PDA

View Full Version : Player friendly campaign settings



Yora
2016-06-27, 03:31 AM
Something that people sometimes complain about campaign settings is that the world as described doesn't really have much room for player characters and seem to be written more to be read than to be played in.

What kinds of examples can you think of that would be cases of setttings that get in the way of the players and settings that are created with the focus on the player characters and their personal adventures?
What kinds of design decisions work well to make a world a good campaign setting and which ones go against that?

Khedrac
2016-06-27, 04:34 AM
I'd say it comes down to the types of NPCs the world is populated with.

For instance the Forgotten Realms is populated with a lot of very active NPCs (active in an adventuring/problem solving sense).
With all these high levels wandering around slaying monsters, saving the world/kingdom etc. what is there for a new party to do?
Conversely in Mystara the high-level NPCs are mainly involved in politics and running their own lands - and since they are not out there solving the problems there is plenty of work for the players to do (much of it working for said NPCs).
Greyhawk lies somewhere in between, but the high-level NPCs are rarer and mainly tend to be busy.

Glorantha in many ways is in the first camp with the Hero Wars happening and most of what happens plotted out all the 'big hero' roles are taken.
Middle Earth is this in spades - because everyone knows the history there is even less chance for players to leave a mark.

Aaannd to be honest the above is a load of nonsense. It is equally easy to be a player in these different worlds, but they can lend themselves to different types of campaigns. Much depends on the GM/DM and what they are good at running.
In worlds where there are a lot of people already saving the world it is much easier to run a "saving the town" campaign instead, and if run properly just as satisfying. (Also save the world campaigns often case real problems for anything to be run after them in the same world.)
This is not to say that you cannot run a world-shaking campaign in a 'busy' world, you just need to come up with reasons why it is the party that have to shake the world. It's not that hard to have enough going on that the powerful are busy with other things, especially if, to begin with, the world-shaking potential of the players' course of actions is not obvious - once it is obvious the PCs are already the ones involved who know what is happening, so the top NPCs should support (oppose) them rather than just take over. What it does take is more effort from the GM.

Yora
2016-06-27, 05:12 AM
While an active casts of prominent NPCs does not actively get in the way of player characters going on mundane adventures, they still have the effect that those mundane adventures feel less significant. The players are busying themselves with these things while they know that there's a big metaplot going on to which they are not invited. You can ignore all of that and make it all about the players, but then what's the point of having it in the first place. But if you include it the players will always only be pawns unless they have really high level characters.

You can play in Forgotten Realms just as well as in Middle-Earth, but Middle-Earth was not created as a campaign setting for players. (Neither was Forgotten Realms for that matter, which might be part of its problems.)

Eldan
2016-06-27, 05:24 AM
Not a setting, but I've heard horror stories about one big campaign in The Dark Eye (the big German roleplaying game.) From what others who played it have told me, pretty much every adventure ends with a big boss battle where the players lose, then are saved by a big named setting NPC who comes in and saves the day at the last moment, then leaves again.

There are also quite a few RPGs that have one defined, set up conflict that the players pretty much have to be a part of. Players in this system are part of organization X and fight organzation Y and Monsters Z. These can work very well as long as everyone is on board with that exact premise (and why wouldn't you be, you know what you're getting into with that campaign), but it doesn't exactly allow for creative character concepts.

Even more than Forgotten Realms, there's Dragonlance. Novels first, setting second. I never liked it all that much, for that reason and others. Too much defined history and defined conflicts.

Fable Wright
2016-06-27, 05:29 AM
Eberron: Quite player friendly. It lists out the history of the setting, and focuses on conflicts between organizations instead of conflicts between people. This means that characters can join in these conflicts without feeling second rate; tagging along with Elminster or doing his bidding may make your character feel undervalued, but being dispatched as the King's Sword in Eberron makes you feel special and chosen as the most capable members of your organization. Additionally, there's a lot of the world that's undefined; DMs and PCs are very much able to change the setting according to what fits the story best.

Unknown Armies: Also very player friendly. The world is sparse, meaning you can throw in what plot elements you want, and conflicts are again mostly between groups, or occasionally lone unheroic operators. The PCs are free in a giant sandbox and are encouraged to drive their own stories with their own goals; the world is very much open to change.

hamlet
2016-06-27, 10:23 AM
I've always been on the lookout for these types of settings.

Greyhawk is one, though it requires the DM to make it so by picking an area and getting things set up for his/her campaign. The "vast howling emptiness" of Greyhawk is something that a lot of folks have noticed.


Kingdoms of Kalamar is this to me. I LOVE this setting. It's exactly the right mix of room to create and pre-created stuff that I just LOVE it. And it's a world that's baseline is fairly realistic on the fantastic scale, but it's very easy to add more fantasy to it. (I've always believed it's easier to add than strip out) Plus, a lot of things in the campaign setting are noted as getting ready to happen, or something funny's going on, but it's not detailed as to exactly what. So it's got a lot of creative prompts for the DM.


Harnworld is pretty interesting . . . but I've never been into it for some reason. *shrug*



Forgotten Realms could be this, but if they'd only stop with the action audience syndrome. So much interesting stuff is just taken care of rather than waiting for PC's to come and poke at that sometimes it's a lot like you get to watch "real heroes" come and do their thing.

Yora
2016-06-27, 11:30 AM
I think metaplots and regular timeline advancements never work in the favor of the players. GMs might think it's great stuff when reading it, but what's the point of running adventures with a great story if the players don't enjoy it?

hamlet
2016-06-27, 11:41 AM
I think metaplots and regular timeline advancements never work in the favor of the players. GMs might think it's great stuff when reading it, but what's the point of running adventures with a great story if the players don't enjoy it?

You and I don't always agree, but to this statement, I will simply say AMEN!!!

Khedrac
2016-06-27, 12:03 PM
I think metaplots and regular timeline advancements never work in the favor of the players. GMs might think it's great stuff when reading it, but what's the point of running adventures with a great story if the players don't enjoy it?
Probably my biggest complaint about Glorantha which is my favourite campaign world.
Can also be applied to Mystara and Greyhawk, but I personally tend to ignore the calendar until I want to work a timeline event in...

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-27, 12:06 PM
I think metaplots and regular timeline advancements never work in the favor of the players. GMs might think it's great stuff when reading it, but what's the point of running adventures with a great story if the players don't enjoy it?

I would be very surprised if even the most grand of metaplots survived contact with the Player Characters without a lot of railroading to be honest. At least in the games I've been a part of, plenty of cities have been a part of the causalities (and sometimes purely by accident!).

I agree with the idea about organizations. You could in theory hijack a person, but it's pretty difficult and requires certain builds. Hijacking an organization? Much easier and much more rewarding. However, don't do what Forgotten Realms did and put in a lot of organizations that are either too powerful or too weird. At times the Harpers feel like they are only there to sneer at players or tell characters that being good is 'too deep' and that 'they wouldn't understand it'. And don't have ones that are too strong to be beaten. Like the Heralds. Yeah, there's apparently some sort of group of weirdos running around beating people up for using the wrong coat of arms. Why do they have so much power and backing? **** if I know. Why aren't they doing something productive? No idea!

Basically, players need to feel like they have a chance of affecting things. Sure, at level 1 they aren't going to run an empire, but there should be hints that they can get ahead with the proper amounts of force and scheming. Feeling like there's always a bigger fish hanging over your head isn't very fun at all.

