Grounding Players in a Setting

[Mycanid]

Well ... as curious as it may sound I have done one of two things:

1. Written up characters FOR the pc's and given them a super-detailed 10 page history.

or

2. Worked with each of the pc's as they developed their characters so as to tie their history into my existing campaign and such.

I have found that npc's do in fact help to draw the pc's in ... but so does involved history, although of certain sorts.

There's no real "standard formula" I have found in doing this, though. If the DM is able to convey the magic and care about the realm, etc. he is/has created, the pc's pick up on it. My experience is that it is a subtle thing that does not "naturally" result from the play. Sometimes its there and sometimes it is not ... but you can do things that are more likely to evoke the ... err ... "feel" percentage wise per player, per session, per module, etc.

Isn't this one of the things that makes rpg'ing so "worth it"? Those few moments when you and others (including the DM!) are really "drawn" into the gameplay?

 

[rounser]

I have found that npc's do in fact help to draw the pc's in ... but so does involved history, although of certain sorts.

Irrelevant or too much backstory tops the list of "don'ts" in Wolfgang Baur's list of things not to do when writing an adventure. It's the gamer equivalent of exposition - difficult to relay without slowing play and interrupting the real story (the game in progress), and self-indulgent on the part of the writer or DM.

There's no real "standard formula" I have found in doing this, though. If the DM is able to convey the magic and care about the realm, etc. he is/has created, the pc's pick up on it.

Then why is it so often such a hard sell to make players care about the campaign setting, as this thread implies? I know that as a player, I'd prefer a rich campaign arc and exciting adventure any day over setting details that are irrelevant to actual play, which seems to be a large degree of what worldbuilding entails by necessity, and DMs have only finite time and focus.

My experience is that it is a subtle thing that does not "naturally" result from the play. Sometimes its there and sometimes it is not ... but you can do things that are more likely to evoke the ... err ... "feel" percentage wise per player, per session, per module, etc.

I would argue that there are far more important things to attend to than a mere subtlety.

Isn't this one of the things that makes rpg'ing so "worth it"? Those few moments when you and others (including the DM!) are really "drawn" into the gameplay?

They come from the adventure, not the setting! There is a confusion, I think, among DMs that if they create a good enough setting, then great gameplay will follow. The campaign arc and it's adventures are the game, the setting little more than stage props which are largely interchangeable. The fact that many or most DMs have this exactly backwards is quite bewildering.

 

[MerricB]

Irrelevant or too much backstory tops the list of "don'ts" in Wolfgang Baur's list of things not to do when writing an adventure. It's the gamer equivalent of exposition - difficult to relay without slowing play and interrupting the real story (the game in progress), and self-indulgent on the part of the writer or DM.

History is really important, but many players absorb it best as part of interacting with NPCs and discovering clues - thus, piecemeal, not all at once. Some players will, of course, read background documents and the like, but this can't be assumed.

Long expositions are, of course, to be avoided. (See The Council of Elrond)

Cheers!

 

[Mycanid]

Rounser ... wow! A fast reply to the post!

Whether or no the backstory in the game is "irrelevant" to what takes place during the game itself is hard to label. Different players will come across different things. DOn't get me wrong, though! I understand that such "exposition" as you put it CAN be a matter of self-indulgence on the part of the adventure writer, but sometimes it's those extra details that help make the adventure more believable and "matter" more to the player. In other words backstory IS important - what's not is "too much" or "irrelevent" material. But who is to judge this? Most likely the play itself, which can, of course differ in the hands of a DM who is either incompetant or having a bad night or dealing with players who are having a bad night, and the list goes on.

I would posit that the reason it is so hard to get the players to care about the setting, etc. is primiarily (but not solely) because of the DM. You are welcome to disagree with me on this, of course, but for me HE is the one who sets the tone, he is the one who sketches the world and makes the story and adventure move along. It is a difficult, thankless job to be sure ... but the rewards DO come every once in a while, eh?

When I was speaking about the the experience I described as subtle ... I meant it as something that comes about as a RESULT of good play, yet it is not a set "goal" - it can be a goal you are grateful for when it pops up, but you do not try to artificially "evoke" it as if doing so were some kind of spell one casts or drug one takes for desired results. Often one is not aware of it when in the middle of it - one primarily becomes aware of it (in an "outside of you" sense) after the session or combat or whatever is over. You reflect "Wow that was great!" or some such thing. It is not really something that you can really "attend to" during the game itself. If you are - you are missing the very element that is the primary force in bringing it about - the play itself!

