What makes a setting dull?

[Dragonbait]

For me, it's all in the presentation.

I was trying to make a list but it's pretty hard to specify any setting. For instance, I find Grayhawk and the psudo-Tolkien-Vancien-Gygaxian fantasy rather dull. It lacks a variety that I grew up with in fantasy (my fantasy was He-man, Thundercats, Final Fantasy and the like. I didn't know about Middle-Earth till AFTER I started playing D&D 15 years ago). And yet, I don't have a problem with the Realms (the settings, I mean.. I don't care for the major NPCs) or the Warhammer world, which are very similar to the psudo-Tolkien-Vancien-Gygaxian fantasy I just mentioned. So again, presentation.

.. I guess that means I'm putting Grayhawk on the "dull" list, but I feel it's more to do with a lack of knowledge of the setting outside of the vague 3E presentation rather than an informed opinion.

 

[Oni]

Hoo boy, am I gonna draw some flak for this...

Eberron.​

I kind of agree.

Now I actually like Eberron, I think it's a great setting...buuut I have to say when I first read through the setting book it left me really flat and disappointed. Especially when you compare it to the FRCS, a seemingly generic setting. I don't really know how to put my finger on it, but the presentation doesn't really get across the excitement of the themes of Eberron. I felt like I'd just been handed some info and had to go find the magic myself. With FR the magic was there as soon as I cracked the book.

I wonder if that makes any sense.​

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I am curious how Greyhawk would be received if it was just published this year...and by a third party.

I am guessing there would not be a lot of buyers, since its the "basic" mold of campaign setting that the other setting became variations of.

So, while I don't find Greyhawk in-and-of-itself boring, I think without the historical context it was published in it would get most folks vote.

DS

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Obviously all of what I am about to say is personal opinion but what I find makes settings dull:

• There is no themes, atmosphere or central ideas behind the setting. It simply plops stuff down. For me a setting is simply a stage to tell a story on, so having theme and atmosphere for a setting means it flows/fits with stories tailored for it.
• PCs don't matter. Now that doesn't mean that PCs will be necessarily completely changing the setting. But when a setting simply describes a world, not delving into what it means to be a PC in this world, the type of adventures they would get into, etc. Fits in with above.
• Also sort of fits in with the first one. The setting has no unique traits to it. I grow tired of settings which are just medieval world with dragons and elves. I vastly prefer stuff like Sigil, Eberron and Dark Sun.

 

[doctorhook]

Hoo boy, am I gonna draw some flak for this...

Eberron.

And not for the obvious reasons. I have no beef with Warforged. I like the dragonmarks, I like Sharn, and I love what they did with aerenal elves and the dino-riding halflings. I like the magical trains. In fact, I like all of the "trappings" - the weird little things that add spice to the world.

The problem is: The Big Bad Evils are deadly dull.

Compare with other TSR campaign worlds... Greyhawk has Iuz and the Scarlet Brotherhood. Ravenloft has Strahd and Azalin. Planescape has the Abyssal Lords and the Lords of the Nine. The Realms have the Zhentarim and the Red Wizards. Birthright has the Gorgon. Spelljammer has the illithids and the neogi. Krynn has the dragon highlords.

Now, sure, all of those campaign settings have many other big bads (Rary the Traitor, Vecna, yugoloths, Cult of the Dragon, etc, etc, etc), but there are a couple of groups which are marquee villains. You have instantly recognizable protagonists with clear motivations. They have history and "weight".

I don't think Eberron has done enough to establish 1 or 2 "signature" Big Bad Evils. You've got (in no particular order, and I'm no Eberron expert): the Lords of Dust, Blood of Vol, Shadow in the Flame, undead from Kaarnath, scorpion-drow, abominations from Xoriat, the Lord of Blades, weird psionic mind-monsters... it's all over the place.​

Here's your flak: Eberron has established two signature Big Bad Evils, and they're called the Lords of Dust and the Dreaming Dark. These are the "biggest", the longest-lived, and the most thoroughly evil. However, as you pointed out, there's a bunch of other, smaller ones too.

Additionally, one has to keep in mind the deliberate "alignment-subversive" nature of Eberron, and the effect this has; it means that unaligned/neutral or even potentially good organizations can be extremely antagonistic and villainous if you choose to use them in that way. (A good example of such an organization would be The Chamber.)

I think Eberron would be a more interesting world if they focused heavily on (say) two of the more interesting evil groups and really promoted them as a deadly threat. Keep the rest very loosely defined as options for individual DMs to explore further.

IME, they already do exactly this.

I don't blame you for being wrong, but I just don't think you're informed enough about Eberron, sir.

PS: I realize my reply is quite late...
​

 

[Dedekind]

I thought Kingdoms of Kalamar was kind of bland. Of course, I can't provide any useful examples of why I found it bland because it was so unmemorable to me.

 

[Jack7]

Speaking Generally on the matter: (I rarely use published settings having developed the habit of creating my own almost from the start of my first role play experiences. I have played in Greywacke though, and a couple of others and liked em for the most part.)

