Making campaign settings promote better roleplaying/character interaction

[innerdude]

The thread a while back discussing the fact that 4e didn't really have its own internal campaign setting got me thinking (obviously 4e has the FR, and Eberron settings for it now, but not its own naturally assumed setting).

Around 6 years ago, our group started playing a 3.5 campaign that was loosely based on the English version of the Engels D20 supplement by Sword & Sorcery, though the setting was heavily modified by the GM, one of my good friends.

Instead of using the massively altered/post-apocalypse continental Europe used in the supplement, we basically kept the general "feel" and the angelitican orders, but moved it to a standard European landscape.

And more than in any other campaign I've played before or since, our group had some amazing sessions of actual roleplaying. There were combats as well, obviously, but there was something about that setting that seemed to promote roleplaying.

It was partially the group, I'm sure, but in my mind it was at least partially a result of the setting. In other campaigns, particularly when the other players weren't as familiar with the setting and its general "feel," it seemed the game moved much more towards "roll playing."

When the player(s) didn't have a sense of place/time/space, it seemed their natural inclination was to turn to the physical thing in front of them: the character sheet.

But in this campaign, many of the "unstated rules" of the world were already in their heads--you can picture the landscape of northern Italy, the rolling river plains of western France, the Alps, the cold beaches of Normandy. When you talk to a merchant in Paris, you know how he/she is going to react; when you talk to a thief in the streets of Rome, you know what's happening; when you talk to a streetwalker/courtesan in Marseilles, you have a sense of what's happening.

Simply put, the setting meant there was less abstraction in the players' heads--and as one of those players, the places, setting, tone, etc., were definitely more vivid and "alive" than in other campaigns I've played. It put us in the mindset of less focus on the "game," and more focus on the "world" and the people in it, and how our characters fit into it, if that makes sense.

The reason I bring this up is I'd like to put together some ideas of why and how that all came together. I'm curious to hear if other people have had experiences similar to this, and what they (or the GM) did to really "get into" the setting to promote better roleplaying.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The reason I bring this up is I'd like to put together some ideas of why and how that all came together. I'm curious to hear if other people have had experiences similar to this, and what they (or the GM) did to really "get into" the setting to promote better roleplaying.

Sounds like a great campaign. However, I think a lot of the role-playing is driven by the DM and his or her personality and how they interact with the group, as well as the NPCs they create for their world. And, sometimes, it is just timing and chemistry.

A great DM can turn a bland setting into something memorable and special with just several interesting and colorful NPCs. If the DM comes up with some realistic reactions for the NPCs and villains and puts them in some interesting scenarios, they could be in the middle of a barren desert and it's fun.

A lot of people consider Kalamar a bland setting - however, I was a player in two terrific campaigns that took place in that setting, and nobody except the DM was familiar with the setting in the first campaign. We had some great epic combats in the campaign, but also sessions of excellent role-playing as well. In between those two campaigns, the group tried out several other settings that all tanked (Forgotten Realms, DragonLance, Conan world, ancient Greece, a couple of homebrews and maybe one or two others that I'm forgetting)

However, I don't think it was the setting. I think it was partly due to group chemistry and how everybody worked together at the table at the time. Between the two campaigns, there was some group turnover, so it might have just taken a while to get back in a groove again, and it just happened to be with Kalamar. (big group, DM plus 9-10 players)

Additionally, even a colorful and interesting setting can look bland in the hands of a mediocre DM who isn't capable of playing NPCs to their fullest capacity (like me)

However, I can also see your point in how the comfort level of the group with their in-game surroundings can also help them out a lot.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...When the player(s) didn't have a sense of place/time/space, it seemed their natural inclination was to turn to the physical thing in front of them: the character sheet.

This is a key point and so very true, even with normally good roleplayers. While they cannot get into the setting's mode, it remains hard to be consistently involved in play. The setting you mention is conducive to roleplaying through it's familiarity in the minds of the players. But what happens if you want to try setting tropes that are quite different?

I think you need to work on this on a few levels. Let's say you have the typical party of four: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. What is their role in the game world? Are they highly or less highly regarded, generally arrogant or subservient, generally affluent or scroungers? Sit the group down and discuss these roles. 4e focuses on combat roles and so it is very important to produce some measure of player clarity as to the role of the actual "class" in society.

You then need to have about three things that distinguish the setting, for example: rarity of metal, scarcity of genuine clerics/saints as against the more populous mundane priesthood, and deeply entrenched racial segregation (elves hate dwarves who hate everyone).

It is then important to take each of these tropes and find how they make the "genereric fantasy world" different. What effect do these tropes have on the world socially and economically? What further features and ramifications does this bring out in the setting? It is then important that you feed these features into the encounters/scenes that you craft. Repitition is so important here. The key is that a role-played experience is a far better educator than a page (or generally much more) of setting notes. You need to educate your players in these tropes and have them react to them and not just experience them. How do these features change the way that your player (and thus character) see the world?

What you initiate by doing all of this is give the players a shared investment in the setting. Once they have that, they have the foundations to effectively roleplay in the world, rather than glance down at their character sheet and ponder what their character can mechanically do. Roleplaying always starts with who the characters are, rather than simply what they can do.