Actana
2016-06-27, 01:00 PM
One campaign setting book that comes to mind is the 4e Neverwinter Campaign Setting book, which focuses around that city and its immediate surroundings, barely straying as far as Waterdeep, if even that. It's a highly focused book, and what makes it interesting to me is that it gives a lot of setup for various adventures but doesn't really spell out all the details, leaving the GM with more power to custom tailor the adventures. There's a lot of options to go in terms of NPCs and such, but how it involves players is something I'm particularly fond of.

In 4e, there's an optional rule for "themes" which have a small (often generic) story to them along with granting a few appropriate powers or special abilities every now and again with levels. However, instead of generic themes, the Neverwinter Campaign Setting book gives a series of themes that are very much focused around what is going on in the city, making the PCs active members of the going-ons in the city (for example, being the lost heir to the city's throne, part of the royal line of a ruined dwarven fortress, exiled member of the Netheril, a Harper agent or a devotee of Oghma who has unique visions about the Spellplague, to name a few of the 13 themes). While they are also quite restrictive in the sense of "these are the plotlines that are happening in the city, pick one to be a part of", it also gives a lot of proactive focus on those plotlines in particular by making the PCs an intrinsic part of them, instead of someone who just stumbles across adventure. It's a style I feel has a lot of potential to involve players right from the start.

To me, the whole idea of "inspiration, not information" is something that works very well with making a campaign setting friendly towards players, as it allows for a lot more and easier customization. It also helps that the setting knows what it's focusing on and doesn't try to do everything at once.

Yora
2016-06-27, 01:39 PM
I argree with the idea about organizations. You could in theory hijack a person, but it's pretty difficult and requires certain builds. Hijacking an organization? Much easier and much more rewarding. However, don't do what Forgotten Realms did and put in a lot of organizations that are either too powerful or too weird. At times the Harpers feel like they are only there to sneer at players or tell characters that being good is 'too deep' and that 'they wouldn't understand it'. And don't have ones that are too strong to be beaten. Like the Heralds. Yeah, there's apparently some sort of group of weirdos running around beating people up for using the wrong coat of arms. Why do they have so much power and backing? **** if I know. Why aren't they doing something productive? No idea!

Basically, players need to feel like they have a chance of affecting things. Sure, at level 1 they aren't going to run an empire, but there should be hints that they can get ahead with the proper amounts of force and scheming. Feeling like there's always a bigger fish hanging over your head isn't very fun at all.

I believe the core of the problem is to have a too wide range between low-level and high-level characters supported by the setting, especially if that gaps means that more powerful characters become effectively invincible. The idea of level appropriate enemies is a problem of rules, but a setting makes it even worse when it doesn't restrict itself to a limited range supported by the rules.
It's entirely okay to have a situation in which players don't want to pick a fight because the opponent is unassailable. But I think when the reason is "our party does not have nearly a high enough level", I tink it just doesn't feel right. Being able to take down a seemingly invincible opponent should be a matter of gathering allies and unique magical artifact. Not to go grinding and doing busywork for a few months or years to unlock the ability to defeat the enemy.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-27, 02:29 PM
I believe the core of the problem is to have a too wide range between low-level and high-level characters supported by the setting, especially if that gaps means that more powerful characters become effectively invincible. The idea of level appropriate enemies is a problem of rules, but a setting makes it even worse when it doesn't restrict itself to a limited range supported by the rules.

Yeah, this is probably a part of it. Through having a powerful organization of people running around doing nothing but fighting people wearing someone else's coat of arms also feels like DM rail roading. If you have an unassailable group, make them make sense. Make the players invested in their hatred of this group. Make them gnash their teeth not because this group has DM fiat, but because they got out foxed fair and square.

And plan on them being set on fire at some point. I can't stress that enough. The players will find a way.

hamlet
2016-06-27, 02:48 PM
It's not really, to me, the presence of powerful NPC's, or that there are high level characters playing in the sandbox alongside 1st level characters. It's a matter of how . . . involved they are. Forgotten Realms mega-NPC's are, according to the canon books, rather involved, sometimes to the point of parody. It always begs the question of what the PC's are actually going to be doing at any given moment since folks like Elminster can show up and fix any given problem in the blink of an eye and be home in time for breakfast tea while the PC's are still finding out there is a problem.

In other settings, high level NPC's do exist, but they're in the background much more. In Greyhawk, they're there, but for the most part, they're part of the mesh of the world. They're names to be dropped quite literally because they have their names all over the spell lists!

This is reinforced by the original idea of how play was to proceed. PC's would go out adventuring for much of the time from levels 1-9. Right about level 9 or 10, the PC's would shift gear from adventuring to building. They'd probably start accruing followers and gain property and be able to found their own duchies etc. They shifted towards realm management rather than dungeon delving, though they probably still could.

It was at this point that the mega-NPC's started to become a thing that the PC's could interact with on even a hint of a level playing field. They'd made names for themselves in the world as a whole, so now the big names would probably at least have heard of them in some way and would be more likely to get involved in some way. It worked out, really.

Tiktakkat
2016-06-27, 03:54 PM
As Khedrac suggested, I think it is often more a case of a player-friendly DM as opposed to a player-friendly DM.
I'd go even further and say that it doesn't much matter if the DM goes Mary Sue on the setting NPCs, the named dungeon monsters, or his own DMPCs, he is still going Mary Sue with them, and making it clear that the players are just there to put some randomness in the supporting cast.

As for timeline advancement in published settings, that has and will always be the biggest Catch-22 of published settings.
If you want someone else to do all the work of building a setting for you, you are going to have deal with the baggage of them actually playing the setting in a different way than you do. That includes not seeing the areas you want to see developed get developed, having stories get resolved in different ways, or seeing "secrets" revealed in totally different ways from what you would have preferred.
In some ways, that makes "inactive" settings more attractive to me. You know you won't get sucker punched by any new development, and once there is enough base material you can campaign for decades without slowing down.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-27, 04:02 PM
In some ways, that makes "inactive" settings more attractive to me. You know you won't get sucker punched by any new development, and once there is enough base material you can campaign for decades without slowing down.

Or optional stories that don't have to be told, and are quite optional. Like Elder Evils for 3.5. Sure, you don't need a world-ending Apocalypse and it's certainly not canon until the DM decides it is, but in case you want it, there it is. Just going to leave this book full of torment and general unpleasantness here for you...

Yora
2016-06-27, 05:11 PM
And plan on them being set on fire at some point. I can't stress that enough. The players will find a way.

One of the best pieces of advice on worldbuilding was Wolfgang Baur's image of settings as boxes of dynamites. And you give the players a box of matches.
If you create a world as a campaign setting, everything should be destructable. Not necessarily by the players and not at all levels of power, but the players should be free to set things in motion that could logically lead to the destruction of anything. If you have an idea for a character who is too cool to die, it does not belong into a campaign.

Optional stories for big events are a really good approach. After all, that's what all published adventures are for small and medium events. But the results should best be limited to the product they happen in, and not override the main setting sourcebook.

trikkydik
2016-06-27, 09:14 PM
There are also quite a few RPGs that have one defined, set up conflict that the players pretty much have to be a part of. Players in this system are part of organization X and fight organzation Y and Monsters Z. These can work very well as long as everyone is on board with that exact premise (and why wouldn't you be, you know what you're getting into with that campaign), but it doesn't exactly allow for creative character concepts.

I think you should do that for a short period of time (3/4 sessions)
and then kick them out of the organization.

By that time you should have enough of the world built, and plenty more to explore.

