Your views on settings -- the good, the bad, and the useful

[Andre]

I think that having details about cultures helps a setting, as it gives an idea of how people respond to each other and their neighbors, as welll as their motivations.

Agreed. My question is, how much of such material is necessary? One page, two, twenty, a hundred?

 

[Desdichado]

Let me try to explain it this way, "First Rule of Dungeoncraft: Never force yourself to create more than you must."

Oh, I'm quite familiar with Dungeoncraft...

If I'm creating my own setting, I will spend some time on material that I know my players will never see. History, cosmology, secrets, and so on. This is part of the fun of creating a homebrew. But as Winninger so clearly points out, too much time on non-essential material can cause a campaign to never get off the ground.

Yes, but you don't have to spend much time on it if you buy a campaign setting. It's already been done; all you have to do is spend a couple of hours to read it.

One example: an author has written 15 pages explaining the day-to-day rituals of various religious orders. He's also written 15 pages of material detailing several small shrines and churches, complete with npc's, maps, and a few hooks for the players. If you only have room in the book for one or the other, which should it be? Which will get more use? Which will affect the players?

I guess I'm still not seeing it; I don't think your example really cleared it up. What you want campaign settings to offer, as near as I can tell, is pretty much what they do offer. It's a moot point. As near as I can tell, you're complaining about campaign settings that don't exist.

Maybe they do in Supplement #43 or whatever, but those are clearly optional products and are designed and marketed to the kind of people who do want them. Hopefully you're not complaining about their very existence just because you don't need them? The actual campaign setting book, though, of at least all the campaigns since 3e was released, are full of exactly the kind of material that you say you are looking for and almost completely lack the material you don't want.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Let's see... settings... good, bad, useful...

Midnight
The Good: You like Tolkien, kiddies? This setting has the feel of Middle Earth with the serial numbers filed off. Great flavor. The mechanics work to make a low-magic system that lets the PC's perform heroic and extraordinary feats without turning magic into just another commodity or tool. It's well-supported for a 3rd party setting, and the production values are mostly solid, other than the binding problem on the first run of the core book. FFG's editing is solid, and the artwork is much more "classic" than "dungeonpunk".
The Bad: Imagine if Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and H.P. Lovecraft got together to write an "alternate universe" sequel to the Lord of the Rings in which Sauron triumphed. That's about how depressing this setting is. There isn't much hope that the PC's can make a difference- and if they do, quite a bit of the theme, and most of the setting's "long term" potential is lost. Low magic ain't everyone's cup of tea... and you know, it's nice to get rewarded with a nice haul of treasure, magic items, royal titles and popular recognition from time to time. You'll seldom see any of these in Midnight- the more you triumph, the more likely it is that you'll be ostracized, not to mention hunted down like a dog by Izrador (AKA Sauron)'s minions. The setting was enjoyable for about two months... after that, meh.
The Useful: Channelers- a great low-magic and general "utility belt" class that I've found even works in normal D&D games. Heroic bloodlines- nice if you'd rather give focused, inherent "superpowers" than gobs of magic items. Lots of good ideas and plot hooks. Interesting magic system that modifies the core system in simple but flavor-changing ways.

Arcana Evolved/Diamond Throne
Good: It's new but familiar- all new classes, new spells, new races, modified feats... but the same d20 system under the hood. The setting provides lots of twists- no alignment system, so "good and evil" isn't "cut and dried", giving a greater moral ambiguity. Assumptions about divinities and the source of magic are out the window, in favor of a new pseudo-platonic metaphysics of runes, rituals, ceremonies and sigils that program reality. The humans, for the most part, aren't in charge- Giants, Dragons, and Harrid rule the continent. The Giant/Dragon struggle provides lots of intriguing possibilities for both millitary and philosophical conflict. Religion takes on a different role in this setting- the nature of the gods is highly ambiguous, and nobody really knows for sure what happens after death. In many ways, it's a "mindscrew" setting, not unlike Planescape or Rifts. If that sort of thing is your cup of tea- you'll love DT.
Bad: It's just too weird for some players, who would rather have elves, dwarves, wizards and fighters than verrik, sibeccai, runethanes and warmains. The lack of any system of morality in the rules (unlike core D&D, World of Darkness, or Star Wars) can be both liberating- and difficult for the gamemaster. Also, it's the sort of game where the group is going to need more than one copy of the core book, since it stands apart from core D&D, and rules references (especially for spellcasters) will be frequent. The setting is in many ways sparsely detailed- though this could, again, be more of a feature than a bug, as it doesn't waste time on irrelevant detail and provides just about everything a DM would need "out of the gate".
Useful: Where to begin? From the classes, the magic system, the races, the redesigned feats, all the easily "rippable" setting concepts... AE is one extremely juicy product, great for spicing up many games...

