I did find 3e Greyhawk dull. The 1e 1983 box set was much better IMO. I returned to it for a C&C campaign I'm running and found it quite inspirational.
What makes a setting dull?
- Thread starter Silvercat Moonpaw
- Start date
I did find 3e Greyhawk dull. The 1e 1983 box set was much better IMO. I returned to it for a C&C campaign I'm running and found it quite inspirational.
Psion
Adventurer
I did come in swinging at the premise of the thread, but let me say this much without naming names.
The two things that make settings dull to me are:
1) Lack of motivating conflicts as a fundamental feature of the setting. Some settings seem to just be playthings with "minds eye candy" that have players going "ooh ah" at its premise for a bit. But without a good GM to carry it, such settings ultimately falter.
2) Obsession on detail that is not meaningful to gameplay. It creates cult fans, it doesn't contribute to fun games.
The two things that make settings dull to me are:
1) Lack of motivating conflicts as a fundamental feature of the setting. Some settings seem to just be playthings with "minds eye candy" that have players going "ooh ah" at its premise for a bit. But without a good GM to carry it, such settings ultimately falter.
2) Obsession on detail that is not meaningful to gameplay. It creates cult fans, it doesn't contribute to fun games.
Lack of investment to the players and DM - By this I mean the players and the DM have no ties to the setting they are playing in, all they are doing is adventuring in it.
How and why does this happen? There are many reasons but two stand out, little or no player character backstory and the setting is not a living world.
How and why does this happen? There are many reasons but two stand out, little or no player character backstory and the setting is not a living world.
- Player Backstory: The 10 questions every DM should ask their players, okay, some times it is more but the questions (who are your parents, where did you grow up, what made you hit the road, how did you meet party member 2, etc.) all build the backstory of the character, the DM can and should use this in the game as they tie into the living world.
- Living World: Another few questions a DM should answer during a game. This is event driven (what happens now that dragon is dead or the tavern is burned down or the road is open or the bad guy is dead, what happened last night while the party was asleep in the city, etc.). Simple rule; for every action, there is a reaction!
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
May I ask why?
I suppose since I started this I should at least post an answer to the question before I forget.
What I find dull is the expectation that the PCs are going to do anything. It's equal parts just no fun to ride in and be the hero when that's the obvious solution and insulting to find plot hooks dropped in front of me like I want to be lead around. I'd rather the setting never expected I'd ever be there and do those things so I could actually feel like I'd made the choice of my own free will.
EATherrian
First Post
Those are some great points. When I run a game I like to have an individual prequel session with each player to set up how they got to the campaign start. This allows them to set up their character and sometimes set up their own goals that I can work into the campaign. I also love the idea of a Living World, and you are right. Once the dragon is dead maybe the goblins it used to eat will grow numerous and start raiding, or any number of things.
Where I think I fail with worlds is that I love the world-building. I know I want the world to seem consistent and full of adventure and I like to think I do, but I can't stop working on things the players or PCs will never know about or care about.
Wombat
First Post
I know better than to speak of specific settings, so I will speak to generalities.
"Oh look, another dungeon."
"Oh look, another session that is nothing but combat."
"Oh look, another PC/NPC based directly on a character in a book/movie/comic."
"Oh look, another plot taken straight out of a book/movie/comic."
"Oh look, more elves/dwarves/etc. just as presented in the Monster Manual."
"Oh look, another group of monsters guarding a treasure that they never bother to use themselves."
In other words, if we keep using all the same tropes all over again, it will remain dull. Live a little; think outside the dungeon.
"Oh look, another dungeon."
"Oh look, another session that is nothing but combat."
"Oh look, another PC/NPC based directly on a character in a book/movie/comic."
"Oh look, another plot taken straight out of a book/movie/comic."
"Oh look, more elves/dwarves/etc. just as presented in the Monster Manual."
"Oh look, another group of monsters guarding a treasure that they never bother to use themselves."