See what the PC's want, do a lot of non-combat/NPC-PC interaction

(some more things to consider)

Pick like 3-10 Races that exist. and use those to build countries/cities.

make a map with at least one continent, draw in some lakes (look at google maps to see how rivers flow)
Draw in some mountains, maybe a volcano, there's always a "North" with cold mountains.

Once you have a continent that is suitable for discovery, build a story for one city (Where the PC's start).

Think of some conflicts between bordering countries, Come up with a good antagonist, or more.

send them on a few missions to get the feel for it, then kick them out, and leave them in the open world, beyond the city walls.

They'll make decisions and you can improv the adventures as they come up. that will also buy you some time to think of a long term direction.

try to be fluid about your story telling, if the PC's do something that throws off your whole plot, just mix it in there and make them happy. If you plan short term adventures it will be difficult to let the PC's really make the world different. So try to keep your major plans long term and mid term.

Good luck buddy.

2D8HP
2016-06-27, 11:40 PM
I'm quite partial to Leiber's World (http://www.quest-bird.com/nehwon/nehw-maps.html) of Nehwon (http://www.scrollsoflankhmar.com/rpgguide:geographyofnehwon), but for a nice map of a different world,
how about this one? (http://xkcd.com/256/)

Knaight
2016-06-28, 12:24 AM
Warbirds is great for this - it's explicitly built to have a pretty unstable situation, and the PCs are by default in a place to have some influence.

Cluedrew
2016-06-28, 07:37 AM
I would like to through out setting that are made as the campaign progresses. I guess just custom settings but if you fill them in as you go along they tend to be tailored for the campaign and the players. Or course you can't publish that, so it is more of a strategy than a setting, but I find it can work.

Amphetryon
2016-06-28, 08:00 AM
I think metaplots and regular timeline advancements never work in the favor of the players.

If this is true, then I do not know how any campaign setting can fit your criteria of 'Player friendly.' Any NPC motivations, any actions that take place off-screen, can reasonably be described as metaplot and timeline advancements. If they NEVER work in the favor of the Players, then no campaign setting can model NPCs as other than cardboard cutouts.

Lord Torath
2016-06-28, 08:21 AM
Dark Sun was originally billed this way. As they hit the higher levels, the PCs were supposed to get huge armies, or special magical powers, and have a major influence on the setting. The Dragon Kings supplement took this up to 11.

But then TSR released the Prism Pentad, and the published adventures had the PCs playing second fiddle to the heroes of that series. Later on, they did have the PCs' ultra-powerful mentor get ganked by the opposition, (and Tyr's city council became a useless bunch of self-centered whiners top permit the PCs to shine) but that may be a case of Too Little, Too Late.

If you ignore the Prism Pentad (or view it as a possible path the PCs could take, rather than things that actually happened in the setting) it's still pretty great. Before the Prism Pentad, all the big movers and shakers are the Bad Guys (sorcerer kings, the Dragon).

Joe the Rat
2016-06-28, 08:25 AM
I would like to through out setting that are made as the campaign progresses. I guess just custom settings but if you fill them in as you go along they tend to be tailored for the campaign and the players. Or course you can't publish that, so it is more of a strategy than a setting, but I find it can work.That's essentially how I'm running mine. Want to do something? I'll stick it in this blank space!

A half-finished setting let's you take player ideas and weave them in. "Wouldn't it be cool if..." Okay, now we add that. Race, backstory, organization, lost world of prehistoric beasts, we'll find a home. Give them enough hooks to tie into the world, and enough room that you can add their hooks to the world.

But in a more general sense:
The world should exist beyond the characters. There are things going on beyond the horizon. Some the players may know, others they hear rumors, others waiting for them to find out. If there are titanic battles between dragons and wizards, that's the backdrop. It's a story, and a big one, but not the story you should care about, because it's not the player's story. D-Day was a big event in WWII, but you're in the Pacific Theater, and right now you have an island invasion to plan. Or you're in New Jersey, rooting out Nazi Saboteurs.

It scales up and down There are things the party can't handle (yet), there are things the party shouldn't bother with, pretty much everywhere. NPCs and monsters alike. Legendary beasts, and famous champions the players may have heard of, or may even look up to. If the ultimate badass isn't handling something, there's a reason. Maybe there's a bigger battle elsewhere they must attend to. Maybe he's king now, with the responsibilities of state. Maybe rival wizards are in a Cold War (each with a counter to the other's magics), and the players are catspaws to resolve the conflict.

A mechanical metaphor... Things will happen without player involvement... like a giant clockwork. You have a broader set of events that should resolve in a certain way without intervention.

...and your players are tools That is, until the players get involved. The impact should be in line with power. Rookies may change a step in a broader scheme. Veterans change the tide of battle. Champions set the course of events. Your setting should change to reflect that impact. Breaking the world is a feature, not a bug.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-28, 11:04 AM
I think you should do that for a short period of time (3/4 sessions)
and then kick them out of the organization.

Please, don't do this! Nothing irritates me more then DM fiat wrecking my plans. What if I had planned on staying, invested resources, schemed and schmoozed my way into the good graces of this organization? Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed if the only reason that it failed was that 'the DM was planning on it'.


Pick like 3-10 Races that exist. and use those to build countries/cities.

Another thing I disagree with. Without good reason, pure race countries can be boring and sometimes feel 'odd' or like the DM is shoving the race into the place. It could work, but it requires a bit of work to explain why these people are so xenophobic yet are quite willing to trade with each other with minimal violence. Mixed race countries can be quite interesting as well, and might explain the racial make up of the party better.

Knaight
2016-06-28, 12:03 PM
If this is true, then I do not know how any campaign setting can fit your criteria of 'Player friendly.' Any NPC motivations, any actions that take place off-screen, can reasonably be described as metaplot and timeline advancements. If they NEVER work in the favor of the Players, then no campaign setting can model NPCs as other than cardboard cutouts.

That's not what those are generally used for though - it's more the existence of a hard timeline in a published setting, where the PCs are inserted somewhere in the middle and thus constrained by it. If you're in year 650, and in year 660 there's a notable event where Lord Whatshisface murders Lord Whosthisguy and takes over Somearea, then the PCs can't do anything to deter this. They can't cause Somearea to be taken over by anyone, they can't do anything to Lords Whatshisface or Whosthisguy that would remove them from the site of the murder (getting Whatshisface to be peaceful, driving either away, killing either, whatever), so on and so forth. The same thing applies with metaplots. If the setting is only defined in its starting conditions though, there's no real constraints like that.

Another example would be taking settings from other media. If you're playing a Star Wars game, there are a whole bunch of established characters who you don't get to interact with in certain ways. You can never kill Darth Vader, you can never save Obi Wan, etc. Obviously you could just ignore canon in either way, but the point is that the existence of a canon storyline severely constrains PC action. That is a completely different situation than NPCs having motivations and doing things off-screen.

Yora
2016-06-28, 03:06 PM
I feel Star Wars is a bit of a special case in that the setting is still quite interesting beyond the plot of the main story. If you completely ignore the movies, there is still an interesting world to play in. In contrast, Middle-Earth exists only for the plot and there is not really anything else to explore or do beyond it.

The One Ring found a workaround by focusing on a part of the plot that was described only extremely briefly. You know in advance that Aragorn will become king of Gondor and Frodo will make it to Mount Doom and Sauron will be destroyed. You know in advance that the war in the North will be a victory for the free peoples and nothing the players can do will change that. But what the players can change is who will survive and what will be left of the region when the war is over.
It works, and it makes player actions meaningful. But the solution is still to keep the campaign entirely separated from the heroes of the book. And unlike Star Wars, there is really only this one thing you can do. Survive until the war is over. It's not a setting that offers anything else to do in it.