Forgotten Realms
Just as an aside, I thought I'd mention my peeves about the Realms- and where I think the setting's greatest strength lies. I've never had an issue with the powerful NPC's, the metaplot, the magic level... my issue is that the way most DM's I've played with present the Realms is positively BORING. They don't do there homework! If you actually RTDB, you discover that the Realms- and each individual country and region- has unique quirks that should be taken advantage of. Rather, most DM's I've played with just pick a place somewhere along the Sword Coast to drop in a module, with little attention to the setting itself. On top of that, if you throw the gates open for characters from anywhere and everywhere, coming up with coherent party goals and flavor can be difficult.

On the other hand, I like the Realms. But if you're going to play there, you have to focus- pick a single region, research it until you know it like your hometown, and run the game there. For instance, take the "East"- Thay, Aglarond, Rasheman, Narfell, The Great Dale, Thesk, The Hordelands. What an interesting place! A totalitarian empire run by evil wizards endlessly scheming against each other... a heroic realm of men and elves ruled by a mad queen who also happens to be the only thing standing between Thay and world domination... a country ruled by matriarchal masked witches who commune with nature spirits and keep armies of fearsome berserkers... a merchant federation under the thumb of a shadowy cult, and filled with immigrants from mystical lands to the far east... a fallen empire filled with demon-haunted ruins... a woodland realm of xenophobic druids and lost treasures... plane-shifting elves who live in a pocket dimension... great magic, fabulous wealth, mighty conflicts, and hardly a drow in sight...

Doesn't that sound like a fun place to play? It does to me.

If you're going to do the realms right, pick a corner, and center the game there. That's the way to play... think of the realms as a collection of little interconnected settings...

 

[ForceUser]

SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I use elements of all four published 3E D&D settings in my homebrew, plus Oriental Adventures, Ghostwalk, Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, Nyambe, Ravenloft, and Relics & Rituals: Exaclibur.

From Dragonlance, I'm using a modified version of the minotaur race, as well as the aerial combat rules.

From Eberron, I've inserted large tracts of geography such as the lands of Adar and Rierdra, the continent of Xen'Drik, and certain parts of the cosmology. I also use artificers, changelings, kalashtar, shifters, and warforged, and I've yoinked the culture of gnomes as well as some secret organizations. Many of the uniquely Eberron-flavored magic items and monsters have also made it in.

From Forgotten Realms, I use some of the magic items, monsters, and spells, as well as some of the optional rules presented in Magic of Faerun. I'm especially fond of fey crossroads and backroads. I've integrated them heavily into my campaign.

From Greyhawk, I use a modified version of the pantheon of gods, as well as some of the organizations, which I've renamed and retooled.

My essential M.O. as a DM is to mine published campaign settings for ideas I like and integrate them into my homebrew, which has its own distinct feel. I can't bring myself to use a published setting whole cloth, though. That would drive me nuts--I need to feel like the world is mine, and that I'm the guy in creative control. I don't feel that way when trying to run a boxed setting.

 

[William Ronald]

Agreed. My question is, how much of such material is necessary? One page, two, twenty, a hundred?

I think it varies, if you are talking about a continent and a country. Trying to characterize a continent's cultures could take 20 or more pages. (You can of course discuss some common things, such as is done in the FRCS regarding agriculture, life in the Realms, calendars, and other basics.) I think most setting books use two to four pages to describe a country --- and a lot of that includes the basics (how Karnnath is different from Breland in Eberron, for example.)

I think that "fluff" and "crunch" are both useful, to use some common terms. I think a DM generally wants to give a feeling of a specific place in a setting. Mind you, the information on a country or a culture can provide lots of adventuring hooks. So, if I were describing a city state with political intrigue, fencing academies,where courtesy matters greatly and insults often lead to duels, as a designer I have given a few general adventure hooks. Also, the current WotC settings include very specific adventure hooks. I really don't see any of the core supplements that have 15 pages on rituals that do not impact the characters in some way. Probably, if I was going to list the rituals for a religious order, a few paragraphs would suffice. (As an added hook, I would strongly hint that the rituals have some meaning related to the religious order's history.)

Perhaps a good idea for setting books might be to have some things listed which is DM knowledge only. Not every PC in a setting will know everything about the world --- far from it in the case of most first level characters. I think that a DM can decide what is in and outside player knowledge. So, it is likely that most characters in a Forgotten Realms campaign have heard of Elminster -- particulary if they are a wizard or a follower of Mystra. However, I doubt many PCs would have a clear idea of Elminster's power as detailed by the character stats in the FRCS.

I think that a good campaign setting book must try to strike a balance between being a detailed travelogue with every considerable detail (The Cheeses of the Realms) and not giving any feel of authenticity to a culture or a nation. (Perhaps the most amusing quote I can remember on this is a remark that if Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Kingdoms had a feel of ancient wonders and horrors, then the nations of John Jakes' Brak the Barbarian seemed to have been put up with cardboard cut outs five minutes before the hero arrived.)