Campaign Settings; what do you look for?

[Nathal]

I would like to get some feedback on how DMs here feel differently concerning what constitutes the most important aspects of a campaign setting. Do you prefer a campaign setting which defines its lands in terms of its History? Or do you prefer a setting which allows the GM to fill in the fluff but provides tons of demographic data like imports, exports, population density, topographical info, etc? Or is it flavor text, artwork, and supporting fiction that is most important? Sure, it's the old crunch versus fluff question, but in the context of campaign worlds. Thoughts?

And to what degree does presentation trump all of the above? Obviously a poorly written history does no good, and terrible cartography can kill the experience of picking up the book for the first time.

Lastly, does anybody feel that campaign settings should be presented in a way which assumes the GM will start from a small region and work his way "outward", both geographically and in terms of depth and complexity to the game world. This, I believe, would allow the GM and the players to absorb the world at a natural pace. I'm not suggesting the GM couldn't read ahead, but the book would allow him to start small, and learn new areas "radiating" outward from the core town or city presented in the beginning. And, yes, I'm daring to assume a 'classic' style play from 1st level upward. That is, each chapter would present more of the world, rather than the more common gazetteer format.

 

[DragonLancer]

Do you prefer a campaign setting which defines its lands in terms of its History? Or do you prefer a setting which allows the GM to fill in the fluff but provides tons of demographic data like imports, exports, population density, topographical info, etc? Or is it flavor text, artwork, and supporting fiction that is most important?

I'm assuming that you are referring to published settings rather than looking at an individual's homebrew world.

As a DM I want everything detailed as much as can be in an initial product, whether that be history, geography, deities and lore. Future sourcebooks can fill in the blanks even further. One thing I really hate is for the publisher to hold back on secrets just so the DM can put what it wants in. Leave the Dm to decide whats where but include what officially is in there.

And to what degree does presentation trump all of the above? Obviously a poorly written history does no good, and terrible cartography can kill the experience of picking up the book for the first time.

Presentation is very important to me. If it looks bad then it probably will be and I'll be turned off completely. This applies to any gaming product.

Lastly, does anybody feel that campaign settings should be presented in a way which assumes the GM will start from a small region and work his way "outward", both geographically and in terms of depth and complexity to the game world.

No. Campaign settings should be written as detailing the whole continent/region/whatever. If the DM wants to start small, then thats for them to do themselves.

 

[Wombat]

If you are talking about pre-published campaigns, I just don't like them. They always feel like I am wearing someone else's clothing rather than my own.

For my own campaigns, I like to provide a lot of initial details, including recent histories, styles of dress, local celebrations, how people look at their own world. I also prefer to start on a very small scale, so that the players become immersed in a few particulars before they take on the world as a whole.

Geography, in many ways, is less important to me than culture, custom and religion. My feeling is that since people in the Middle Ages and Renaissance had, at best, a very fuzzy notion of geography outside of their local area, my players did not need anything too much better; conversely, local custom, morals, laws and the like seem much more immediately important and obvious.

Doubt that will help for putting a package together to sell to someone else, but it works for my games

 

[Sir Whiskers]

If you are talking about pre-published campaigns, I just don't like them. They always feel like I am wearing someone else's clothing rather than my own.

For my own campaigns, I like to provide a lot of initial details, including recent histories, styles of dress, local celebrations, how people look at their own world. I also prefer to start on a very small scale, so that the players become immersed in a few particulars before they take on the world as a whole.

Geography, in many ways, is less important to me than culture, custom and religion. My feeling is that since people in the Middle Ages and Renaissance had, at best, a very fuzzy notion of geography outside of their local area, my players did not need anything too much better; conversely, local custom, morals, laws and the like seem much more immediately important and obvious.

Doubt that will help for putting a package together to sell to someone else, but it works for my games

Yeah, for myself I find most of the global info in published settings never gets used. Unless I'm running a campaign centered around political intrigue, or with very high-level characters, info on kingdoms, royalty, etc. can be covered in just a few pages. Give me some interesting history, some idea of the power centers in the world, then concentrate on what the pc's will interact with: npc's, stores, temples, constabularies, villages, and so on. That's the kind of material I use from settings.

I think sometimes we get so wrapped up in creating a grand setting (ala Middle Earth), we forget that the game is supposed to focus on the pc's, which means 90% of the detail needs to be local, not global.

 

[Psion]

I like campaign settings that meet the almost contradictory traits of giving you lots of ideas yet lots of room to maneuver and do your own thing. Examples are Planescape and the Traveller universe.