Thank you for the interesting thread topic. [Have to spread more XP around before giving to you again]

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mark CMG]

A map is a huge part of what helps players initially get into a setting. They can see how the map is stylized and get some clues from that. They can check out how names of places denote some tangible aspect of a location and even how the font(s) in use might connote further about the area. Many RPing cues can be taken from a map before a DM enters the picture.

 

[CuRoi]

I believe a campaign I ran for many years qualifies. You can read the session logs at the bottom of this page: Eyru RPG: Tales - Fan Fiction and the Current Official Campaign

Actually, the session logs taper off about half way through "Book One" and include nothing from Book Two where the players took up new PCs from long lost Eastern Continent and had to deal with all the bad nasty stuff the original series of PCs dealt with, but straight at its source. "Book Two" ends with the new crop of PCs finally uncovering the planar secrets to connecting to the homeland and joining up right where Book One leaves off - the original PCs facing a desperate battle against insurmountable odds.

It took the better part of ten years for my players and I to create it all with a few breaks for other campaigns a Firefly game and what not (the session logs cover only 30 weeks but might give a good idea).

Anyway, I set out to immerse the players in an environment and charge them with the "epic" campaign responsibilities from the start. The homeworld had lost magic (arcane and divine) and the PCs slowly discovered this was due to a nefarious clandestine group known as the Triumvirate. The players nearly all chose to play arcane / divine casters and were black sheep from the start. As they adventured, they awakened magic, skirmished with the evil forces and when it looked like they might succeed, the evil forces awakened the Giant-kin of the northern lands to wage war.

It was long, intense and fraught with both epic battles and roleplay. The thing that made it work I think was the sense of discovery. At times I was too opaque and not so polished, but for the most part, the players really got into who their characters were and the enormous task they were pursuing. I also gave each a personalized Geas to pursue throughout the camapign that linked them to erstwhile allies in the Otherworld, land of the Fey.

It was all also based loosely on Irish myth so the stories and places felt real in a certain sense. Using an actual language, Gaelic, gave things more weight than if I just made up random strings of letters. And the timelessness of the myths translated well into something the players could relate to.

So compared to your experience, I think grounding it even loosely in real world history was important so players could relate, and also providing a real sense of purpose for the characters as well.

 

[pemerton]

For me, the key is to integrate the PCs into the setting. In earlier days I use to do this via NPCs - vivid characterisation plus the successful communication, via that characterisation, of a sense of urgency about the ingame situation, would get the players involved.

These days I rely less on NPCs and more on the players building aspects of the setting into their PCs, whether via backstory or aspects of character development. When a players looks at his/her character sheet and sees not just (for example) a wyrmtooth dagger, but the wyrmtooth dagger that was made by a fellow cultist of Correllon from a tooth that the PC in question cut from the body of a black dragon; and when the player remembers that the dragon was killed in an ancient minotaur temple that the PCs went to at the request of the elves; and also remembers the way that, in the temple, the statues of the gods of nature and the Feywild had been desecrated; then the player, in playing his/her PC of the character sheet, is also engaging with, and being drawn into, the gameworld.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Culture and you as a world builder asking and explaining; why are there vampire hunters in the campaign.

The more players know about a setting, it is easier for them to feel a part of it (this is why it is sometimes good to focus on an area/culture and not the world). It is the players having an investment in the setting, the more they interact, the better for the game. This creates a comfort factor for them. This is history, a timeline and current events, they become part of.

 

[The Shaman]

This is one of the reasons I prefer historical roleplaying games to pretty much everything else - the setting 'clicks' with people, even if they're not intimately familiar with the specific time or place where the game takes place.

In my experience the setting tells the gamers a lot about encounters and events they are likely to experience, and I think this helps with roleplaying - it provides a series of cues or markers to the players about what kind of interactions are expected and appropriate, which makes it easier for them to take initiative.

 

[NewJeffCT]

This is one of the reasons I prefer historical roleplaying games to pretty much everything else - the setting 'clicks' with people, even if they're not intimately familiar with the specific time or place where the game takes place.

In my experience the setting tells the gamers a lot about encounters and events they are likely to experience, and I think this helps with roleplaying - it provides a series of cues or markers to the players about what kind of interactions are expected and appropriate, which makes it easier for them to take initiative.

I agree, it can work that way in a lot of cases. And, I would love to play as a player in a setting based on Medieval Europe, only with magic & monsters added into the mix...

Sometimes, however, familiarity can breed contempt. If you plan to do something different with Europe, you can risk upsetting a player's expectations and disappointing them. Or, if some of the players know more than the DM... "Wait, didn't you know that if you take a left at Boulevard Saint-Michel in Paris, and then cross over two blocks, you come to the estate of Louis de Lombard, the famed knight?"

I think 90% of the players out there would be fine with letting the DM take the lead, but I do think there are times where a player could be disappointed if the DM's vision of the historical world doesn't quite match up with the player's vision of same. (you could also say that for the more popular fantasy settings like Forgotten Realms )

 

[Twichyboy]

This is one of the reasons I prefer historical roleplaying games to pretty much everything else - the setting 'clicks' with people, even if they're not intimately familiar with the specific time or place where the game takes place.

Although personally i don't really like historical role-playing games, i see your point, our groups finest actual character role-playing was when our DM described our home country as Germanic, and we all adopted German names and accents,

Good times