Grounding Players in a Setting

[tzor]

The important thing to remember is that a detailed description of a world is first and foremost for the DM's help to keep the world consistant, not for the players.

I'm sort of torn on the nature of player backgrounds. Clearly too much has the potential to cause the character not to fit within the world, but sometimes even a little could bring ideas to the DM that the DM was not expecting. I remember one character's background for a Lankhmar character where the female character had a pet rat. This was lankhmar where rats actually had an intelligence. So sometime during the campaign his "cover" was blown. (By of all NPC's the wererat Hisvet) He then became an important NPC promoting the plot.

But the basic idea is to provide a back and forth development to character creation and character background. Then to provide a simple character point of view description for the character. Nothing detailed, and other things can easily be added as the campaign progresses. I think a middle out design to character background is the best approach. It's not as much a necessity of detail as a requirement of potential plot hooks.

 

[Stormtower]

Oh agreed. I was specifically looking at the first two or three sessions. What you are talking about is a bit beyond my scope. Although, there is a bit of a danger that I've seen both myself and other DM's fall into here. Yes, things should happen in other places. That's cool. But, it's probably more cool to the DM than to the players.

It really depends on how grand of a scale you want for your campaign as well. I tend to keep my campaigns fairly geographically small. A single country or region for example. I tend not to have sprawling campaigns with the party traveling from region to region. So, this probably colors my perceptions.

Sure, that Country Forex is attack NewZeds is interesting and perhaps something to have the town crier start talking about, but, unless there's a reason to go there, it's purely background information. And, the players may or may not care about it. Then again, if prices start going up on import goods from NewZeds, the players may start to take an interest.

But, by and large, I agree with your assessment. I tend to chart out a calendar of events for a few years ahead of the campaign. Nothing that really impacts hugely on the campaign itself, just some tidbits to toss out onto the table once in a while. If nothing else, it gives the NPC's something to talk about.

Definitely with you on the fact that off-camera (or, if you prefer, outside localized field of influence) stuff can often be cooler for the DM than the players. That's something every thinking DM should guard against - the players should be the focus of the campaign, and other stuff should exist primarily as flavor.

Regarding ripple effects of the PCs' actions, though... now, there's where it gets interesting. If the party focuses in one area, its actions can create ripples in the campaign's timeline of events which may affect areas outside their immediate field of perception and/or influence. It's the intersection between the "flavor bits" from elsewhere in the world and the sense of "whoa... we DID make a difference" when the flavor bits become referential to PC actions eariler in the campaign. To me, this is the essence of a reactive campaign that also keeps PC actions framed in the larger perspective of world lore.

Now, to your initial topic: how to get 'em hooked for those first 2 or 3 sessions... I'm going to punt and take the wimpy way out by saying it depends largely on your players and the social contract/table culture that develops early on in any new gaming group. The DM has to present those reactive hooks early on so the players get engaged, and the examples you provided in the first post would be of great use to any DM. In a general sense, that first session or two may be used to find out what each player thinks is cool/fun/engaging, and the third and fourth sessions can be focused on really building some custom hooks based on those first impressions.

That's kinda the essence (to me, anyway) of the tabletop RPG social contract: the DM subtlely uncovers what each player finds cool, and then gives them ample opportunities to do cool stuff that affects reactive change in the campaign world. I think it was Steven Brust who said that much of what he considers good fiction starts with the idea of "now I'm going to show you something cool." Amended for our hobby of choice, it becomes "now I'm going to give you a chance to try something cool."

EDIT: Merric makes a great point about memorable NPCs. One constant among the groups I've DM'd is that well characterized and persistent NPCs make a great hook for all but the most hack-n-slashy players.

 

[Dr Simon]

I'd say not so much 'no character background' but 'open character background' is perhaps better. There was even an example of this in the 2nd Ed. rules where a player says someting like "My dwarf is a grumpy little fellow who honours his clan" and the DM replies "Oh, he's probably from the Ironcrown mountains".

I'm definitely a stickler for the correct sort of names for characters - no "Dave the Fighter" for me!

Last little bit of info that really breeds verisimilitude is the little details. I used to run a Lankhmar campaign and Fritz Leiber throws a lot of side details that never get fleshed out, and I did the same, especially "Sweet Tovylian Wine". If the players know stupid stuff like wine from Tovylis (City, I beleive, of Beggars) is yellow and sweet then it grounds them in the world a bit more. (Plus you could use a bottle of Tokay as a prop one night!)

 

[LostSoul]

Two words: collaborative setting design.

 

[Tonguez]

I think there's an innate assumption here that could do with challenging. Why focus on the setting, rather than what's really important to the PCs, which is the adventures, hooks, encounters and overall campaign arc?.

Because the DM is playing a game too and the DMs character just happens to be the entire world. SO some DMs enjoy detailing a lot of spects of their Character/Setting, and why shouldn't they be allowed to.
It is the interactions between characters that drives the RPG, the DMs character should be as important as those of the players

Oh that being said I'm all for letting players help create the setting and thats partially why I use an influence mechanic (and require their backgrounds to include family, friends and allies)
I also go along the route of limiting backgrounds with things like 'You are all associated with the Church in some way' or 'you are going to be members of a trade delegation - tell me how you got here'...

 

[Kishin]

I think there's an innate assumption here that could do with challenging. Why focus on the setting, rather than what's really important to the PCs, which is the adventures, hooks, encounters and overall campaign arc?

