D&D General What geographical size is best for campaign settings?

[squibbles]

I was thinking while reading the Can we salvage Toril? thread that I would like the Forgotten Realms setting a lot better if it didn't include Kara-Tur and Al-Qadim, if those settings were each treated as their own thing, and if none of them shared the same world map.

While, in the past, I might have preferred a fully worked out world, complete with all its continents and cultures, I find I have been progressively drawn to smaller and smaller settings: islands or regions not whole continents. To me, they feel thematically stronger and are more approachable--less stuff to learn and/or invent.

What about you all, what size of setting do you tend to prefer?

Also, does the answer change between published materials and settings you invent yourself?

I recognize that this question involves an important tradeoff between width and depth but, for the purposes of the poll, try to be agnostic to depth. What size do you prefer a setting to be given that it has your preferred level of depth throughout?

 

[Blue]

I always run homebrew, so my size is almost always "undefined". The borders get pushed back through play, even when the players haven't been there.

 

[overgeeked]

Between moderate and small. Big enough for the PCs to be able to pick a direction and go but small enough that the DM doesn’t get lost in their own notes.

 

[J.Quondam]

It really varies by need; but I voted "Small" since my need is usually about that size, or even smaller.
That said, a campaign also often might occur in a handful of widely separated locales that span, say, a "planet-sized" setting, but still only a "Small" size amount of territory is really fleshed out to any great extent. So even big settings usually end up small as far as the total quantity of detail.

 

[squibbles]

It really varies by need; but I voted "Small" since my need is usually about that size, or even smaller.
That said, a campaign also often might occur in a handful of widely separated locales that span, say, a "planet-sized" setting, but still only a "Small" size amount of territory is really fleshed out to any great extent. So even big settings usually end up small as far as the total quantity of detail.

Right. For practical purposes, the juiciest detail in a setting is gonna be in the parts that actually see play.

Setting that aside, though, do you like the aesthetics of creating a setting the size of the Nentir Vale--without really knowing about the continent, planet, or solar system around it--or do you prefer to have a planet-sized setting, with its landmarks and geopolitics figured out, even if you only know its major points of interest to any depth?

Or does it vary by campaign?

Personally, I no longer have any desire to invent more than one continent for a setting, if that. But, I tend to want to know at least a "moderate" kingdom-sized area to give context to the small territory that's actually gameable.

Similarly, and fair enough if this isn't relevant to your interests, I tend to immediately dislike official and 3rd party settings that populate a whole planet worth of continents. Eberron, for example, feels obnoxiously large to me.

 

[bedir than]

See, my campaigns are generally only Tier 1 and 2, so the small and moderate make the most sense.

 

[Smackpixi]

Doing more with less builds stronger campaigns. You can build a lot into a place way smaller than what’s considered small here, 100 six mile hexes is a lot of space, to me that’s still large.

I guess, you’re asking about “campaign settings” which sounds more like a book than where any particular campaign is gonna be. But man, you could do 4 hours a week for 5 years with multiple generations of player characters and never leave Waterdeep.

As always, depends on the campaign, some stories need space to play out in, but if you’re up for it much can be found in a very small place.

 

[squibbles]

Doing more with less builds stronger campaigns. You can build a lot into a place way smaller than what’s considered small here, 100 six mile hexes is a lot of space, to me that’s still large.

I guess, you’re asking about “campaign settings” which sounds more like a book than where any particular campaign is gonna be. But man, you could do 4 hours a week for 5 years with multiple generations of player characters and never leave Waterdeep.

As always, depends on the campaign, some stories need space to play out in, but if you’re up for it much can be found in a very small place.

You're right, published campaign setting books are more what I had in mind when I created the poll. Though I didn't want to focus on them exclusively.

I definitely agree with you about the appeal of geographically small but content rich settings.

tbh, I'm mildly surprised by the replies so far. Considering the degree to which the official WotC settings are argued about on these boards, I thought someone would have mentioned one. Do we all just homebrew small, gameplay-practical, geographically contained settings and only use the published ones to argue with strangers on the internet? (I mean... that's what I do)

 

[Malmuria]

Planescape was ostensibly infinite. Yet, layers of planes are infinite yet uniform; and, the setting books had space to define just a few discrete locations per layer, with the result that the vastness of the setting ended up feeling smaller.

 

[Stormonu]

It must contain a "Here there be Dragons", whatever the size.

Need varies by game, but when I'm starting fresh I generally do at least a continent for backdrop and a town + environs for actual play.