What Do You Like In A Campaign Setting?

[Palanan]

Just a very general question as to what people look for in a campaign setting, whether as a player or a DM.

What elements do you like in your setting or settings of choice, and how do they contribute to the game overall?

[RFLS]

A wide variety of choices is a good sign for a game. Not the ability to say "I'm an X with Y and Z templates and A, B, and C classes," where A/B/C/X/Y/Z are arbitrary, necessarily, but the availability of a wide selection of believable factions that cover large portions of playable concepts while leaving the majority of the ones not covered as viable possibilities within the setting.

I also prefer a setting that lends itself to a wide variety of play styles. I like persistent environments, and staying in one setting that only tells one kind of story is...rather dull.

Lastly, I like a setting that doesn't have every last minute detail filled in. Obviously, large things have to be done to make it a setting, and good chunks of small detail are great, but I find a game much more enjoyable if I can fill in the cracks, so to speak.

[Azoth]

I like expansive worlds that change as I travel. I hate when you end up on a quest going half way across a continent and every single town you go to is only differentiated by name and size. I want the custom changes from one region to another, and different populations of races. Being in the capitol of Humania should not be the same as being in a dwarven stronghold that is 300 feet under a mountain in any fashion.

With that item availability should change as well. A podunk village out in the boonies should not be offering much in the way of magical gear for players. Mundane and some alchemical gear sure, but not my next sword of awesomeness.

[Yora]

I am mostly interested in detailed cultures with their own customs, traditions, and values, which are interconnected with those of neighboring cultures. That way certain situations make people from two cultures natural allies or automatic enemies. Sometimes even the same peoples at different times. I think that's always been what a like the most about the worlds of Dragon Age and Mass Effect, but that most campain settings havn't really been paying much attention to in the past.

Also, a good setting for an RPG has to be clear about what role in society player characters generally have. Settings written to allow you to be anything you want tend to be not as great as setting that assume a general role for PCs and have everything else presented in a way that is the most helpful to such a play style.

And even more generally speaking, every really outstanding setting needs a narrative theme. A world becomes really alive only when there's a clearly identified theme for which the setting wants to provide a suitable environment. Otherwise it usually tends to end up as a "Generic Fantasy Setting" that is pretty much identical to all the others.

From a stylistic choice, I enjoy setting that feel very big in a geographical scale, but are not actually crowded. I think long distances and great "empty" spaces create a lot of atmosphere that I prefer by far over worlds in which there is a major town in walking distance and one big city next to each other. Basically what WotC phrased as "points of light", rather than a highly urbanized and well connected world.

In addition, I prefer depth over mass. Having less races, monsters, and places but those with more detail is highly preferable to a huge world with lots of things in it, that are barely described and lack any direct connections to each other.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I like when a setting is such that it feels that without you it would continue on fine, but that with your impression or with a serious campaign you can leave it completely different. Or more simply, that there isn't someone powerful enough that all these problems your solving or facing could be solved with a wag of his little finger. That could either be because there are bigger problems for them to deal with or that they aren't there.

[BWR]

Looking at the games I like, there is such a wide variety that' it's hard to point to universal elements in them that are not found in the settings I am not as fond of.

Since the setting basically determines what sort of story is possible and isn't the same as the system used, I can throw in games like Kult, Nobilis, CoC, L5R, etc.

I suppose I can say that settings that try to have some unique flavor to it. You can have very detailed, small settings like Rokugan, you can have broad stroke, infinitely big settings like Planescape. You can have Dune-wannabes like Dark Sun, D&D in spaaaaace like Spelljammer or DragonStar. You can have demi-gods fighting to keep reality alive as in Nobilis.

I'm not a big fan of settings like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance. Not that I dislike them in any way, they're ok, but I love Mystara. The former are far better designed and detailed than the Known World (which, frankly, is an odd hodge-podge of climates and cultures in an impossibly small area, due to trying to shove in every BECMI module into the same setting somehow), but the Known World just has far more flavor and sheer joie de vivre.

So really, I don't know exactly what appeals. I suppose those that try to have some sort of real, solid background and thought-out approach to what they are trying to present - and of course there are plenty of settings which have this quality but which I don't think are quite so good.