Why not just default to a "stock" implied setting clichefest, and make the campaign arc and the adventure The Thing you're trying to sell? I know that DMs love worldbuilding, but the meat of the game lies elsewhere, IMO. Perhaps try exerting all your effort there instead, and no hard sell would be required.

I'm half in agreement with you, rounser. The meat of the game does lie with the players and their adventures, but forever defaulting to a stock, implied clichefest is to me no fun either, even as useful as cliches are. Different settings facilitate different styles of campaign and different stories, and add color and flavor that might not have been there in a vanilla, default setting. It gives you a different variety of colors to paint with, as it were, instead of the same old standbys. Furthermore, grounding players in a setting can really enhance the overall feel of the campaign, letting players become genuinely invested in the world they're gallivanting around in. It builds atmosphere, and for me, atmosphere is key.

So yes, the importance of a solid, interesting campaign trumps that of a setting for the most part (I know plenty of people who've had a blast in romping across what you might call a vanilla world), but I think setting design shouldn't be neglected either, since it adds to the 'Wow' factor and can also serve to keep the players interesting. (Granted, a lot of folks I've played with have been long term gamers, so a clichefest has somewhat lost its luster for them).

 

[Finster]

Very interesting thread.

I agree with pretty much all of what has been posted thus far. Beginning in the middle of the action, having the environment react to the PCs actions, and involving the players in the creation of setting pieces are all great ideas!

I am one of those DMs that has a pet setting of my own, that I have poured much work and creativity into over the years. I am fond of the setting, but how to make my players feel the same way was an issue as our games tend to be of the hacking and slashing variety. In addition to the above, here is another idea that I came up with.

I envisioned my setting as just that, a setting or stage for the actions of the players' characters. I see the game as somewhat of a play, performed by a group of people for their own personal enjoyment. As a stage it is analogous to an actual stage created for theatre. An interesting stage is one that the audience becomes involved with. In the case of an RPG the audience and the actors are one and the same. Therefore the stage must allow the actors to become involved with it, and interact with it in a tangeable manner.

By placing elements in the setting that are necessary and/or desireable to interact with, the players are enticed into learning more about the setting in order to reap the benefits of interaction. By starting small and working my way into the larger setting as the game progresses, (I know they are there, but the players do not) I can introduce these elements in small bite-sized chunks. The players then get a sense that there is more of these elements out there to be discovered, and finding them becomes a goal in itself.

It is important to note that at least one of these elements must be made painfully obvious to the players early in the game, hence starting out in the middle of the action is a great way to go about things.

Examples of elements for interaction include things like magical sites that allow certain spells or incantations (UA) to be performed, NPCs and organizations that give the PCs an edge over an obstacle or provide tangable benefits (training in an optional class or feat, information, unique items, etc), and adversarial conditions or organizations that mirror these same elements. These are just a small list of ideas that come to mind. I'm sure a comprehensive list could fill many volumes. Just make sure that these elements are easy and/or necessary to interact with early on in your game, and make it obvious that the PCs are expected (or told) to do so.

Happy gaming

 

[Nyaricus]

Two words: collaborative setting design.

That's three words


Very Neat thread, guys and gals

 

[Chimera]

Telling me not to bother with the 10-page (in my case, more like 60+ page) hand-out is like telling me not to bother with even looking at the Eberron (or Forgotten Realms, or whatever) book.

I ask my players to come up with some background information, but then tell them that the single most important thing is "Where is s/he from". I can give them additional background if necessary based on just that. Makes it easier for the players, especially when it's a Homebrew setting and I know a lot more about it than they do.

The biggest problem I have (as a player) in getting 'grounded' in a setting is the feeling that our characters exist in a total vacuum. Nothing is happening but what happens to us. The only NPCs that matter are the ones we're dealing with RIGHT NOW. There are no adventurers in the world except us - oh and maybe the retired ones who all run Inns.

In short, I can't connect to a 'setting' that, for all practical purposes, doesn't exist. Except perhaps in the vague "You're in such-and-such setting, which means Rules X, Y and Z apply, and the current town is called A". That's completely meaningless.

You want me to connect, make it real.

 

[rounser]

forever defaulting to a stock, implied clichefest is to me no fun either, even as useful as cliches are. Different settings facilitate different styles of campaign and different stories, and add color and flavor that might not have been there in a vanilla, default setting. It gives you a different variety of colors to paint with, as it were, instead of the same old standbys. Furthermore, grounding players in a setting can really enhance the overall feel of the campaign, letting players become genuinely invested in the world they're gallivanting around in. It builds atmosphere, and for me, atmosphere is key.

All IMO:

You've described the view which has a lot of support, I think, and the very one which I think needs to be rethought in terms of priorities.

For example, look at Age of Worms' conversion notes. The most irrelevant part of that campaign is the setting in which it is set - just a few names change, and the much-vaunted atmosphere and gimmickry lose the race to what the campaign's really about, which is defeating Kyuss. If that's the case, spend the lion's share of your time and effort and creativity and ego not on extraneous stuff such as such-and-such empire is politically X, and the last 10,000 years history is Y, and races are Z, but rather the stuff which actually matters, which is the adventures and the campaign arc.

Instead of this priority order, we have this back-to-front idea of the setting being the most important thing about a campaign, rather than the mere window dressing it actually is. It's very strange...until you consider that D&D publishing has always vaunted the setting to a pedestal it doesn't deserve, probably because (a) worldbuilding is fun and (b) a whole heck of a lot of D&D designers and DMs want to emulate fantasy novelists, seeing it as a higher calling than gamer. (Quite a few ex-TSR designers ended up as exactly that.)