 

[scourger]

less is more

As with most gaming products lately, I find that less is more with respect to campaign settings. It's a fine line. It doesn't necessarily mean that a book has to be small. I want just enough detail presented to bring the setting alive without overwhelming amounts of new rules or setting information.

For example, my experience with running a 3e game was that the D&D Gazetteer (essentially Greyhawk) bordered on too much information. I found the maps and local area information for the City and Domain of Greyhawk from the AD&D book Greyhawk the Adventure Begins to be much better for running a game in that setting. (Starting local.) I found the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer of little use. All that history is just overwhelming.

Here are some other campaign books I've found most useful in running various games in the past few years. I really like DragonStar--mainly just the Starfarer's Handbook and parts of the Guide to the Galaxy. Judge Dredd d20--the core book and the published adventures. Really one of my favorites. Alternity Gamma World for setting coupled with Omega World for the d20 rules. I also like the setting information from Skull & Bones, but I use very little of the alternate rules; preferring to rely on the mechanics from the PH & DMG.

On the drawing board is Spellslinger, which looks great for a little D&D western (both Deadlands d20 and Sidewinder present too many changes for too little setting). I am also intrigued by the Shackled City adventure Path from Dungeon Magazine. It seems to present an entire campaign setting through adventures that go from a small area to larger and larger areas. The Gates of Troy is an interesting pdf that I want to pick up as soon as I catch up on my print reading. It looks like a good, detailed setting book that still gets it done in about 40 pages. Same with Mini Campaign Magazine #2, The Book of Guilds, which presents the social and politcal structure of Guild Island in which the players can play unique characters based on NPC classes mixed with simple prestige guild classes. It's also not too long.

So, there it is. I don't want to overwhelmed with information. Just give me enough to play in a cool, new world without totally rewriting the d20 system. Generally, less is more.

 

[Nightfall]

If you are talking about pre-published campaigns, I just don't like them. They always feel like I am wearing someone else's clothing rather than my own.

Yes but if you have no clothes to begin with, and you're given some, how can you know whose they are?

Psion,

How about the fact you get sorcery that makes sense or druids that aren't nature clerics?

 

[Psion]

Psion,

How about the fact you get sorcery that makes sense or druids that aren't nature clerics?

/me bonks Nightfall over the head for asking questions he knows the answer to.

What, are you fishing for compliments for you baby?

 

[Nathal]

I'm assuming that you are referring to published settings rather than looking at an individual's homebrew world.

Yes, that's right. Sorry I didn't specify.

As a DM I want everything detailed as much as can be in an initial product, whether that be history, geography, deities and lore. Future sourcebooks can fill in the blanks even further. One thing I really hate is for the publisher to hold back on secrets just so the DM can put what it wants in. Leave the Dm to decide whats where but include what officially is in there.

I like detail too, but I like it presented piecemeal. I don't like setting books that bombard me with large historical treatises, or relentless amounts of detail in paragraph form. I want a succinct history, and if it must be more involved, write a novel or at least write in a style that doesn't sound biblical. I wonder if my preference is the norm in the RPG community, or if I am the minority. Because, of course, there are many history buffs who role-play, and many people who read the Silmarillion for fun (crazy people )...

But the more I think about it, I believe the problem I describe is one of presentation, not a problem with "detail" itself, broadly speaking. For example, I like the Forgotten Realms book because it doesn't give me the impression that I've got to absorb the entire work before I'm able to effectively run an adventure in the true "spirit" of the campaign setting. The dalelands serves as an excellent starting place, but enough information is given on smaller regions that it's not tough to pick a starting place. Planescape, as somebody else mentioned, presents a core city as the hub of the campaign, which I also liked. But some settings may present too many similar places, each with complicated histories that are all somehow intertwined, and that can get intimidating for the non-history buff...am I alone in that?

Presentation is very important to me. If it looks bad then it probably will be and I'll be turned off completely. This applies to any gaming product.

I certainly am on the same page with that!

Campaign settings should be written as detailing the whole continent/region/whatever. If the DM wants to start small, then thats for them to do themselves.

What about detailing the whole continent, but each region (chapter) starts with a single town or city and then describes surrounding regions? So the DM could choose a region, read about the "default" city or town, and then work his way outward with his players from there. I'm sort of brainstorming here, as you can see.

 

[Nightfall]

/me bonks Nightfall over the head for asking questions he knows the answer to.

What, are you fishing for compliments for you baby?

Ouch! Well hey I have to earn my keep some how. Btw, got Edge of Infinity. I REALLY think you'll like it. The crunch isn't that good but the fluff, wow. I can only compare it to BotR's own cosmology in terms of thinking and depth. It's just just a book of planes, it's a book ABOUT planes.