Now admittedly this is a personal thing ... not all players share the same interest, but there are many who do, and who love the gratifying reflection of "a session well played" or "an evening well spent" in gaming precisely because of it's memorableness and "realness".

As for the distinction between the adventure and the setting I must apologize for my lack of clarity. For me the setting INCLUDES the adventure. They are not separate things. This may just be a case of confused semantics. This is why I also called it "gameplay" later on.

Anyway rounser, I hope our little discussion will be of use to the purpose of the original thread. I also think it is an interesting one to read!

 

[rounser]

History is really important, but many players absorb it best as part of interacting with NPCs and discovering clues

In other words, in the course of an adventure and campaign arc.

Better off focusing on the adventure and campaign arc; it's not going to design itself, and now you've got it relaying your setting information as a further burden for it to carry. And you'd better make that history "really important" to the current adventure and campaign arc by making it integral to them - again, forget the setting, work on the campaign arc. Setting can be added as an afterthought to fit the needs of the adventures and arc, rather than the other way around.

 

[rounser]

In other words backstory IS important - what's not is "too much" or "irrelevent" material. But who is to judge this? Most likely the play itself, which can, of course differ in the hands of a DM who is either incompetant or having a bad night or dealing with players who are having a bad night, and the list goes on.

The players judge it. DMs and designers have a lot of trouble reigning themselves in and tend to indulge in a lot of "worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake", under the auspices of maintaining verisimilitude and atmosphere. These are worthy goals, but in the greater scheme of things there are far more important matters to attend to that seem to get ignored in favour of these things, simply because worldbuilding is fun. If this is the case, I think DMs should at least admit that they're not primarily interested in supporting a game of D&D, but rather maintaining a worldbuilding hobby under the auspices of maintaining a game of D&D perhaps as a secondary priority.

I would posit that the reason it is so hard to get the players to care about the setting, etc. is primiarily (but not solely) because of the DM. You are welcome to disagree with me on this, of course, but for me HE is the one who sets the tone, he is the one who sketches the world and makes the story and adventure move along. It is a difficult, thankless job to be sure ... but the rewards DO come every once in a while, eh?

You mean, macro-level indulgence rather than micro-level sweatboxing? Yeah, I think every DM gets to indulge themselves in this way occasionally, but asking the players to care about such indulgence is the arguably unrealistic part. Players care about stuff that affects their PCs as the number one priority, which translates to the adventures/campaign arc, because what's not in there or a result thereof is generally something they can't affect; atmosphere and attention to detail is a nice bonus, but not the main event in terms of what is needed to support a D&D game, IMO.

When I was speaking about the the experience I described as subtle ... I meant it as something that comes about as a RESULT of good play, yet it is not a set "goal" - it can be a goal you are grateful for when it pops up, but you do not try to artificially "evoke" it as if doing so were some kind of spell one casts or drug one takes for desired results. Often one is not aware of it when in the middle of it - one primarily becomes aware of it (in an "outside of you" sense) after the session or combat or whatever is over. You reflect "Wow that was great!" or some such thing. It is not really something that you can really "attend to" during the game itself. If you are - you are missing the very element that is the primary force in bringing it about - the play itself!

Although I understand what you're alluding to, I think that the difficulty of pinning down that vibe offers a clue to it's importance relative to other considerations, such as what adventure is on offer, right now at this point in the campaign, and is that adventure fun.

Now admittedly this is a personal thing ... not all players share the same interest, but there are many who do, and who love the gratifying reflection of "a session well played" or "an evening well spent" in gaming precisely because of it's memorableness and "realness".

Verisimilitude is a nice bonus, perhaps even not optional, but by itself does not a good game make. Neither does atmosphere. What I mean is, there seems to be far too much focus on the sizzle, and much too little focus on the steak.

As for the distinction between the adventure and the setting I must apologize for my lack of clarity. For me the setting INCLUDES the adventure. They are not separate things. This may just be a case of confused semantics. This is why I also called it "gameplay" later on.

I think that most DMs treat them as discrete entities, or hold the importance of the setting as more fundamental than the nature of the adventures and campaign arc (e.g. throwing out perfectly good adventure ideas because they don't fit already established homebrew material or published setting "canon"), otherwise we wouldn't see "what setting?" as one of the most commonly asked questions from DMs beginning a campaign. This speaks volumes about the way in which a setting is viewed with regard to how much it matters to the campaign. This is the very assumption which I think needs to undergo scrutiny.

