Let's ignore everything marketing or production related (quality of the print, good editing, good name, nice art, etc). Let's focus on the content, what's written in the pages.
Well, that's the whole ballgame, isn't it?
The quality and style of the writing is going to have a huuuuge impact on what people reading it think. Editing helps. Art helps (definitely). All of that. But what is the meat and bones of the whole thing? The writing. Is it evocative? Is it clear or is the world's ancient history (or current circumstances) too convoluted for some readers to follow? Does it use enough trope to fit into "This is a cool and fun fantasy setting for a TTRPG?" But, not so much as to feel "vanilla" or "simplistically derivative" or "just plain boring/dime-a-dozen/unimaginative?" OR, does it upend tropes so much/everywhere that it becomes just kind of meaningless/weird and falls outside of its proposed genre.
The quality of what makes a setting a hit or a dud for a significant portion of gamers [significant enough to become/be considered, by the general community "a success"] is going to be "what is written in the pages."
Also, let's ignore stuff that's splashed over multiple books. I'm curious about what people expect or are looking for in a single product that introduces a setting.
I'd like to start a discussion around the following questions:
- What are you looking for in a setting good?
- Mechanical content (custom subclasses, magic items, monsters stat blocks)?
Yes.
Most definitely. As much as you can give me without getting into toooo much minutia. This is a fine line that gets missed... often -either stopping far too short or overshooting far too much. The quality of the writing [and editing] has a good bit of pressure on it here.
Yes. But, again, this is a tightrope of sorts. Should a unique setting have some interesting NPCs that are notable and have places in the world. Absolutely. That's a ton of fun for the creators and potential players in the setting, knowing about so-and-so, seeking them out for aid or quests, etc. BUT you really need to think of the setting as a whole and not overpopulate these sorts of beings/entities.
Forgotten Realms, I think, can be pointed to as a great example of what NOT to do. Totally overpopulated with uber-powered, fingers the pies of everything, personalities that the PCs will have no choice but to feel inferior and pointless next to.
No bueno. These kinds of special, notable, interesting NPCs should be in a setting, I think. They need a notable place and power in the setting, and don't necessarily need to be plot-immune overpowered gods-in-NPC-clothing using the players as pawns. Setting NPCs are, probably, the notable wizards of power. Great lord/kings of regions. Great warriors/heroes of renown, sure. A few those names and deeds that might get sung and stories told around evening fires. And, of course, {and perhaps most importantly] the infamous and notoriously sinister and villainous. None of these, it should be noted, need be existing in the current day of the setting, but may be legendary figures or tales from some far off land from where the PCs begin.
I mean....sure. Something that is a little different. See what I say above about tropes, though.
Every setting can have a twist. But every it depends how big and how prevalent. To whit: "Instead of those troublesome Tolkien-estate hobbit halflings, MY setting is going to just have a small country people that are blue, nearly all dress in white, and live in giant mushroom houses."
Is that a "twist?" Is it
enough of twist? Or a meaningless tropey substitution?
At the other side, "Instead of wizards and clerics and druids casting magic spells, anyone can collect these "spell gems" that contain magic effects within them. They are naturally occurring and completely random, so wizards are always out to accumulate as many as possible to diversify and duplicate their power. Priests and druids seek to collect them to protect as the treasured gifts from their gods. But there are no "spells" or "casting"...no individuals have "magical power." There is nothing to "learn" other than identifying what effect is contained within what stone. No spellbooks. No meditations. No incantations or material components. But they get these energy-containing "stones"/crystal beads that shatter when thrown/crushed and release SOME -known or unknown- magical effect."
Is that
too much of a "twist?" Too divergent from player expectations and genre-bending to be enjoyable or useful at the gaming table?
But if a "unique twist" is expected as an integral part of any/every individual setting then...ya know...in what way is it "unique?"
There are no new ideas under the sun.
- What proportion of each? A little bit of mechanical content and a ton of lore? Or the opposite?
That is entirely an individual player/playstyle preference thing. There will never be a formula to properly combining lore and mechanics for all readers. Best case/hedging bets, you'd want to make things as close to 50/50 as possible, so neither side can claim they didn't get "enough" of their preference.
For my two cents, the point of a homebrewed/unique/created setting is the lore. The internal consistency that the reader can follow and absorb and "get" to facilitate their enjoyment of the setting.
- Are you looking for something fully detailed and a bit more rigid?
I would say fully detailed is the same thing as rigid. No? You need enough framework and structure to make things meanignful and understandable and set a stage. But not so rigid as to curtail player agency and meaningful input by characters. That, of course, can and will change over time at a table, in play. But a setting book needs to make it clear that the game can be fun and creative within the set stage you are presenting.
Where are those lines? What is the number/percentage? When is enough too much for this table versus that? This player versus that? ENough for this DM to work with versus that?
Those questions have no answers. Everything about setting design sits upon an undulating spectrum.
- Or for something more modular and actionable?
Yes. See above.
- What's more important to you: not having to put in time to adapt and use the content, or have the content be easy to be modified and adapted?
Is think I veer more towards the former. If I am buying/investing in taking a game into a setting, I'm not looking to do the writing and creative work myself. That's what the setting is for in the first place.
The best settings allow for the latter, as well. A setting, I would say, should be so clear and evocative [necessitating definition and a degree of rigidity] that changing elements of them, if that is your desire, is not difficult and doesn't "break"/cause complications other parts of the setting. While, at the same time, it is structured enough to not require -or actively expect- any changes/work on the reader's/DM's part.
That's not a lot of help, I guess. Sorry. Like I said, there is no formula for this. There are no "rules" or numbers to a making a [universally accepted/enjoyed] "good setting." But maybe it gives you some things to think about.