In a Star Wars game you don't have to play the Rebellion. There are many other good concepts for a campaign. But I think this is primarily because of the Expanded Universe that already expanded the world from the movies into other areas. (Somewhat ironically, as the Expanded Universe began with a Rebellion-focused RPG.) But I think the Star Wars movies also did some groundwork that you don't have with Lord of the Rings by putting many hints at a larger world that exists beyond the Rebellion story. There's Jabba's smuggling business, the bounty hunters, Lando's gas mine, and the former Jedi Knights who must have been fighting someone before the Empire, and it probably wasn't smugglers. The movies give only very little about that, but it's still clearly implied that there are many more factions who are concerned with their own interests that don't have anything to do with the Rebellion. You have to make it up yourself, but you can expand on something that is already there.

Yora
2016-06-30, 06:20 AM
What is your view on the best way to handle potential adventure sites in campaign settings? I was rather unsatisfied with the way they were often handled in various Forgotten Realms books. For example, one dungeon is described as being guarded by a group of elves from the local communities who only let people in who have been given special permission by their leaders. That's interesting, but as a GM what would I do with that? Another location is described by only mentioning that there have been stories of large frog-creatures dancing around fires in the ruins. Or one of which the description only reveals that there is a room with multiple portals to other worlds somewhere deep down.

This is stuff that makes you curious, but as a GM it also seems useless. These are nice rumors to tell the players to get them interested, but as GM I am given almost nothing. Place descriptions of this type are interesting to read, but they don't really provide anything for the players to do.
In a campaign setting meant to be played in, I would wish for material that has practical use.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-30, 11:35 AM
Fine hooks, but no meat to them. A suggestion is that you lay out your hook and make it plenty vague. Rumors, legends, accounts from unreliable people, things going missing, etc. And then you give 1-3 possibilities of what it could be. If the DM wants to make their own thing, they will, but getting some inspiration from ideas is always good. And if you make it multiple options, the DM can play around with the idea and pick the one they think is most fun.

Yora
2016-06-30, 02:23 PM
I think one thing that might work is to give half a page of discription for each adventure location that reads a bit like a concept draft for a location based adventure. Something that gives GMs a good idea how to turn that place into an adventure but leaving open the details such as floorplan and monster placement. Some kind of framework, like a coloring book. The basic idea is already there, but each GM will have to make up the details.
But this means that such a setting book would have to be written really for GMs only. If some of the players have read the description of a place before, it wouldn't be a huge problem as they still have no clue what they will find behind each door and corner. But such a book would be strictly a GM manual, not a general setting guidebook.

I could imagine something like the 3rd edition D&D books for Forgotten Realms and Eberron that describes all the places only in terms of common knowledge that would be easy to get for any PCs that are in that area. And in addition to that another small booklet with half-page blurbs with instructions for GMs how to create a dungeon with interesting descoveries for each place.

Cluedrew
2016-06-30, 02:40 PM
Here is a question that occurred to me from the last few posts:

Is a player friendly campaign setting different from a GM friendly campaign setting? And if so, how?

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-30, 03:28 PM
I have never seen a setting where having a separate Player's Guide/GM's Guide wasn't a good idea. I don't want spoilers, I want to know the history of my homeland so I can mock our enemy with how great my people are! I want to know our culture and customs, not the dang plot!

And I don't really think there can be a GM friendly campaign that isn't Player Friendly. If the Players hate the setting, they're not having fun. If the GM can't run things competently, there's not much of a game going on. Maybe if you consider a very loose and light set of rules meant for Kick in the Door style gameplay? Even that is helping the players.

Yora
2016-06-30, 03:30 PM
If there is any difference it would be marginal.

My main line of thought is about settings that are designed to be played in.

If the GM wants the PCs to be the heroes of the campaign and give them the freedom to take charge, then the things that make a setting player friendly or GM friendly are probably lining up perfectly. But you also can have GMs who are more interested in having the players follow a great story and experience it in first person what he has written for them. In that case, the things that make things easier for the GM would not be the same things that give players freedom to explore and influece the world in their own way. (Though a lot of people think this way of gamemastering is bad gamemastering.)

Darth Ultron
2016-06-30, 05:41 PM
It does depend what you think makes a setting friendly. I think your getting to the idea of the whole setting being made and revolving around the player characters. A lot like the the PC's are the stars of a movie. The whole setting is stopped in time, unless the PC's do something. Nothing 'of any real consequence happens in the setting, unless the PC's do it. And most of all the setting is full of false drama things like ''PC #1 is the chosen one of destiny'', ''PC# 2 is the LAST of the White Wizards and is the heir to their power'' and ''PC # 3 is ''the son of the dragon high god''.

This type of setting is very friendly to the players. To tell a player ''your character is super special and unique'' and they will love how ''friendly'' the setting is. And to sweeten the pot, make sure to give the character a super powerful item....

RedMage125
2016-07-01, 09:39 AM
I'm gonna agree that Eberron gets my vote.

Also, I agre that Dark Sun is player-friendly by the OP's definition, which is ironic, because the setting itself is not CHARACTER-friendly. The environment may well be the most terrible antagonist the PCs face.


You can play in Forgotten Realms just as well as in Middle-Earth, but Middle-Earth was not created as a campaign setting for players. (Neither was Forgotten Realms for that matter, which might be part of its problems.)

Untrue. FR was originally Ed Greenwood's home campaign setting. You can make a better case for that with Krynn. Dragonlance campaign setting and books were developed at the same time.

Yora
2016-07-01, 10:01 AM
No, he had started creating the world long before RPGs were even a thing. He then used it for his campaigns later and after that it was picked up by TSR. (Who supposedly were looking to for a new setting quickly after Gygax had left and they didn't want to rely on Greyhawk anymore.)

Milo v3
2016-07-01, 10:05 AM
I think your getting to the idea of the whole setting being made and revolving around the player characters.
I don't think that's what anyone was getting to. This is more about being player friendly, not player character friendly. To be honest, having the setting revolve around the PC's sounds less player friendly.

Honest Tiefling
2016-07-01, 11:45 AM
I think the basis of a play friendly campaign for MOST people would be the ability to have an impact on the game at the scope it is presented. Low magic gritty fantasy with limited travel? Then the ability to save a town from bandits. High fantasy campaign? Ability to save a kingdom. And so forth.

Now, how easy this is should of course vary...

Cluedrew
2016-07-01, 04:37 PM
I don't think that's what anyone was getting to. This is more about being player friendly, not player character friendly. To be honest, having the setting revolve around the PC's sounds less player friendly.Really I think the question mostly boils down to "what makes a good campaign setting". There is a particular focus on the players having an active role and meaningful impact, which opposes it to setting that are good for, say, telling passive stories in.

For instance those settings some people have talked about that are problematic because of the books written for them; I've read those books. I enjoyed a lot of them. Did I have any urge to play a game in those settings. No, not even once as far as I can recall.

Also, if you think easy=fun may I introduce you to a game called Dwarf Fortress 2 and its motto: "Losing is Fun."

Darth Ultron
2016-07-01, 06:10 PM
I don't think that's what anyone was getting to. This is more about being player friendly, not player character friendly. To be honest, having the setting revolve around the PC's sounds less player friendly.