[bot]

In short I like Forgotten realms. I like there's access to a massive amount of details plus a rich and varied history and culture.

Also that there's always someone bigger than you - don't think you're ever safe :)

[navar100]

That my character can influence it. As the levels progress and news of my exploits spread, I become a Person of Importance. While this can mean a Title or Owner or Boss of something, it can be shown in other ways. If I need to speak with the Duke, I get an audience without having to make any dice rolls. It's ok that dice rolls are necessary forever and ever to convince the Duke of something or take an action, it's the gratis granting an audience that's key to knowing I affect the gameworld. (It was fun one campaign where I became the Duke. :smallbiggrin: ) If something is Need To Know only, my character is part of those who get to Know. NPCs of Importance treat my character with respect as an equal, accepting for protocol in regards to Titles of Nobility & Politics or Ranks of Military. NPCs seek me out looking for approval for their own vanity. They want to boast they're friends with me or I shop in their business. When we were low level and supposed to regard particular NPCs with awe, now my character is the one low level NPCs are supposed to regard with awe.

[SamsDisciple]

I like what some others have already mentioned of having an actual feel of different cultures when you get to different lands. One way that a friend of mine did to illustrate the difference in culture was to write up the rules for national sports or other national pastimes. The halflings had something similar to paintball capture the flag, the kobolds competed over who could make the best trapped tunnel, the humans jousted, the dwarves drank, etc... Many of these pastimes are generic but the flavorful part is that he worked them into the campaign. For example the party were guards for a caravan carrying a very precious artifact diguised as a simple pottery bowl, it got stolen and then when the party caught up with the thieves they were sorely outnumbered but the boss halfling wagered the loot over a game of "can't remember the sport" and so instead of hacking and slashing for one session the party had to think in a completely different style as to how to beat the encounter.
Also as a personal preference the general feel of the world needs to be suitably epic/dark/whatever as is appropriate to the campaign but there also needs to be a few nuggets of humor thrown in. In my own group if there isnt any humor at all in the campaign then we get very distracted with peanut gallery comments

[Arcanist]

I like survival games because, I'm sort of a min/max'er (I do it entirely subconsciously at this point) and in a Survival game, no matter how much I prepare I never have enough to actually breeze through the game.

It's my favorite prospect of gaming really. The struggle.

[Phippster]

The ability to impact it, even in minute ways. I enjoy games in which the PCs affect the world in which they live in real and concrete ways, and I always enjoy seeing real consequences. If I dethrone the Mad King, I want to see the resulting in-fighting between his successors, and I want to be able to fight for my cause in the civil war that will innately follow in the power vacuum.

I also dislike settings where extremely high-leveled characters are common, which is one reason I was never fond of Forgotten Realms. It felt cheap that I was solving mid-level problems when someone like Drizz't or Eliminster could solve this single-handedly and still make it home in time for lunch. PCs should become a influential force around 5th-6th level, and the characters around the world who are living legends - The Greatest Swordsman in the World, The Archmage of the High-Tower- are around 12th-13th, so that they are powerful but not yet at the point where everything is completely trivial. The corollary to this is that those characters shouldn't also be figureheads for power; if there's a war engulfing three of the largest countries in the world and he's in one of them, I better see him in that war, and if we're on opposite sides I damn well better have to face off against them.

In short, I like my worlds to be deep, mutable, and adhere to the human condition.

[BoutsofInsanity]

1. I like the races to feel different and have different cultures even among themselves.
2. I like established places and roles I can effect.
3. I hate race favoritism. "Dwarves are better then Elves or vice versa". Just cause you like a race and hate the other, doesn't mean your players share the same feelings.
4. Realism needs to happen, if a high ranking NPC can solve the problem with a wave of his hand then why are we here? So make up reasons as to why the players are important. The one I use is for my huge NPC is if he leaves his base, his opposite number will leave his. And neither of them want that conflict yet.
5. NPC's NPC's NPC's. They are so important. They need to be interesting and compelling. Not all of them have to be super important. But off up side quests or things that show the world doesn't revolve around the players. (Example, an elf barkeep, who is looks worn down and tired. Perhaps he is a slave of some sort)
6. Racism. I like it, put it in there. Not everyone, but maybe certain towns or what not.
7. Something unique to the world. My two are either connected Islands through wormholes or a 40k universe set in D&D. A unique concept that differs your world from everyone else.
8. Players are not restricted to lame back stories. I want to be a run away prince, work with me to be a run away prince. I want to be a former king who lost his kingdom in a war. Let me have that. I want to be a former slave, let me be that. etc.

