What makes a better setting?

[Guest 85555]

I prefer a concise overview that hits all the key details. For me, too much stuff to remember or look up makes it harder for me to run.

 

[Dykstrav]

Generally speaking, I prefer a commercial setting to have as much detail as I need to run it right out of the box. It doesn't have to be encyclopedic, but it has to be comprehensive. Usually, I'll only run published adventures in a given setting rather than developing my own adventures set there. The big appeal of using a published setting is in using something that's ready-to-go that I don't have to spend a great deal of time working on.

If I want to spend time developing material, I'd rather do it for my own homebrew.

 

[Hand of Evil]

big fan of the Gazetteer, that would give a overview of an area and give you enough to work with. You use to see a lot of them, now not so much.

 

[delericho]

I like a setting to introduce itself in a single book or boxed set, and if you want to expand on it, that there is supplemental material to flesh out those other areas. Also, there needs to be enough areas open for me to be able to flesh out an area or two as I desire ("Here there be dragons" areas or vague kingdom descriptions that can be expanded upon).

I agree with this.

I would also say that the line of setting books should know when to stop. Once you get to a certain point, you're either rehashing old material, or your covering topics of extremely niche interest, or your over-detailing the setting.

I think the old Al-Qadim setting, or 3e Eberron got the mix about right - a single book to give the basis of the setting, then a limited line of supplements (between half a dozen and a dozen or so), and then stopped. Everything that needed said had been said, there was plenty of room for the DM to fill in details, and it still felt fresh and exciting.

The old adage "always leave them wanting more" seems appropriate.

 

[Dykstrav]

The old adage "always leave them wanting more" seems appropriate.

Yep, this is spot-on. Among the gamers I know, this is why they dig the core "points of light" setting for 4E. I know that there were many sad pandas in my neck of the woods when the Nentir Vale Gazetteer was cancelled.

Speaking of which... I'd personally be very interested in seeing a brand-new campaign setting come out from Wizards of the Coast.

 

[delericho]

Yep, this is spot-on. Among the gamers I know, this is why they dig the core "points of light" setting for 4E. I know that there were many sad pandas in my neck of the woods when the Nentir Vale Gazetteer was cancelled.

Heh. I was actually slightly relieved. IMO, that particular concept is best left undefined - better to let each DM put their own spin on it, rather than have players telling them "you're doing it wrong!"

Of course, that's just IMO.

Speaking of which... I'd personally be very interested in seeing a brand-new campaign setting come out from Wizards of the Coast.

Agreed. Rehashing the old settings is all well and good, but I would definitely be more interested in something genuinely new.

 

[Storminator]

My answer is orthogonal to the poll options. I want good details. I want things that spark my imagination and let me run good games. That can be done with much detail or little, as long as it's high quality.

I don't agree that a setting needs undetailed areas. That's vital for a game of exploration and discovery, but you can run a lot of games without that element at all. If I'm going to run a clever and intricate political game, a full cast of characters and a tense political environment (and a lot of supporting details) are a lot more important than an undiscovered kingdom.

What you need is conceptual space to run your game in.

PS

 

[Mercurius]

I see the first three options as nested and modular: "Fully detailed" includes "detaled" which includes "basic." If you want a basic setting, just get the core campaign product. If you want more detailed, get one or two supplements; if you want fully detailed, buy the whole line.

So in a sense "fully detailed" is inherently superior because it includes both of the other two options, whereas "basic" only includes itself. Again, if you just want the basics, leave the supplements alone but don't wish them out of existence.

The only real potential problem I can see with having a very detailed setting if all you want is the basics is if you have "Greyhawknerds" or "Realmtards" who tell you, "No, beyond that bend in the river is not the village of Gulp but a temple of Bibdoolpoop - see, it says it right here." In those instances you just say "No" and then cite Michio Kaku and talk about parallel universes.

But maybe I'm biased because my personal preference is homebrew design, at least if I'm DMing. That way none of this is a problem, and you can draw from anything and just plop it right into your world, with maybe just a tweak or two and a name change for the sake of disguise (For instance, I'm thinking of dropping Freeport into my setting, but I have to get the book in the mail first before I decide).

One final note. I would say the "sense of mystery" has less to do with how detailed a campaign world is, and more to do with how a DM brings that mystery alive. That's another discussion, though.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

Most of the campaigns and the most enjoyable ones I've played in were home made but based on Greyhawk, or sometimes on different modules then changed fit into the campaign and world the DM had created. So I would go with home made, because nothing prevents home made worlds from borrow the best of other settings.

That said I absolutely love Kingdoms of Kalamar which had great detail in their books on each realm, and culture.

 

[Dykstrav]

Heh. I was actually slightly relieved. IMO, that particular concept is best left undefined - better to let each DM put their own spin on it, rather than have players telling them "you're doing it wrong!"

Of course, that's just IMO.

For what it's worth, I have a similar opinion. It's all well and good to detail a setting, but one of the reasons that I avoid using the popular settings is because of "continuity experts." I usually avoid Forgotten Realms and Star Wars games because players in those settings want to dash off and meet a famous NPC or insert their characters into a situation they read about in a novel published ten or more years ago.

I was mildly interested in the Gazetteer just because it's a new setting. I'm not really shedding any tears, but I know several people that were upset about it.