Let the games begin....

So what makes a setting friendly to the players. Ok, nothing. A setting is either a book on a shelf or an imaginary thing, so it can't be friendly to anyone or anything. So everyone must be talking about something else.


I think the basis of a play friendly campaign for MOST people would be the ability to have an impact on the game at the scope it is presented. ...

Odd, that seems to be along the lines of what I said, but I though no one was talking about that, hum?

Milo v3
2016-07-01, 06:42 PM
Really I think the question mostly boils down to "what makes a good campaign setting". There is a particular focus on the players having an active role and meaningful impact, which opposes it to setting that are good for, say, telling passive stories in.

For instance those settings some people have talked about that are problematic because of the books written for them; I've read those books. I enjoyed a lot of them. Did I have any urge to play a game in those settings. No, not even once as far as I can recall.
I agree with this, though I don't feel as though players having an active role/meaningful impact necessitates the setting revolves around the PC's. It would allow them to have an active role or meaningful impact, but it has the issue of limiting characters to being "chosen ones" or "your part of this super special organisation the world revolves around" which sounds very very limiting to me plot, world, and character-wise.


Also, if you think easy=fun may I introduce you to a game called Dwarf Fortress 2 and its motto: "Losing is Fun."
I am unsure why you are saying this to me.... I didn't suggest that easy=fun.... If anything I was saying something more towards the easy=!fun side.


Let the games begin....

So what makes a setting friendly to the players. Ok, nothing. A setting is either a book on a shelf or an imaginary thing, so it can't be friendly to anyone or anything. So everyone must be talking about something else.
Uh what? The whole thread has been talking about ways it can be friendly? It's just that "the entire setting revolves around the players" hasn't really featured.


Odd, that seems to be along the lines of what I said, but I though no one was talking about that, hum?
What you quoted is not really along the lines of what you said. "Players are able to have an impact on the setting" doesn't really equal nor lead to "Setting revolves around the players". Did you mean to quote something else?

Cluedrew
2016-07-01, 06:54 PM
To Milo v3:The losing is fun comment was actually directed towards Darth Ultron. Although I realize I didn't actually say that. Easy things can be fun as well, but the two are hardly the same thing.

Also I still see you as that blond guy holding the pink pillar. That was you who had that avatar right?

Milo v3
2016-07-01, 07:02 PM
Easy things can be fun as well, but the two are hardly the same thing.
Yeah, easy can be fun. Just doesn't equal it.


Also I still see you as that blond guy holding the pink pillar. That was you who had that avatar right?
Hah, yeah. Was an in-joke with the Gramarie community (we put super-science into D&D), but as that community faded I went back to this older avatar of mine back from when I was in a giant Kobolds vs. Gnomes thread. :smalltongue:

Darth Ultron
2016-07-01, 07:40 PM
I agree with this, though I don't feel as though players having an active role/meaningful impact necessitates the setting revolves around the PC's. It would allow them to have an active role or meaningful impact, but it has the issue of limiting characters to being "chosen ones" or "your part of this super special organisation the world revolves around" which sounds very very limiting to me plot, world, and character-wise.


I do agree that having a world that revolves around the PC's is is very limiting. Though I would also say the same for the '' having an active role/meaningful impact ''. I'd even say that the two things are the exact same thing. ''Having an active role/meaningful impact '' is just a long winded way of saying ''special'' .

See, only ''special'' characters can have ''an active role/meaningful impact '' on anything. ''Normal or non-special'' characters can do ''nothing''.

Unless you can somehow explain how a non-special character can have an active role or meaningful impact? Without just ''saying so'', and having a real explanation.

Milo v3
2016-07-01, 08:01 PM
I do agree that having a world that revolves around the PC's is is very limiting. Though I would also say the same for the '' having an active role/meaningful impact ''. I'd even say that the two things are the exact same thing. ''Having an active role/meaningful impact '' is just a long winded way of saying ''special'' .

See, only ''special'' characters can have ''an active role/meaningful impact '' on anything. ''Normal or non-special'' characters can do ''nothing''.

Unless you can somehow explain how a non-special character can have an active role or meaningful impact? Without just ''saying so'', and having a real explanation.
Oh kay.... my current players just saved a town and stopped the source of goblin raids that were plaguing it. Their characters are not "special", and the setting of Golarion does not revolve around them in any way... That was pretty easy.

As far as I'm aware, you have to go out of your way plot/world-wise in order for the characters to be special or for the world to revolve around them... Just don't do that, and the world doesn't revolve around them. I'm not sure why ''having an active role/meaningful impact" would be limiting, could you expand on this?

Cluedrew
2016-07-01, 09:20 PM
I do agree that having a world that revolves around the PC's is is very limiting. Though I would also say the same for the '' having an active role/meaningful impact ''. I'd even say that the two things are the exact same thing. ''Having an active role/meaningful impact '' is just a long winded way of saying ''special'' .

See, only ''special'' characters can have ''an active role/meaningful impact '' on anything. ''Normal or non-special'' characters can do ''nothing''.I've had an active role and meaningful impact on my parents life*. No I didn't save the world, I don't think I've saved anyone's life even. But I have done something.

You see "special" means what we want it to mean and the majority of the special people in real life were completely normal people until they took the opportunity to play an active role and made a meaningful impact. Now looking back we call them special, but that is in retrospect.

So, random philosophy aside, it is not about the making the PCs special or the center of the setting, it is about given them opportunities. If they do enough with them they will become special, but they will have earned it by then.

* Other people's too, but I don't think this one requires any additional explanation.

Darth Ultron
2016-07-01, 09:37 PM
Oh kay.... my current players just saved a town and stopped the source of goblin raids that were plaguing it. Their characters are not "special", and the setting of Golarion does not revolve around them in any way... That was pretty easy.

Right, see this is the endless word play. ''my characters did something no one else could do, but that does not make them special, even though they are not like any other character in the setting.'' It's the worst psychobabble. It's the endless run around: ''X is noting like anything else, but I will say it is, even when it's not, but it is and it's not. '' It's being on both sides at the same time, depending on what side you want to be on at the time.



As far as I'm aware, you have to go out of your way plot/world-wise in order for the characters to be special or for the world to revolve around them... Just don't do that, and the world doesn't revolve around them. I'm not sure why ''having an active role/meaningful impact" would be limiting, could you expand on this?

A character can't have a ''active role/meaningful impact" on a world unless they are special and the world revolves around them. It's simple enough.


I've had an active role and meaningful impact on my parents life*. No I didn't save the world, I don't think I've saved anyone's life even. But I have done something.

You might note I'm at least not talking about reality.

Milo v3
2016-07-01, 09:49 PM
Right, see this is the endless word play. ''my characters did something no one else could do, but that does not make them special, even though they are not like any other character in the setting.'' It's the worst psychobabble. It's the endless run around: ''X is noting like anything else, but I will say it is, even when it's not, but it is and it's not. '' It's being on both sides at the same time, depending on what side you want to be on at the time.
What makes you think that no one else could do it? There was no wordplay involved. You're making assumptions based on no information that would suggest that assumption.


A character can't have a ''active role/meaningful impact" on a world unless they are special and the world revolves around them. It's simple enough.
Could you provide some evidence for this?

Cluedrew
2016-07-01, 09:56 PM
You might note I'm at least not talking about reality.I might. Or I might have already done that and simply used reality as an example. Sort of like a hypothetical situation except the opposite.