[Vultawk]

My setting was designed with three basic ideas in mind, and obviously, those three are what I like in a setting.


Fairly low powered in general (the PC's should be the only characters to potentially get past level 14 or so)
Mostly generic fantasy with one or two twists (allowing any of the usual character concepts helps get people into the game, but some tweaking helps keep things fresh)
A reasonably simple history and cosmology, but not one without depth (allows players to know the basics without having to study it in advance, but also can surprise them later on)

[Lightlawbliss]

I like a challenge, I like something where I s a player have no clue what it is, I like new things.

(I guess that's part of why I made most of my levels on my most recent character monk)

[Yora]

I suppose I can say that settings that try to have some unique flavor to it. You can have very detailed, small settings like Rokugan, you can have broad stroke, infinitely big settings like Planescape. You can have Dune-wannabes like Dark Sun, D&D in spaaaaace like Spelljammer or DragonStar. You can have demi-gods fighting to keep reality alive as in Nobilis.
Dark Sun is not a Dune wannabe!

Dark Sun is a John Carter wannabe. :smallbiggrin:
It even ripped of the Green Martians with the Thri-kreen.
http://roberthood.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/tarstarkas.jpg

[ArcturusV]

Things I like in a setting:

1) 5 Minutes away from Change.

I like settings that are more... volatile. It doesn't have to be apocalyptic as the "5 Minutes to Midnight" usually references. But it has to be unstable in some way. I like the sense that when a campaign starts, the world is in a somewhat fragile place. Events can spiral out of control and change things. I dislike monolithic settings where basically no matter what you do, nothing can ever really change for one reason or another.

2) Meddling NPCs are out.

This is related to the first point. It's one of the reasons I don't necessarily like Faerun. It seems no matter where you are, there's an Epic (Or at least 15+) character somewhere within the region who can, and will, "Fix" everything if it gets out of hand. Elminister being the more infamous one to me, but there are others. I want the world to feel like the Players matter more. And it's hard to have a setting where players matter if there's some janitor sweeping up all their messes.

3) Things need to be able to progress regardless of player input.

Just... some settings are designed in such a way that if a player doesn't kick over an ant hill, nothing is going to change. Things don't get worse, better, or different unless a PC is there to oversee it. I don't like that. I like settings where things can and will progress regardless of their actions. This means there needs to be another layer of.... not instability really, but usually Hostility. People need to not get along. It can't be a post scarcity utopia. Things have to randomly break, fall apart, or suffer misfortunes. Sounds basic I suppose. But when's the last time you saw a setting adventure/book describe something like the time a hurricane slammed into the central trading hub port city, decimated the wealth of a region, left people desperate and destitute... and doing things that may not be wise or otherwise in character? Almost never in my experience. If such a thing happens it's always a result of BBEG workings. I don't want it to necessarily be NPC BBEG input required for things to happen either.

4) The Crisis State of the world cannot be permanent.

Relating to number 1 again. No matter what's going on that is making things on edge and ready to change forever... it can't be an unending thing. That was my problem with Krynn really. The setting is so defined by the struggle of Tahkisis, Paladine, and their chosen dragon races (Everything really seems to link up to them)... that the problem can never be solved. If you ever solve the Dragonwars and what not... the setting just breaks. It's lost everything about it (5th Age?). And if you can never solve a problem (Due to potentially breaking the setting over your knee), then your characters become superfluous in the grand scheme. And no one wants their hero not to matter. That's why I axed Meddling NPCs. At some point the meddling must end, and the world become stable (Possible in a new form the heroes helped shape).

5) It needs logical cultures.

It's just me I think. And "Logical" may not be the way to describe them... but it irks me more than it should with some settings how long term neighbors have almost nothing in common. They don't share languages, technologies, magics, cultural tidbits, etc. It's usually really harsh, odd breaks. Like you'll have a nation that is clearly modeled after high medieval France next door and sharing a border with Three Kingdoms China, right next to Faux Vikings, right next to Faux Egyptians. So I like things like my humanoids all being roughly equal (You don't spend millenniums living next to, and in conflict with, another species without copying their technologies).