Me personally, as far as a fantasy setting goes, what makes it dull is when magic is predictable and technological. When it lacks damager and excitement. When it comes to sci-fi settings though I like my technology predictable or decipherable or understandable, but cutting edge and expansive. If it is too easy or mundane then that bores me.

The opposite of most of these things I find boring (I know some of these things can be the result of other matters, such as campaign or adventure design as much as setting): no suspense or danger. Lack of horror. Too much predictability. Hack and slash to the exclusion of all other things. Combat to the exclusion of role play. Extreme unrealism. Settings that do not change over time (same rulers, same governments, static societies, cultures that do not change or adapt, races that remain predictable and stagnant, etc). Monsters, NPCs, or adversaries that are predictable and are nothing more than the something you can look up in a book to gather Intel upon. Typical locales (bar, castle ruins, underground dungeon, blah, blah).

Lack of mystery and adventure. If I can go to a bookstore and pick up the setting and read all about it and know it top to bottom I got no interest in it. If everyone else already knows everything about it, why bother exploring it? Cause you're not really, you're just acting out a pre-designed script for a play in which you encounter nothing new.

The one thing that really bothers me though is no real vadding or survival requirements - imagine really living in an environment with monsters and ruins and magic, and the natural environment not being dangerous. It's a ridiculous concept to me to imagine a world like that that does not in itself present enormous survival challenges. Yet in too many settings I have seen played or read of this is never addressed or mentioned. You can't climb a mountain and get snowed in and not understand the constant survival challenges presented by nature, even to the most experienced and prepared of men. Let the temperature drop sixty degrees at sunset and tell me the setting wouldn't eat the bones of most men. So where is the lack of water and food, the being hunted by wild animals, snowed under, caught in quicksand or swamp muck, dying of exposure in the desert, shipwrecked or drowning at sea survival of most settings? It's like many world designers overlook the real hazards of survival instead of stressing them. And I suspect this is because most live comfortable and extremely secure lives (for the most part) in cities and suburbs and themselves rarely encounter real threats (other than things like traffic accidents or crime) and so simply don't understand the survival threats of the natural world. But few things bore me more than a setting that is all temperate climes, daisy fields, and giant rat attacks. Mountain lions kill men, bears rip them to pieces, wolves pack up on ya and scare the living crap out of ya when they wake you up at night, lack of water wastes you, and frostbite numbs and hamstrings you, but rats scurry away if you stomp your foot and throw something at them. Get lyme disease, or a black widow bite, or get caught and exposed in a desert for a few days. Break an arm or a leg hundreds of miles from medical attention. Take a serious infection or contract malaria or jaundice. Then you'll know survival is about far more than killing orcs and goblins. Survival can be an exhausting and incredibly dangerous challenge just in itself. Watch a friend drop unconscious from dehydration when you're too weak to transport them, but know you have no other choice.
(And if magic is a no-cost fix-all to every survival problem then that also bores me senseless.) Settings that don't demand anything more of you than travel time from your hometown to the nearest forgotten temple just don't understand the excitement and the sometimes excruciating effort required of living long enough to actually get there.

 

[EATherrian]

I am curious how Greyhawk would be received if it was just published this year...and by a third party.

I am guessing there would not be a lot of buyers, since its the "basic" mold of campaign setting that the other setting became variations of.

So, while I don't find Greyhawk in-and-of-itself boring, I think without the historical context it was published in it would get most folks vote.

DS

Any setting that has the migration patterns of its various groups gets my vote, and thus Greyhawk will always be close to my heart.

I agree with the Eberron thoughts. I like the setting but it feels too modern. I don't want modern, I want pulpy. As for dull settings, I don't have any of those but when I look at my old notes I sure did make some embarrassing and downright stupid settings in my early 'teens. If anyone wants I'll share but I'm willing to bet we've all done it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There aren't a lot of settings that I find dull in and of themselves; I can find something interesting in most of them. I love the "traditional" settings like Greyhawk, the funkier settings like Eberron, the "shtick" settings like Dark Sun or Ravenloft.

But, there is one type of setting that I do tend to find dull. I stress that this is just my own personal aesthetic tastes, and not due to any fault of the people who work on said setting. And even having said that, I have to apologize to certain fellow writers, whom I greatly respect, who worked on said setting. This isn't about you, it's about me.

Dragonlance.

Not just Dragonlance, but DL is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. I can't really get into any setting that is based heavily on a story that's already finished. And AFAIAC, the "real" story of DL was completed in the first two trilogies.

Yes, there are lots more books published, and yes, there are portions of the world left to explore, and threats left to fight. But it all feels like an afterthought to me, something that was tacked on to take advantage of the popularity of the original. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't--to me--make for a compelling setting to game it. It always feels either like all the cool stuff has been done, or like it might as well be any other setting because it's newer, non-"core" material.

Sorry, guys. As I said, it's no reflection on your work, and I'm glad you have lots of fans who disagree. It's just not for me personally.

 

[Glyfair]

I can't really get into any setting that is based heavily on a story that's already finished.

That describes Middle Earth very well. Thinking back, Middle Earth has never been very popular as an RPG setting. It has had it's fan, and been successful. However, for such a key ancestor of RPGs, it really wasn't as successful as ypu would expect.