A character can't have a ''active role/meaningful impact" on a world unless they are special and the world revolves around them. It's simple enough.But that doesn't make it correct. If you want to convince me (and maybe some other people) you are going to have to explain why. Because I am not convinced.

Darth Ultron
2016-07-01, 10:07 PM
What makes you think that no one else could do it? There was no wordplay involved. You're making assumptions based on no information that would suggest that assumption.

My evidence would be: no one else did.



Could you provide some evidence for this?

A normal fictional character can not effect the world at all. It's the definition of normal.

Now, I don't know about the whole alphabet soup of wacky games out there, but in D&D/Pathfinder that PC's are very much set apart from the normal world right in the rules. In other words they are special.

And even more so, the whole game play is bias....and some games even more so then others. If you use anything like the ''role playing gentleman agreement'' or any idea of ''fairness'' then your treating the PC's special. Your altering the reality of the whole game world just for them.

Milo v3
2016-07-01, 11:18 PM
My evidence would be: no one else did.
I have picked up the brush to my right. Is that evidence no one else could ever lift the brush to my right?


A normal fictional character can not effect the world at all. It's the definition of normal.
Incorrect, "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected." is the definition of normal.


Now, I don't know about the whole alphabet soup of wacky games out there, but in D&D/Pathfinder that PC's are very much set apart from the normal world right in the rules. In other words they are special.
Actually in Pathfinder (I haven't actually looked at D&D's settings really so I cannot credibly discuss them), there are many with class levels and even high level spellcasters can be found in nearly every city. The town they saved even had people higher level than them in it.


And even more so, the whole game play is bias....and some games even more so then others. If you use anything like the ''role playing gentleman agreement'' or any idea of ''fairness'' then your treating the PC's special. Your altering the reality of the whole game world just for them.
You are right in that many games are biased so that the PC's Are special. In Exalted for example, you are definitely special-snow-flakes and the default character type is actually the "Best" of the "Super-rare superhumans".

Exalted's setting is one I would say is rather player friendly, very open to possibilities for different character motivations. Though I would says that is isn't GM-friendly, while it is big-enough with enough "blank spots" that a gamesmaster can have a lot of freedom, it requires too much work when it comes to needing to make stats for things from nothing far too often in my opinion.

Sam113097
2016-07-02, 12:46 AM
In my opinion, different types of worlds will be "friendly" to different types of players.
Players that prefer a "hack-n-slash" game focusing on action and adventure tend to prefer sandbox/open-world games, while players who focus on the role playing aspect and their individual characters might prefer a world tailored to their specific characters.

Yora
2016-07-02, 02:24 AM
I'd say one thing that makes a setting less then ideal for campaign play is when you'd say "You can't do that because that would lead to a change that would likely be incompatible with what will officially happen later".

Failing to make a change because the opposition is too great is okay. Not having a chance because canon overrules it is something I think a setting meant to be played in should not do.

Another thing that is less then ideal for running a campaign is when the players are wondering why they are needed in the first place. Good setting design should start with outlining the role of player characters in the world and then build the organizations and NPCs around that.

Eberron does that very well. It's a world where the international order has broken down and nobody trusts anyone else, so people in power rely on independent mercenaries to get things done that are legally gray or fall outside anyone's official responsibility.
Star Wars, even though made as a movie setting and expanded into a book setting, happens to be very popular for RPGs because it accidentally happens to be a pretty good environment for PCs to have adventures. Rebells and smugglers make for great PCs at all levels.

I think perhaps one of the big problems with Forgotten Realms is that it is a setting specifically for D&D and that means people expect it to work for characters of all levels. But all the fiction for the setting is either High or Epic Level. All the examples of what kinds of adventures are possible in this setting only become viable once the party has reached 15th level or so. When you start at 1st or 5th level, the things you can do don't actually line up with the examples the setting provides.

I have a similar problem with Dark Sun. As a world it's great, but what exactly is the role of player characters? You start at 3rd level and then what? Who needs your services? What goals can you work towards to? The setting itself doesn't really provide any inbuilt incentives.

A third thing I just thought of when mentioning Star Wars is worlds that look like they are completely mapped out. Most maps for campaign settings don't seem to have any blank spots left. One thing that makes Star Wars attractive to me as a GM is that you can always add new star systems any time you like. It's an accidental effect, but one that comes directly from how the world was originally designed. The movies told us there's a whole galaxy but make up new planets that have never been mentioned before as they go. Star Wars is more a template instead of a map. Once you know the rules (Rebells, Empire, Smugglers, Jedi, Sith, blasters, spaceships) you can create completely new content as you like and it's very hard to make it contradict previously established informtion. This does not directly infuence player friendliness, but I think greatly increases the usefulness as a campaign setting for GMs in a way that makes it easy to let the players make a big splash.

Milo v3
2016-07-02, 02:39 AM
I'd say one thing that makes a setting less then ideal for campaign play is when you'd say "You can't do that because that would lead to a change that would likely be incompatible with what will officially happen later".
That's one of the reasons I think I will always dislike metaplot in tabletop RPG's.


A third thing I just thought of when mentioning Star Wars is worlds that look like they are completely mapped out. Most maps for campaign settings don't seem to have any blank spots left. One thing that makes Star Wars attractive to me as a GM is that you can always add new star systems any time you like. It's an accidental effect, but one that comes directly from how the world was originally designed. The movies told us there's a whole galaxy but make up new planets that have never been mentioned before as they go. Star Wars is more a template instead of a map. Once you know the rules (Rebells, Empire, Smugglers, Jedi, Sith, blasters, spaceships) you can create completely new content as you like and it's very hard to make it contradict previously established informtion. This does not directly infuence player friendliness, but I think greatly increases the usefulness as a campaign setting for GMs in a way that makes it easy to let the players make a big splash.
I do wish more settings had blank spots, or just "major" locations that they only give the barest information on so we can fill in that Important nations information ourselves while still having it as a setting detail that that place is important.... if that makes any sense.

goto124
2016-07-02, 02:52 AM
I'd say one thing that makes a setting less then ideal for campaign play is when you'd say "You can't do that because that would lead to a change that would likely be incompatible with what will officially happen later".

If something WILL officially happen later, is that a setting or a pre-written, pre-plotted module?

If it possible for a setting to have a lot of details in different places, and yet still allow GMs to remove or replace some of those details with their own?

Yora
2016-07-02, 04:35 AM
Not advancing the timeline certainly helps.

Instead of regular updates of what has changed recently, I think a better way to expand a setting is to indtroduce new adventure hooks like dungeons and antagonists.


I do wish more settings had blank spots, or just "major" locations that they only give the barest information on so we can fill in that Important nations information ourselves while still having it as a setting detail that that place is important.... if that makes any sense.

It seems to be something that has become more popular with very small scale productions. Yoon-Suin is a good example of that, being mostly a toolbox to generate your own content that follows the distinctive style of the setting. Red Tide and Spears of the Dawn are other examples. (My own setting also follows such an approach, but who knows when that might ever see a release.) Then there's Atlantis: The Second Age that is very broad strokes, and I got similar impressions from Shadows of Esteren and Symbaroum.
It's actually a lot easier to write as well.

Herobizkit
2016-07-02, 04:50 AM
Dungeon World has the players work directly with the GM to create the setting AS THEY PLAY.

Can't get much more player friendly than that. ^_^

PersonMan
2016-07-02, 05:45 AM
My evidence would be: no one else did.