In other words, if we keep using all the same tropes all over again, it will remain dull. Live a little; think outside the dungeon.
coyote6
Adventurer
I'm not quite sure what makes settings dull; I've found something of interest in most that I've read, with maybe the exception being Kalamar. I really wanted to like it, but for some reason, it just didn't inspire me at all. I never could quite figure out why, though.
I don't know about that; I suspect the reason it's overlooked is because it's hard to make it an interesting and exciting part of the game. You either devolve to testing the players' survival knowledge (or rather, their ability to convince the GM that their actions would work in a particular situation) rather than the characters', or it boils down to something like "Roll vs. Survival skill". Either way, it's hard for a game designer to make it interesting.
I'd love it if an RPG came up with a way to make Man vs. Nature as interesting a conflict as Man vs. Man, but it's hard to do without creating a baroque subsystem. Does D&D4e have any existing skill challenges that work? 'Cause that would be awesome.
Note that PCs tend to be well-armored, and animals tend to lack armor-piercing capabilities. There's a reason why wolves and bears live in a fraction of their former habitats, and need human laws to help them avoid extinction; humans figured out ways to kill 'em a long time ago, and it's not all about guns.
I don't know about that; I suspect the reason it's overlooked is because it's hard to make it an interesting and exciting part of the game. You either devolve to testing the players' survival knowledge (or rather, their ability to convince the GM that their actions would work in a particular situation) rather than the characters', or it boils down to something like "Roll vs. Survival skill". Either way, it's hard for a game designer to make it interesting.
I'd love it if an RPG came up with a way to make Man vs. Nature as interesting a conflict as Man vs. Man, but it's hard to do without creating a baroque subsystem. Does D&D4e have any existing skill challenges that work? 'Cause that would be awesome.
Note that PCs tend to be well-armored, and animals tend to lack armor-piercing capabilities. There's a reason why wolves and bears live in a fraction of their former habitats, and need human laws to help them avoid extinction; humans figured out ways to kill 'em a long time ago, and it's not all about guns.
The Ghost
Explorer
A setting is interesting when I find myself asking questions: Who is Elminster? What is the Horned Society? How do they interact with the Shield Lands? What is Drachenward? I'd like to go there.
Once these questions have been answered, whether in the initial book or later on through other splat books, novels, etc., then I find the setting to be dull. An interesting setting asks questions; a dull one answers them.
Every setting has dull parts and awesome parts.
I do agree that the Dragonlance setting was too strictly limited to the stories already told, and created the *perception* that everything cool had already been done.
Same with Middle-Earth, or other licensed settings (including Star Wars), IMO, and, as more and more Realms-shaking novels were written, and then canonically incorporated into the setting, the Realms quickly turned from a place for me to play to a place that I could look at, but not touch.
On the other hands, I think that Greyhawk could have benefitted greatly from the sort of loving attention to detail that Ed Greenwood lavished on the Realms (or that showed up in latter settings, like Al-Qadim or Kalamar). If I can't picture what an NPC looks like, sounds like and acts like, based on their culture, it is harder for me to consider them as remotely interesting, and, as much as I like Greyhawk, I couldn't tell you how anyone outside of the Scarlet Brotherhood dresses... (Yeah, that sort of flavor information is there to be found, but Ed Greenwood did a far better job of presenting that sort of thing, IMO, which is why the Realms always felt more alive, as a setting.)
Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur and yeah, even Eberron, seem to me sort of 'gimmick' settings, that showcase new rules and character options, with a setting constructed around those new options (even if the reverse was sometimes true, with rules being specifically constructed to better evoke a more 'arabian nights' or 'ninja vs. kaiju' feel). Such an artificially constructed nature made each of these settings feel more coherent than Greyhawk or the Realms, that sort of came together over time from may different places (more so in the case of the Realms, which quickly turned into Fibber McGee's closet, as a dozen other contributers strapped wildly disparate lands onto the groaning back of Ed Greenwood's quaint rustic little 'Forgotten' Realms).
