Is it always like this?

[Len]

I started out writing a simple outline for a SF campaign, several thousand words later I find myself designing an access control system.

@Woundweaver If I start asking you questions about hospital IT infrastructure, please slap me.

 

[Jd Smith1]

In a word, yes. Currently I'm prepping for a new campaign in the Degenesis post-apoc setting, and among my latest projects was posting a sample menu of food at inns, the organization of civil disputes, and am currently examining anti-material rifle designs.

Attention to detail is like rust: it never sleeps.

 

[Imaculata]

This sounds very familiar. I started working on a modern campaign, and found myself researching 1950's London. I was specifically researching a lot of historical facts about daily life, so the campaign would be period accurate.

And just the other day I was working on an underwater horror campaign, and found myself researching how oxygen tanks work. How long does an average oxygen tank last, and what are the effects of various depths on your oxygen use and your body? Next thing I know, I'm trying to work out a system for nitrogen narcosis effects based on depth.

I really love getting the details right. More than perhaps my players will ever know. Sometimes I wonder if my players ever Google the stuff that is featured in my campaigns, and realize how much work has gone into it.

 

[R_J_K75]

Sometimes I wonder if my players ever Google the stuff that is featured in my campaigns, and realize how much work has gone into it.

Id guess they dont because they are players, otherwise theyd be DMs. I stopped putting this much realistic detail into my games because the average player doesnt care or notice.

 

[Len]

Id guess they dont because they are players, otherwise theyd be DMs. I stopped putting this much realistic detail into my games because the average player doesnt care or notice.

Hey now, it's not always like that. I remember some things my GM has put into our campaigns, like this for example.

I'm trying to keep from adding too much heavily-researched detail unless it seems necessary. So I won't feel shortchanged if the players don't explicitly notice it.

 

[R_J_K75]

Hey now, it's not always like that. I remember some things my GM has put into our campaigns, like this for example.

I'm trying to keep from adding too much heavily-researched detail unless it seems necessary. So I won't feel shortchanged if the players don't explicitly notice it.

Another reason I dont bother anymore is that to me it seems pointless to try and shoe horn realistic and believable concepts into fantasy, superhero, science fantasy/fiction setting. To each their own and it all comes down to who youre playing the game with.

 

[Imaculata]

Another reason I dont bother anymore is that to me it seems pointless to try and shoe horn realistic and believable concepts into fantasy, superhero, science fantasy/fiction setting. To each their own and it all comes down to who youre playing the game with.

To me it is very important that the setting feels believable to me. Because if I have trouble believing it, how can I possibly expect my players to? That is the high bar I've set for myself.

My players did tell me recently that they really appreciate the world building, and the strong feeling that the setting is a cohesive whole. They said it really feels like a real place. It might be that my obsession with details is a part of that feeling. I'd like to think so.

So, I would disagree that it is entirely pointless to have realism in any fictional setting and on the notion of 'shoe horning'. When I extensively research what sort of fruit is common to a carribean setting for my pirate campaign, I don't feel there's any shoe horning going on. Sure, I could stick to just fruit I'm familiar with (which would be bananas and oranges), but I think there is added value in some degree of realism.

Similarly, I feel that I should at least get the facts straight when I run a campaign set in '50's London. What sort of telecommunication and modes of transport are available in this time period? What are the laws regarding guns? That sort of thing. I would consider it a pretty big blunder if I got any of those facts wrong. Yes, it may be a fictional story, with a setting that is mostly fantasy. But I think the trick to any good setting is a solid believable foundation, rooted in some research. Plus, as a DM I think I should be better informed than my players.

 

[Celebrim]

One of the reasons I don't run Sci-Fi campaigns is that they are too information dense.

In a fantasy setting you are rarely going to run into a situation where the encounter contains more information than the entire campaign. About the only situation that occurs in is when the PC's interact with a book. I've come to loathe libraries.

But in a Sci-Fi setting virtually every situation involves more information than the entire campaign has available. In a modern or historical setting, you can fill in that information with say "wikipedia" or other research. But in a Sci-Fi setting, you are just out of luck. There is more detail necessary to the setting than can be possibly created.

Invariably regardless of the game I run, the players ask for information I didn't prepare, and quite often they'll ask for information that matters that I didn't prepare. I find it pretty much impossible to deal with that flood of information requests in a Sci-Fi campaign that isn't post apocalyptic.

Other problems with science-fiction RPGs:

1) Skills are usually too domain specific, resulting in inability of players to cooperate in any mini-game.
2) Plausibility of survival given the lethality of weapons involved is strained unless the PC's are playing some sort of super-human being.

 

[R_J_K75]

To me it is very important that the setting feels believable to me. Because if I have trouble believing it, how can I possibly expect my players to? That is the high bar I've set for myself.

My players did tell me recently that they really appreciate the world building, and the strong feeling that the setting is a cohesive whole. They said it really feels like a real place. It might be that my obsession with details is a part of that feeling. I'd like to think so.

So, I would disagree that it is entirely pointless to have realism in any fictional setting and on the notion of 'shoe horning'. When I extensively research what sort of fruit is common to a carribean setting for my pirate campaign, I don't feel there's any shoe horning going on. Sure, I could stick to just fruit I'm familiar with (which would be bananas and oranges), but I think there is added value in some degree of realism.

Similarly, I feel that I should at least get the facts straight when I run a campaign set in '50's London. What sort of telecommunication and modes of transport are available in this time period? What are the laws regarding guns? That sort of thing. I would consider it a pretty big blunder if I got any of those facts wrong. Yes, it may be a fictional story, with a setting that is mostly fantasy. But I think the trick to any good setting is a solid believable foundation, rooted in some research. Plus, as a DM I think I should be better informed than my players.

Sounds like a game I would like to play in. I've tried in the past to run campaigns that were realistic with alot of minor details, but found 9 out of 10 times the players just werent receptive or just didnt care. So as time went on as all of our game time gets less and less I concentrate on the major stuff and move the game along. I may change my DM style moving forward if I had more time to game and had more invested players. Besides nowadays I run just fantasy D&D so theres more leeway in those types of campaigns than say a sci-fi, historical or modern game.

 

[Len]

To me it is very important that the setting feels believable to me.

I found that while pondering how things "should" work, I have come up with a couple of details that will end up being challenges for the players to overcome. So at least some of that effort was not wasted.