Of course, I have no objection if the Golarion setting book gives more information, or if there is an optional supplement that, again, gives more. But I like everything that is required to be provided.)

 

[Quickleaf]

These days, I don't think adventure writers have a problem with not providing enough setting material; on the contrary, they seem to err towards providing too much.

IMO, for standalone adventures they should include only that setting material that is relevant to the adventure. If the PCs start off in a small village before going to the dungeon, then the setting material can probably consist of one sentence! Of course, most modern adventures will tie things together a bit more fully than that, and so more setting is justified, but it should always be remembered that 'setting' material is eating into 'adventure' material. So unless it is relevant to the adventure that the Moodies have owned the Burned Land for five generations, it's probably best to omit that factoid in favour of something else.

But...



For adventure paths I take a slightly different view. Whereas a standalone adventure will probably be inserted into an existing campaign and setting, an Adventure Path most likely will be the campaign. As such, I quite like them to be self-contained - all the setting material that I need should be included in the AP materials. (Of course, I have no objection if the Golarion setting book gives more information, or if there is an optional supplement that, again, gives more. But I like everything that is required to be provided.)

That makes sense. So, to narrow it down a bit, with Adventure Paths, how much setting information is enough? What is "all the setting information you need" to run an AP? Which APs have hit the balance just right?

EDIT: And hot much setting should be upfront versus parsed out among the separate adventures of an AP?

 

[Starfox]

My preference is definitely setting light. I often transplant adventures, and making the adventure too tied to a certain setting is troublemsome. Most adventures have an implied setting; wilderness or urban, barbaric or civilized and so on, which is generally best left implied or described only lightly.

I find a good adventure can be translated into almost any setting; I have often run SF adventures in fantasy and vice versa. The exception is where the societal norms of the setting fixes it to a certain culture. Westerns and oriental adventures often have this setting lock. And that's ok too, because I love adventures that are tied to cultures and mores. But introducing a lot of setting that doesn't really have an impact is a waste of pages.

In other words, I seem to be in general agreement with those who posted upthread.

 

[delericho]

That makes sense. So, to narrow it down a bit, with Adventure Paths, how much setting information is enough?

Ah, well, that's the big question, isn't it?

I guess what I need is a broad "big picture" overview of the region, plus a more focussed look at key locations, the major factions and players, and so on and so forth. Plus a little bit extra to help set the flavour.

Beyond that, it's really hard to say - I suspect that cases where there isn't enough would quickly become obvious in actual play, where the difference between "enough" and "more than enough" (or even "too much") would be much less obvious.

What is "all the setting information you need" to run an AP? Which APs have hit the balance just right?

The only AP I've run from start to finish has been "Shackled City" (from Dungeon, not the hardback), which was... okay. The later paths seem to have done a rather better job. And Paizo now seem to have become pretty much masters are putting these things together - I've always felt that with the six volumes of the AP in hand I've had everything I need. (The free "Player's Guide" for each has been appreciated, but I've always filed that under nice-to-have rather than essential. But, being free, I don't mind either way. Likewise, their supplementary products, be they item cards, a local gazeteer, or a map folio, have been nice, but have also been nice-to-have rather than essential, which is again how I like them.)

EDIT: And hot much setting should be upfront versus parsed out among the separate adventures of an AP?

I need enough to get started - details on the starting area, details of the first major plot point(s), details of the first set of antagonists. Guidance for creating characters is also appreciated, but not usually essential.

One thing "Shackled City" didn't have but that all (?) later Adventure Paths did is an up-front summary of how the remaining steps in the Path. Again, this isn't essential, but it's a huge book when starting out.

(One other thing, though: We started "Shackled City" when only the first few issues were available. I wouldn't do that again - in future, I would wait for all the adventures to be available before starting. So I guess my real answer to your last question is "all of it." )

 

[howandwhy99]

This is tricky and probably going to be different for everyone. A lot of what counts as setting material is really more higher level module material for me. I mean, cultural details are setting material, but also how locals act within the module. Not to mention what monsters are around, what equipment and treasure is available, what climates and terrains, and so on. I think calendars, currency, and metric systems tend to be more setting than adventure, but then I could see it the other way too.

Here's my answer: Stuff that's not directly related to the classes the game supports is setting material, but settings should still be in the game. A published module probably has to presume some setting material. But what would be really interesting is a module that breaks out how climate and terrain, culture, and so on could be swapped out for module placement in a custom campaign world. Then extra material might truly be seen as extra.

What do you think is the difference between setting material and adventure material? What is setting material and what is module material for you?

What kind of game do you run? Long campaigns? Adventure path? Sandbox? Something else? This gets into gaming styles.

