"Cool setting, bro. But what's the hook for the PCs?"

[macd21]

I'm a little confused here. No matter what setting, lore etc that I use, it's my job as the DM to come up with the Adventure Hooks. First thing I work with players and make sure I understand who the players are in game an what they want.

It might be your job as DM to come up with adventure hooks, but some (most?) settings make an effort to help with that job. There’s a focus on the material on things that will interest a typical group of PCs.

There’s various ways in which a setting can fail to do this. One might be that it hasn’t sufficiently defined what a typical group of PCs is, and as a result the setting material covers a lot of potential play styles, but doesn’t cater enough to any one. Another might clearly define what a typical group would be like, and then focus the setting info on things that are totally irrelevant to such a group.

 

[Maxperson]

It paints in broad strokes, and ignores the most basic of laws of nature & politics.

Now, again, if you & your players expect no more, then it can work. My players are older, educated, and less likely to accept settings simply because its written a certain way. They want a logical structure so they interact in detail.

It's all about expctations.

Meh. We play Dungeons and Dragons, not Physical Laws and Politics. No official setting out there is going to do what you want.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Meh. We play Dungeons and Dragons, not Physical Laws and Politics. No official setting out there is going to do what you want.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'official' setting.

But there are good fantasy settings out there. None by WOTC that I can think of, but WOTC isn't exactly a high standard to beat, except in , as I've noted, maps. They do pretty well with maps.

 

[Azuresun]

One thing I would like to see more of in setting books are things that help you fill out more of your character backstory while also giving the DM some more fuel for the plot machine.

As well as EGW, I also really liked how it was handled in the Eberron book, where as each region / faction / religion was detailed, there was a focus on "Here's stuff you can use to detail a character with this origin.", rather than a gazeteer that would probably give a broader picture but require more homework to dig out backstory hooks from it.

If you're highly religious (or lack faith), was there a single incident that prompted your stance? If you're from Zilargo, you're probably involved in some sort of petty intrigue, here are some examples. If you're from Thrane, do you support the theocracy or feel the church should stand apart from politics? If you're from Aundair, you might be a bit haughty and consider yourself more cultured than others. If you're a warforged, how successfully are you integrating with humanoid society outside the battlefield? It's a really great format for conveying to players "This is what it means to be a character with this particular origin."

 

[MGibster]

Meh. We play Dungeons and Dragons, not Physical Laws and Politics. No official setting out there is going to do what you want.

While I don't share JD Smith 1's opinion in regards to D&D settings, I can see where he's coming from. I need a game to have some grounding in reality or I'll likely be uninterested in playing. It's just that the bar for verisimilitude where I might lose interest is much higher than his.

 

[MGibster]

Here's another game I absolutely love and while it gives you an idea of what you're supposed to do it doesn't really detail how: Deadlands. Deadlands is was set in an alternative history wild west where the Confederacy had in effect won the war (they were independent in 1876) thanks to the machinations of a sinister cabal of otherworldly beings called the Reckoners. The Reckoners feed on and grow more power with fear and they spread fear by introducing supernatural creatures to terrorized good honest folk.

So the PCs are set up to combat the agents of the Reckoners in some way or another. But the original game didn't really tell you how to go about doing it. It offered absolutely no reason why the PCs - the posse- might include a gunslinger, samurai, mad scientist, cowboy wizard, preacher, and a Pinkerton might be adventuring together. In fact, most of the PCs probably have no idea who the Reckoners are and they aren't automatically invested in defeating them.

 

[Aldarc]

Or they simply don't bother with PC/campaign hooks at all, knowing full-well that DMs (and in some cases players) will figure that stuff out on their own.

It seems like the same difference: they don't put it in because they believe it's self-evident what those hooks are. That doesn't mean that they are there or that good ones exist. It just means that the creators are making potentially mistaken assumptions about how the text will be received.

* - if my intent in creating said setting or game is to sell it to anyone other than myself, it's obviously in my interests to make it as flexible as possible so as to appeal to the greatest potential market...right?

If this is your intent, you still need to give people, whether they are GMs or PC players, a clear idea of what people/PCs do in the setting, in terms of the hooks, adventures, playable interest, etc. It doesn't have to be hyper-focused, as per many indie games, but it should be clear. The issue I put forth, IMHO, is less an issue of setting focus and more an issue of setting clarity. What are the expectations (1+) of typical play in a setting?

I would argue Eberron, for example, is not a focused game behind its niche aesthetic. There is a lot of styles of campaigns you can run in it, but the setting also was intentionally built as being hook heavy with lore gaps, mysteries, national/faction intrigue, archaeological treasure and MacGuffin-hunting, etc. It's clearly designed IMO to facilitate play.

Here's another game I absolutely love and while it gives you an idea of what you're supposed to do it doesn't really detail how: Deadlands.

I think Tekumél arguably exists in this space. It's a cool, rich setting but I have a hard time imagining what PC play is actually like in this byzantine setting. That's likely one reason it often seems like a commonly read but not played setting.

 

[Marc_C]

That is precisely why I rarely use settings as published. They need to be tailored. I prefer strong campaign concepts built around the characters. Once I have that, I create an environment in which they will be able to accomplish what we decided at session zero.

One published setting that does that very well is Shadow of the Demon Lord.

 

[nevin]

It may work for you, but looking over the FR, all I see is the same drivel WOTC has always put out: kill a dragon, wizard, liche, explore ruins, rinse, repeat.

That's not badwrong fun, but it is a very simplistic approach. FR doesn't lay out boundaries, or bother to explain how trade reaches entire cities built in extreme climates.

It accommodates a single play style, unchanged since 1987.

No settings just give you a world with lore and background. As they are designed to be played by Lot's of groups they are by thier nature set up so that there a lot of small, "simplistic" if you want to go there, but I disagree, plot hooks. If you want deep meaningful stories, you make them up yourself, or if you can't go buy one of the several series of modules that can be strung together like a campaign. I think you are confusing what Campaign Settings are for with what Published Adventures are for. The first is just a backdrop, the second is more in depth with the hooks and encounters etc.

 

[Maxperson]

While I don't share JD Smith 1's opinion in regards to D&D settings, I can see where he's coming from. I need a game to have some grounding in reality or I'll likely be uninterested in playing. It's just that the bar for verisimilitude where I might lose interest is much higher than his.

Same here, but I don't really want to play a game that goes that far toward mirroring reality. And I get more than enough politics in my daily life. I don't really want to deal with politics during my relaxation time.