On the downside, for the Realms, too much of anything can be overwhelming, and the Realms followed the Greyhawk tradition of having dozens upon dozens of gods, including whole pantheons devoted to particular geographic regions, or demihuman races. Dragonlance and Eberron have done away with that, while other settings, such as the Scarred Lands, originally presented only a small core of gods, but then (IMO) started down the road to whackiness by presenting demigods for the various other races that often seemed to be somewhat redundant (or even kinda setting-contrary, in the case of the Asaatthi demigod!).
Lots of options are good for players (and can be good for DMs, if they are willing to sort out the chaff and dispose of what they feel is clutter), but when each setting book has a three page section devoted to where members of *two dozen* different races fit into the Underdark or below the Shining Sea or whatever (and, all too often, introduce a few *new* ones in the back of the book), it's a bit out of control...
In short, a lack of theme, or tight creative control, leading to a scattershot setting, can be, if not dull, serve to make the setting increasingly bland and 'muddled.'
I do agree that the Dragonlance setting was too strictly limited to the stories already told, and created the *perception* that everything cool had already been done.
Same with Middle-Earth, or other licensed settings (including Star Wars), IMO, and, as more and more Realms-shaking novels were written, and then canonically incorporated into the setting, the Realms quickly turned from a place for me to play to a place that I could look at, but not touch.
On the other hands, I think that Greyhawk could have benefitted greatly from the sort of loving attention to detail that Ed Greenwood lavished on the Realms (or that showed up in latter settings, like Al-Qadim or Kalamar). If I can't picture what an NPC looks like, sounds like and acts like, based on their culture, it is harder for me to consider them as remotely interesting, and, as much as I like Greyhawk, I couldn't tell you how anyone outside of the Scarlet Brotherhood dresses... (Yeah, that sort of flavor information is there to be found, but Ed Greenwood did a far better job of presenting that sort of thing, IMO, which is why the Realms always felt more alive, as a setting.)
Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur and yeah, even Eberron, seem to me sort of 'gimmick' settings, that showcase new rules and character options, with a setting constructed around those new options (even if the reverse was sometimes true, with rules being specifically constructed to better evoke a more 'arabian nights' or 'ninja vs. kaiju' feel). Such an artificially constructed nature made each of these settings feel more coherent than Greyhawk or the Realms, that sort of came together over time from may different places (more so in the case of the Realms, which quickly turned into Fibber McGee's closet, as a dozen other contributers strapped wildly disparate lands onto the groaning back of Ed Greenwood's quaint rustic little 'Forgotten' Realms).
On the downside, for the Realms, too much of anything can be overwhelming, and the Realms followed the Greyhawk tradition of having dozens upon dozens of gods, including whole pantheons devoted to particular geographic regions, or demihuman races. Dragonlance and Eberron have done away with that, while other settings, such as the Scarred Lands, originally presented only a small core of gods, but then (IMO) started down the road to whackiness by presenting demigods for the various other races that often seemed to be somewhat redundant (or even kinda setting-contrary, in the case of the Asaatthi demigod!).
Lots of options are good for players (and can be good for DMs, if they are willing to sort out the chaff and dispose of what they feel is clutter), but when each setting book has a three page section devoted to where members of *two dozen* different races fit into the Underdark or below the Shining Sea or whatever (and, all too often, introduce a few *new* ones in the back of the book), it's a bit out of control...
In short, a lack of theme, or tight creative control, leading to a scattershot setting, can be, if not dull, serve to make the setting increasingly bland and 'muddled.'
Psion
Adventurer
Asking people to name their un-favoritest-settings seems to prompt the invevitable counter reaction and invite flamewars.
I think threads to the tune of "what makes a setting exciting" are generally more cordial.
Similar Threads
