In your experience, is play enhanced by a well-developed setting?

[WhimsyTheFae]

While I voted yes, to me it has a lot to do with the DM. If the DM prepares a lot for each session, then he may not need to have a well-developed setting. The adventure will have enough development to sustain the party (perhaps some of that development is setting information, but it's on an adventure scale).

If the DM does a lot of improv, or if the players like to head in unexpected directions, then having a well-developed setting would definately help the DM. I fit in this category and find that I am at my best when I can visualize what's going on in the setting. It just makes it easier to come up with conflicts and hooks and such.

 

[GlassJaw]

This poll really needs a clarifier.

I could answer this in two ways, depending on what is actually being asked.

Is the question:

Is play enhanced by a setting that has a ton of info written about it? or
Is play enhanced by a setting that has been thought-out and has a good "hook"?

The answer to the first is clearly no. More does not necessarily equal better. Just because there might stacks of source books available doesn't mean the actual play at the table is going to be better.

As a player, I don't need to know the average yearly rainfall of the nearby mountains to enhance my play experience. I just need to know that ancient dragons live there and it's dangerous.

I would much prefer a setting in which the DM focuses most of his attention on the player's current surroundings and only gives info on the rest of the "world" as needed.

Edit: A good example of this is Shamus Young's campaign blog (the DM of the Rings guy). I can't recommend it enough. He strikes the perfect balance between fleshing out the setting and making the players the focus of the campaign.

Here's the link: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=1

 

[DragonLancer]

If the setting is detailed enough that players can pick up on it and can relate to events and places in the world, then yes.

 

[Andre]

If the setting is detailed enough that players can pick up on it and can relate to events and places in the world, then yes.

This assumes the players want to do that. More and more often I'm finding the players just want to blow off steam and have some relatively mindless fun. What they do *not* want to do is worry about the vagaries of monetary systems, or whether spitting on the floor is a criminal offense, or which day of the week the religious festival is held, or...you get the idea. Heck, I have trouble getting them to remember the names of major NPC's, or even what magic items their characters own.

I will admit that the best campaigns tend to have a well-developed setting (in the sense several posters have mentioned, not ala FR). But as others have also said, the best campaigns are the ones where the "well-developed" part comes from mutual effort by the GM and players (and mutual input). If the players aren't into it, it's just so much excess baggage.

And as long as everyone has fun, that's okay.

 

[GreatLemur]

Yes. However, its also hindered by an overly developed setting. FR seems mired in minutia. Every inn has been named, and next year we'll probably see Barmaids of Faerun.

Would that be a calendar?

 

[Hjorimir]

This is exactly why I love the Known Realms (Áereth, from Goodman Games) SO much. The setting has this amazingly rich background and history to pull from, but is left open for you, the DM, to really do whatever you want with it. Just enough detail to give you a framework to paint your creation upon.

/bliss!

 

[Ry]

Answer uncertain: Ask again later.

To me, a well-developed setting doesn't just have lots of background material - it has lots of problems, threats, resources, and rewards, and relations between those elements. Some "well-developed" settings are like art galleries, others are like amusement parks. The latter is far superior for a game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Would that be a calendar?

Hmm, my aversion to the product has suddenly changed.

 

[mobuttu]

I voted, no. IMHO, in no way the setting influence the roleplaying experience. It can help, but it's not a main issue. As and example, when a newby starts playing many people recommends him to start small. Then, a very good developed setting isn't necessary.

Q.

PS. Sorry for my bad english.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I'm going against the tide and say no.

A good player can RP in any setting ... or no setting at all. [What I mean by that is a one shot where the world is unstated and the adventure is just a dungeon crawl or something to that effect] I've seen it done several times. Good RPers don't need a good setting to play well.

It is the player who is not naturally gifted as a RPer who needs a well developed setting to fall back on as a crutch. Not that this is a bad thing, mind you. I've seen some good RPers who can build effective characters and I've seen good RPers who have character design problems. I've soon poor RPers who make great characters and those who make poor characters. It takes all types to make the world go around.

So, to sum it all up, I think a well developed setting certainly can enhance game play, and it probably often does. But it is not necessarily the case every time. There are people who will have a good game regardless of the setting, and those who can't have a good game regardless of the setting!