How much detail for published campaign settings?

[gamerprinter]

You are certainly free to do that, but the result you get will be a different one. Sure, it works all right. But depending on the results you want to get, other approaches might result in a higher quality.

Not disagreeing with you at all. For me, developing the region that leads to continent, even world design - I don't know what the final world will be like, as one developed region bumps into the next cultural dynamics are defined. It's often a surprise how the whole ends up, and I rather like the surprise. I don't develop with the total understanding of what the world will be. This way, the world builds itself, rather than playing god, determining the whole in the beginning and then forcing the little bits to comply with some world goal. Its the creative process and not knowing what the final result to be that I find most exciting about such development.

 

[Yora]

Yeah, it seemed to go into the direction of a shouting match in which everyone yells "Yes!" - "Yes!" - "Yes!"

Personally, I've mad bad experiences with working in such a way. I start with an idea for a world and then throw in all kinds of things I like, and at some point I realize it has nothing to do with the original idea anymore. Which doesn't mean it's a bad setting, but I think it has a very strong tendency to create highly generic settings. I end up with a Best Of compilation of other fantasy worlds, but I really don't like such settings myself.
I am more for the artsy type of settings, which follow a very strong set of themes with a unique atmosphere, like Planescape or Dark Sun. But more generic, or if you want "classic" worlds like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk just seem flat an uninspiring to me. In a generic setting, you can have any story you want. While in the more "thematic" settings, the stories are a product of the unique circumstances of the world. That's where something gets my attention and I become really invested in the world

 

[gamerprinter]

Yeah, it seemed to go into the direction of a shouting match in which everyone yells "Yes!" - "Yes!" - "Yes!"

Personally, I've mad bad experiences with working in such a way. I start with an idea for a world and then throw in all kinds of things I like, and at some point I realize it has nothing to do with the original idea anymore. Which doesn't mean it's a bad setting, but I think it has a very strong tendency to create highly generic settings. I end up with a Best Of compilation of other fantasy worlds, but I really don't like such settings myself.
I am more for the artsy type of settings, which follow a very strong set of themes with a unique atmosphere, like Planescape or Dark Sun. But more generic, or if you want "classic" worlds like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk just seem flat an uninspiring to me. In a generic setting, you can have any story you want. While in the more "thematic" settings, the stories are a product of the unique circumstances of the world. That's where something gets my attention and I become really invested in the world

Ah, well at least in the regional or smaller level, I often brainstorm with cloud balloons on thoughts and related thoughts first, so I don't get lost into creating details that depart from the greater goal. I determine what greater concepts I want ahead of time, and while I further develop the detail for these greater concepts, I don't add anything new, unless I can readily see it's value with what's already been developed.

What becomes new is how one developed area interacts with another creating tension, conflict, even war. The surprise show up, as the world gets larger.

I avoid generic, which is probably at the heart of why I design regional by preference. I build by thematics only. If it doesn't fit the theme, it doesn't go into the possibilities. To me themes are best achieved in smaller chunks, this way, I don't need to force entire populations into any kind of one-wayism in thought. I want my NPCs to seem real, dynamic, not cookie cutter and with connections thematically to where they live.

I find trying to create dynamics from top down, often seems contrived. Doing bottom up and finding conflicts between regions feel natural.

 

[aco175]

One thing I noticed in my games that I play and run is that very few are non-standard. We all seem to have played so long that ideas of alternate cultures never last long. I mean we played an asian or arabian campaign for a few months or even visit another plane like the astral for a few gaming sessions, but most of the time it is standard western european, DnD default. Each new campaign may have a few little changes such as undead acting as tyrant, or another kingdom tolerating goblins. Most campaigns never overlap with one another, which I would like to see more of.

I would like to keep expanding on the kingdoms of the last campaign. Would it become boring through repitition, or would it allow growth and understanding of the world by having repeating places and people, even in diferent ages. One of my old DM's did this when the new party adventured in the lands of the old party and most of them were old and needed help.

 

[Recidivism]

I tend to prefer developing smaller locales myself. A mining town on the edge of extinction, a bustling trade city, a mountainous monastery. I haven't decided whether or not my preference is part and parcel of my favoritism towards low-magic, highly political games. Either way, it's a lot easier for DMs of all stripes to take a specific town or city and plop it in their own campaigns. Since I like for the time I spend to be valuable, I focus on NPCs and locations that I can recycle or reuse.

The biggest concern for me is not whether there's too much detail -- I don't think there'd ever be too much detail for me as a DM. The problem is when too much of that detail becomes part of established fiction that people come to know outside the gaming table. A player in Forgotten Realms might want to go to the Elfsong Tavern. What if I don't want it there? I don't really want players griping because my judgement calls don't align with what they know of the game setting from other sources.

 

[Water Bob]

Not really a D&D comment, but kinda a roleplaying comment (since there is an RPG set in that universe), but I kinda miss the days of the original Star Wars trilogy when we knew little about the rest of the universe.

I felt more wonder about it then.

Now, with so many questions answered (and answered in such a poor way, imo), the Star Wars universe isn't as facinating to me as it used to be.

Which is basically what we're talking about here. Less is more.





I'm an avid Conan fan, and one thing about that universe is that the religions are sparsely described. For example, we know that Zamorian theives worship Bel, the god of thieves. But little beyond that is known about Bel. Even Crom, Conan's god. There is very little known about him--what we do know would fill a few short paragraphs.

Yet, the pantheon used in the Hyborian Age is just as interesting as Greek or Roman mythology to me. I eat up every little tidbit I read.

Less is, indeed, more.





EDIT: Honestly, as a gamer, though. I am attracted to big, honkin' all-inclusive, detailed game supplements. I remember the first time I saw the beautiful 3E Forgotten Realms hardback with all that detail. I about wet my pants.

So, I guess I like both: Detailed settings and Sparsely but Thoughtfully Detailed settings (emphasis on the "Thoughtfully").