 

[JohnSnow]

Okay, two things:

As a player, I hate it when the DM hands me my background on a silver platter. I'd rather tell him what kind of character I want to play and work with him to design said character.

Look at how the best writers expose their worlds. Think of how you're introduced to the world in The Lord of the Rings, Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories, Howard's Conan stories, Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, or even Jordan's The Wheel of Time.

Writers KNOW that people aren't entertained by a history lecture. DMs need to learn it. You're best to come up with a Reader's Digest version of your setting history. In other words, "what do we know, and what's been happening lately?" Help your players construct their PCs. Most DMs want to skip this and go right into playing. Trust me that it's worth it to spend that first session helping your players ground their characters in the world.

This is especially important when you're not using the Core Rules. Variant Player's Handbooks (like, oh, Iron Heroes) simply require character creation sessions. I can see it going something like this:

Player 1 (after reading): "Hmm...I think I'd like to play a berzerker with the arctic born and savage appearance traits."
DM: "Okay, that's cool. Sounds like one of the Frost barbarians from the Thulian Mountains. They're a semi-nomadic people - like a cross between vikings and highland scots. (Insert weird cultural detail here)."

Once you have your list of PCs, then the DM can place his opening adventure someplace in the campaign world. And give the PCs the background of the area they'd know - and any recent major events that would be known.

Vague events are far better than specific ones. And try dropping characters into a period of history that's, well, interesting. Real world examples:

The Hundred Years War has just ended.
Henry VIII is about to marry his 4th wife.
King Charles has just been crowned Holy Roman Emperor.
The Pope has just called for a Crusade to the Holy Land.

Basically, give them a recent BIG event to sink their teeth into. Like Eberron's Last War. You'll find them grasping for more information about it. The more ancient stuff can come in time. Unless you have a PC who likes that sort of thing.

It also keeps you from having to invent it all up front.

 

[MerricB]

One of the tricks I use is to draw comparisons to real world cultures. Thus, when I described my Ulek campaign as being in a Celtic-themed setting, the players already have an idea of what to expect. The details can come out in play, but they're already in the right mindset.

Cheers!

 

[Mycanid]

Hey there John - Tolkine and the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series are stupendous novels and the way they unfold things ARE stupendous indeed. I have played with people who also do not like to be handed their characters on a silver platter, and also who like to work things out with me. I also liked the models you gave for "enticing" people into the world.

MerricB - I liked your suggestion in the most recent post. With your previous post, though, I would only point out that some twisted fiends (like myself) were frustrated that the Council of Elrond did not say enough. Of course said bizarre folk have read most everything published after Tolkien's death from the Silmirillion on put out by his son to get a more thorough understanding! There are some people who like more detail.

Rounser - It seems to me that in essence we are actually agreeing on things but are disagreeing on misunderstandings, and I don't think it is worth going on about issues. But it seems there is one major difference between us on a personal level in terms of gaming experience. I would assume you are referring to personal experiences you have had of DM's who are "worldbuilders for worldbuildering's sake. Admittedly I have NEVER had that experience - either with my players or in playing a game. Perhaps in this I am just lucky.

 

[Kishin]

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.)

I agree with what you're saying entirely (as I said earlier, campaign arc trumps setting), but I'm not going to write off a setting as mere window dressing. The settings evoke a certain flavor, and an 'Eberron' adventure tends to have certain common traits, just as a 'Forgotten Realms' adventure does. There are certain aspects of a world that color the PCs interactions with it, and amp the feeling of immersiveness up a notch. As Chimera pointed out, some people are very interested in a world that appears like a legitimate world, rather than a vacuum in which the PCs and their adventures exist.

As for the Age of Worms, its a good example of something retaining its flavor while still being portable between settings, but it owes this to a mostly self contained nature. Furthermore, the Conversion Notes do at times stretch and strain uncomfortably to achieve the intended effect. Look at Darl Quethos, the man wielding the Hand of Vecna in Library of Last Resort. In Greyhawk/Vanilla D&D, the Hand of Vecna has a huge legacy ascribed to it amongst most fans of the game. The name sets off more than a few lightbulbs and definitely lets folks know the gravity of the situation. On Faerun, its the Hand of Myrkul , a fragment of the dead god that somehow didn't disintegrate when Midnight/Mystra blasted him. In Eberron, its even more anonymous, belonging to a long dead Qabalrin necromancer. It just loses a lot of its impact.

In the end, I'd say that while YMMV, adventures and the campaign may be the main thing, but they aren't the only thing.