6) I like to avoid Alignment Splits.

I don't want to have things like settings where Nation A is the "Lawful Good Elf Nation" and Nation B is the Chaotic Good Halfling Nation, Nation C is the True Neutral Human Nation, etc. Where the alignment of their Leader(s) is the determining factor for their whole society. It always struck me as strange. And often the "evil" societies and the "Good" societies were not just boring and one dimensional... but also didn't make any good sense. Like the typical "evil" DnD Nation could never really exist and function as the imposing Empire that it supposedly is in any setting...

[BWR]

Dark Sun is not a Dune wannabe!

Dark Sun is a John Carter wannabe. :smallbiggrin:
It even ripped of the Green Martians with the Thri-kreen.
http://roberthood.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/tarstarkas.jpg

Good point. I just read Dune first and got into the habit of using Dune to explain the setting to other people.

[Yora]

Things I like in a setting:

1) 5 Minutes away from Change.

3) Things need to be able to progress regardless of player input.

4) The Crisis State of the world cannot be permanent.

Just to be clear here: I agree, that these are elements that can be used to very great effect to create amazing settings.

However, I think that a setting like this would tend to be tied to one specific story with relatively low "reusability". If the change is what defines the setting, the setting basically "solves itself" at the end of that story and wraps itself up one way or another. Once the process of change is finished and a new order established, the defining elements of that setting no longer exist.
I think the Mass Effect universe is an excelent example. We are introduced to that universe at the start of the Reaper Invasion, and the series ends once that invasion comes to its conclusion, one way or another. But if you would place a new story before this period of change or after it, you don't have the major defining element of the setting as we know it.
(Star Wars managed to break out of this by establishing that the Jedi-Sith conflict is basically an endless cycle that repeats over and over with either side gaining the upper hand for a few decades or centuries before they are driven into hiding again. Protagonists can affect their own cycle, but will never change the overall situation.)

For a single home campaign, such settings are probably the best type. But for publishing as a product line, I think these would be quite difficult to pull off well. Every group could play through this period of change in different ways and come to a different conclusion. Making it more of a sandbox campaign than a long running product line.

Again, not saying such settings are bad. They are actually often quite amazing. But I think it's a rather different approach than the one followed by most RPG companies with their published worlds.

[ArcturusV]

True, it's hard. Not impossible. I think of SFU is often in those terms. You got about 240 years of History in its timeline. During that time? There is almost always at least one conflict going on that has the potential to drastically alter the setting. Not everyone at war all the time. Most people are at peace most of the time. But there's usually something going on (If not outright war, mass exploration, or espionage, or posturing, all of the above, etc). And players who pop into that timeline could easily upset it and change things. Maybe the Paravians don't get wiped out? Maybe the Hydran Kingdom never falls? Maybe the ISC never forms it's alliance?

But it's also just built into the setting logically that things are going to conflict even if you fix whatever current crisis is going on. Some of them have been published (Like a What If, if the Paravians lived and the Gorns were wiped out instead by the same event). But yeah. Taking out the Carnivons brought a short period of peace. But it never lasted. Things like that. You can fix the problem... but not the fact that there WILL be problems. Wealth, power, control of resources, etc, always come back into play.

It's harder. But I don't think it's something that isn't worth pursuing. I suppose the only reason most settings can't really run like that for RPGs, is novels. The novels need the big time heroes to get the sales. They need to provide a world where you can latch onto things easily even if you haven't read every single novel, rulebook, and article published about it. And that sort of need for permanency to make it easier to hook into, and the epic impact characters for marquee effect tends to lead to these stagnant settings.

Like... when I played the DBZ RPG. And one of my players just asked me almost every session, "Well... if these guys are trying to take over Earth... why hasn't Goku just come down and helped us kick their ass?" I hate those moments. I mean they can be good for the right kind of story. One that is essentially a race, where you need to find reinforcements before something bad happens to you or someone else. But I never liked it being the first, and most reasonable solution to any problem. It kinda detracts from the Heroics when you realize you aren't playing up the Justice League so much as Jimmy Olsen calling in Supes.