"Literally no one else could have possibly inflated this tire except for me, which makes me Special and the Chosen One, which is evidenced by the fact that no one else did it before me. No way it's just because I'm the first guy who came by who had the right tools to inflate this tire, or that the other guy who came by was too busy to stop and inflate it, no it must be this."


A normal fictional character can not effect the world at all. It's the definition of normal.

Most people don't read or play in fictional worlds based around every character being a rock.

Cluedrew
2016-07-02, 07:21 AM
I'd say one thing that makes a setting less then ideal for campaign play is when you'd say "You can't do that because that would lead to a change that would likely be incompatible with what will officially happen later".How about this then:

A player friendly campaign setting is one where the plot is defined by the player( character)'s actions and is not pre-determined.

I should also say that this does not mean that events cannot move forward without the PCs, or even that some events will not be difficult for the players to change, just that the events are not set and can change with intervention of the PCs.

Yora
2016-07-02, 07:37 AM
This also comes back to metaplots and timeline advancements.

A campaign setting is not a plot. (Or at least it should not be.) It's a stage for the adventures of the player characters.

Drascin
2016-07-02, 08:01 AM
Okay, glazing over Ultron's posts...

So anyway, my feeling is that what makes a setting player-friendly is a setting that is designed too give players options and things to do. A setting that is written in order to be played in, not a setting written purely to worldbuild, and therefore a setting where a new group of characters are given enough "ins" that they can meaningfully interact with it and achieve things proactively, rather than just being there for the ride.

To take an example, Exalted has often had that first problem. There are a lot of areas in Exalted's world, called Creation, where you have a lot of interesting history, and some NPCs, and bits where the economics and such make sense, and all that... but by the time I'm finished reading the section my thought is, "okay, so what do my players DO here. What are the hooks that make this area worth devoting four pages of the book to it and make it different ass an adventuring place from other places".

Basically, a good RPG setting remembers it's a place to play in first, and a work of literature and worldbuilding second. Good worldbuilding is important, of course, but it's only the second most important thing involved in setting writing!

Amphetryon
2016-07-02, 08:21 AM
This also comes back to metaplots and timeline advancements.

A campaign setting is not a plot. (Or at least it should not be.) It's a stage for the adventures of the player characters.

Could you please clarify this? How do you create a campaign setting that is a stage for the adventurers, that is not a plot? How can the NPCs that populate the world exist within it without their own goals, motivations, and other bits that create plot? If that's not what you're saying, then how, exactly, are you separating the idea of 'plot' from 'stage for the adventures of the player characters?'

Milo v3
2016-07-02, 09:08 AM
Could you please clarify this? How do you create a campaign setting that is a stage for the adventurers, that is not a plot? How can the NPCs that populate the world exist within it without their own goals, motivations, and other bits that create plot? If that's not what you're saying, then how, exactly, are you separating the idea of 'plot' from 'stage for the adventures of the player characters?'
By having the setting at "year x, day y" and then, not going past year x and day y.

goto124
2016-07-02, 09:22 AM
Could you please clarify this? How do you create a campaign setting that is a stage for the adventurers, that is not a plot? How can the NPCs that populate the world exist within it without their own goals, motivations, and other bits that create plot? If that's not what you're saying, then how, exactly, are you separating the idea of 'plot' from 'stage for the adventures of the player characters?'

Milo meant 'plot' as in 'first the PCs must go to meet this specific guy, then go to this specific place and kill this specific person in this specific in this specific manner...'. Something pre-planned by the DM, and can easily become railroading.

Yora
2016-07-02, 09:46 AM
And I think that's what it mostly comes down to. A campaign setting has to give the players agency. By not limiting what they can do through merchandise fiction, but also by giving them something to work with.

I would say that RPGs are by their very nature all about the players. Whatever it is what player characters do in the world, that's what the setting should be focusing on. Not every fictional world needs to be made for maximum playability, but from a world designed as a campaign setting that's something you should expect.

Milo v3
2016-07-02, 09:58 AM
There are a lot of areas in Exalted's world, called Creation, where you have a lot of interesting history, and some NPCs, and bits where the economics and such make sense, and all that... but by the time I'm finished reading the section my thought is, "okay, so what do my players DO here.
I think nearly all the white-wolf style games have this issue, spend a lot of time on setting, but I'm often left with my players wondering what they are meant to actually do. Even as GM it can be difficult because of the blank canvas.


I would say that RPGs are by their very nature all about the players. Whatever it is what player characters do in the world, that's what the setting should be focusing on. Not every fictional world needs to be made for maximum playability, but from a world designed as a campaign setting that's something you should expect.

And now we're talking about something along the lines of what Ultron was talking about.

Amphetryon
2016-07-02, 10:10 AM
Milo meant 'plot' as in 'first the PCs must go to meet this specific guy, then go to this specific place and kill this specific person in this specific in this specific manner...'. Something pre-planned by the DM, and can easily become railroading.

You'll note I wasn't quoting Milo when I asked the question.

Tiktakkat
2016-07-02, 10:51 AM
The issue is not whether the PCs are the only ones who "can" save the world/kingdom/village.
The issues is that the PCs are the ones who ARE saving the world/kingdom/village.
If they weren't, they wouldn't be the PCs, and either everyone would be reading the same book or watching the same movie together, or the players would be playing different characters, and they would be the ones who are saving the world/kingdom/village. That is inherent to the game.

The only way to vary that is to have adventures that are simply not predicated on such grand quests. Which is not that impossible. Conan certainly managed a considerable number of adventures where he just went around being a murder hobo.
The thing is, even Conan ultimately wound up ruling a kingdom, and at a certain point players are likely to wonder why they never manage any such achievements.

That doesn't mean you have to drive EVERYTHING in your campaign by the actions of the PCs. Except of course when you do, you are back to reading a story to the rest of the group rather than actually playing the game.

This is one of the fundamental aspects of the development of the hobby.
The game started as a way to put fantasy into historical miniatures play.
It expanded into individual unit, aka "character", advancement, but still based on glorified arena combat, aka "dungeon crawling".
Slowly the concept of the home base, aka "town", grew until it became entire settings.
This wasn't something forced on the game - people wanted some backstory.
And with backstory invariably comes relevance - the PCs have a place in the world because they are part of the world.

If you want the PCs to be utterly irrelevant, fine! It is your game, run it how you like. Aimless dungeon crawls were good enough back in the ancient days, they are good enough now.
But if you want a setting, be aware that it comes with baggage, and part of that baggage is going to be players wanting to contribute to it. Deny them that and don't be surprised when they lose interest.
You don't have to make them rulers of everything, but they should have some relevance.
Otherwise, why should anyone care about their story?

Honest Tiefling
2016-07-02, 11:41 AM
Dungeon World has the players work directly with the GM to create the setting AS THEY PLAY.

Can't get much more player friendly than that. ^_^

I disagree, but I haven't tried this system either. But it would seem to me that making stuff up as everyone goes along would generally produce a world with no coherent technology level, theme, feel, magic, trade, or geography. For some people, this would work out fine because they get to express themselves. For others, they'll wonder why there's a coastal desert on the wrong side of a rain shadow and why these people have guns and no clear way to keep control of said guns.

Then again, my players are all a bunch of cats and trying to herd them doesn't work. Maybe I should get out a spray bottle every time someone takes out a phone...