What role do you see the setting serving in the game? In support of modules? In affecting different adventure designs? Is it more game? Is it purely backdrop?

 

[Quickleaf]

What do you think is the difference between setting material and adventure material? What is setting material and what is module material for you?

What kind of game do you run? Long campaigns? Adventure path? Sandbox? Something else? This gets into gaming styles.

What role do you see the setting serving in the game? In support of modules? In affecting different adventure designs? Is it more game? Is it purely backdrop?

Those are all good questions. Let me attach some examples to clarify...

EDIT: this assumes a published adventure of some kind.

Think about a quest-giver. Let's say this adventure names the quest-giver Dacarde, leader of the King's Special Forces. His background is relevant because the adventure involves infiltrating/breaking a dragon cult, and that's the sort of thing you'd imagine someone in his position getting involved with. It's an easy enough swap-out for another NPC (say a prominent cleric in your campaign). Does this intrude too much on setting because it assumes there's a king and a dragon cult? Does it intrude too much on setting because it names a character type who may be defined in the official setting material? Or is it an entirely reasonable amount of setting? Can Dacarde's presence be limited to the read-aloud text/limited interaction PCs are expected to have with him in the adventure? Certainly he wouldn't need more than a brief description and no stat block? Would your view change if this was a long adventure or adventure path? Would you need to know more about Dacarde upfront?

Now, what if the adventure assumes more than what [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] you mentioned as the urban/dungeon/wilderness divide? What if it makes kindgom scale assumptions, for example, that there is a bastard heir, or the names of the royal family, or the existence of a King's Special Forces... Is kingdom scale stuff that you'd prefer be off limits to a module? IOW, should modules be restricted to "local scale" issues and sites? Does that answer change depending on if it's a sandbox vs. adventure path? I'd assume that sandbox DMs would answer "yes, modules should be local scale."

 

[Lanefan]

Personally I want adventures to be setting-light and backstory-light (or even backstory-nonexistent) so I can plug them into my own campaign without having to do as much work stripping out the extra fluff.

That said, if an adventure is in effect also intended to be a setting (or a large part of one) from the get-go it needs to say so right on the cover. 1e's "Night's Dark Terror" is a good example of this.

Adventure paths are a different animal entirely. Here it's assumed you're not only running the path but all the other stuff that goes with it, thus the background info etc. is essential. If an adventure path *is* intended to be setting-neutral (and it can be done) this also needs to be noted on the outside cover.

Lanefan

 

[Quickleaf]

Personally I want adventures to be setting-light and backstory-light (or even backstory-nonexistent) so I can plug them into my own campaign without having to do as much work stripping out the extra fluff.

That said, if an adventure is in effect also intended to be a setting (or a large part of one) from the get-go it needs to say so right on the cover. 1e's "Night's Dark Terror" is a good example of this.

Adventure paths are a different animal entirely. Here it's assumed you're not only running the path but all the other stuff that goes with it, thus the background info etc. is essential. If an adventure path *is* intended to be setting-neutral (and it can be done) this also needs to be noted on the outside cover.

Lanefan

So when you pick up an adventure you're not interested in the NPCs, the backstory, or the setting...you're interested in things you can challenge your players with? Monsters, encounters, traps?

Night's Dark Terror was the Basic/Expert transition adventure, right? What is it a good example of...needing to explicitly state that it's a setting?

 

[Starfox]

So when you pick up an adventure you're not interested in the NPCs, the backstory, or the setting...you're interested in things you can challenge your players with? Monsters, encounters, traps?

For me, an adventure is mainly its plot. If it is an interesting story about say smuggling, that story can be translated anywhere where smuggling is a relevant activity - that is as long as there are import dues/embargoes to avoid. This can be in almost any setting with a certain minimal government (import dues is one of the oldest taxes). Monsters, traps, and such are generally quite easy to replace with setting-appropriate material. Orc bandits become human (or alien) bandits, city guards become police and customs officials, crossbow traps become laser traps. But if the scenario includes several pages describing a fantasy city where all of this happens, that is harder to transplant.

Not saying a city description is not useful, but I generally prefer setting materials separate from adventures. This is particularly so when the scenario is set in a setting with little spread; it is more interesting to read about a city in Golarion or Greyhawk than in the writer's private campaign. And I agree adventure paths are different; a series of adventures in the same location generally should have much more setting than a single adventure.

The really useful is information on NPCs, including backstory, personality, and so on - and how this can be expected to interact with the plot. I can easily stat up a 4th level city guard officer, but that this particular officer has an affair with the smuggler and thus double loyalties adds a lot to the story.