Cluedrew
2016-07-02, 12:27 PM
On Making-It-Up as You Go: I've tried it, not in Dungeon World mind you, and it works. It does seem to require a few extra things to work:
Everyone to have an understanding of what the standards in the setting are. Although you can make up the exceptions as you go everyone should have a rough idea of how things usually work. Actually I think you really always need this, so you just lose out on examples.
More player creativity, you get less hooks in this set up so sometimes players have to make up the difference. Either through backstory or in-game initiative.Actually that might be it. Well, I suppose there is one more and that is just learning about how to make settings up on the fly, but that is just practice and is hard to call out on its own.

The Insanity
2016-07-02, 12:41 PM
To me a player-friendly setting is one that gives a lot of plothooks and places to go. That is what makes Forgotten Realms (at least the 3.5 ed. version) my favorite. I never even read any of the FR novels and still there's enough material about the world that I can run countless adventures in it. And if I feel in an uncreative mood I can use some of the many pre-made encounters or mini-adventures that are featured in the FR splatbooks.

Thrudd
2016-07-02, 12:56 PM
To me, "player friendly" would mean a world which is built around the concept the game is based on. A game needs a clear purpose and objective for the players.
In D&D, players control characters who are meant to search for treasure and magic items and eventually become heroes or rulers in their world. So this world needs to be designed in a way that there are many sources of lost treasure and magic items in places difficult to reach (otherwise someone else would have got them already), and leading the life of an adventurer is a profession that makes sense. It should make sense that returning wealth from those places increases a person's power and influence.

A Gamma World/mutant future type game should have a very similar setting. The game is based on players searching for tech to scavenge in the ruins of advanced civilization. It should be a world full of ruins, rival gangs and warlords. Possessing working tech is what gives people power, and so the people who can recover it from the mutant-filled wastelands and avoid alien cyborgs and dangerous environmental conditions will rise in influence and value the more successful they are, eventually perhaps becoming warlords themselves.

Whatever role the players are meant to play, the setting should include ways for the players to clearly pursue their characters' goals in an believable manner.

A setting that is not "player friendly" would be one where the characters have no clear path to pursue until the GM starts the plot and events happen to them. Where there is no clear "adventure" to be had. If the players need to ask you "what do we do?", you either have a poor setting or have not explained the setting and their place in it sufficiently.

Yora
2016-07-02, 03:21 PM
To me a player-friendly setting is one that gives a lot of plothooks and places to go. That is what makes Forgotten Realms (at least the 3.5 ed. version) my favorite. I never even read any of the FR novels and still there's enough material about the world that I can run countless adventures in it. And if I feel in an uncreative mood I can use some of the many pre-made encounters or mini-adventures that are featured in the FR splatbooks.

My problem with Forgotten Realms in particular, but it also applies to Eberron and Dark Sun, is that those hooks are all too flimsy for me. The writers always just tell you that there is a secret to discover, but don't tell the GM what that secret is. In theory you could just make up your own answer, but then those timeline advances come in and you're never sure how later releases will be contradicting what you made up.
As a GM I never felt comfortable with that and the end result was that I never touched any of those places and NPCs. You can just decide that your world is different from the official setting, but from there it's only one more step to running a homebrew setting that uses some ideas from other settings.

Darth Ultron
2016-07-02, 03:58 PM
I'd say one thing that makes a setting less then ideal for campaign play is when you'd say "You can't do that because that would lead to a change that would likely be incompatible with what will officially happen later".

I don't get way so many people put the setting up on such an untouchable pedestal. If your really so worried about changing anything in the setting, then maybe you should not use the setting at all.

I've gamed in the Forgotten Realms right from the start, and I have never, ever cared one tiny bit about anything ''official'' TSR/Wizards ever did. My Realms are at best and Alternate Reality to the Core Realms.




Another thing that is less then ideal for running a campaign is when the players are wondering why they are needed in the first place. Good setting design should start with outlining the role of player characters in the world and then build the organizations and NPCs around that.

This is another Forgotten Realms complaint. Though, you should also note this is leading to the slipper sloe of the campaign revolving around the PCs.

I think making the players feel ''needed'' is the wrong way to go, and it makes the players feel to special and that the world revolves around them.



Eberron does that very well. It's a world where the international order has broken down and nobody trusts anyone else, so people in power rely on independent mercenaries to get things done that are legally gray or fall outside anyone's official responsibility.

And Eberron is desigened to be the anti-Forgotten Realms, go figure.




I think perhaps one of the big problems with Forgotten Realms is that it is a setting specifically for D&D and that means people expect it to work for characters of all levels. But all the fiction for the setting is either High or Epic Level. All the examples of what kinds of adventures are possible in this setting only become viable once the party has reached 15th level or so. When you start at 1st or 5th level, the things you can do don't actually line up with the examples the setting provides.

Exactly how many Forgotten Realms novels have you read? I'm going to guess it was not too many. There are dozens of low and mid level fiction. It's really cherry picking to single out a couple novels out of like 100 and say they represent the whole. I think you need to widen your examples...



I have a similar problem with Dark Sun. As a world it's great, but what exactly is the role of player characters? You start at 3rd level and then what? Who needs your services? What goals can you work towards to? The setting itself doesn't really provide any inbuilt incentives.

But again, your looking at it as the player characters are special and the world resolve around them. Your talking a very limited, closed campaign, exactly like a movie. your sitting the players down and saying ''OK, X has happened, you must do Y and Z to R and your the only ones that can do it...lets game''.



A third thing I just thought of when mentioning Star Wars is worlds that look like they are completely mapped out. Most maps for campaign settings don't seem to have any blank spots left. .

Odd, I see plenty of blank spots on all my Forgotten Realms maps. Most other settings too. There are also tons of spots that even after decades only have a paragraph written about them. But even a ''high detailed'' spot in a campaign setting, has about a billion holes.

It's so odd to hear the people read ''Onstock is a gnome kingdom'' and then just throw down the book and rant that they can't ''put'' what they want there. First off, you can put whatever you want anywhere. Second, after you read the whole paragraph about Onstock, you might notice they left about a trillion things out. No single paragraph can describe a whole kingdom. But as the paragraph says ''most gnomes are farmers'' that somehow stops you from having your undead dragon riding gnome warlords that you want to have in the game?



This also comes back to metaplots and timeline advancements.

A campaign setting is not a plot. (Or at least it should not be.) It's a stage for the adventures of the player characters.

I don't get why people make an issue about this. So what if someone ''officially'' says something? You can just ignore them. Try it, it works great.

There is also a neat trick, one that Ed Greenwood himself uses: set the timeframe of your game in the past. Simple. Easy. So the ''current game year in 2015 is 1010 in the game world'', and then some wacky writer in 2016 says '' in 1111 everything changes to make the setting more coolz like Eberron''. Wow, that is great, but it has no effect on a game set in 900.

Star Wars does this a lot by placing a lot of stuff ''between episode IV and V''.



As a GM I never felt comfortable with that and the end result was that I never touched any of those places and NPCs. You can just decide that your world is different from the official setting, but from there it's only one more step to running a homebrew setting that uses some ideas from other settings.

So how can you use any ''official'' published thing? Like an adventure? If the adventure Orc Mountain says ''five orcs guard the north cave'', then the PC's can't attack and kill them right? Because that would change the official adventure?

And how is that different then pure homebrew? The DM says ''five orcs guard the north cave'', then the PC's can't attack and kill them right? Because that would change the homebrewed adventure.

Cluedrew
2016-07-02, 05:13 PM
I don't get way so many people put the setting up on such an untouchable pedestal. If your really so worried about changing anything in the setting, then maybe you should not use the setting at all.

I've gamed in the Forgotten Realms right from the start, and I have never, ever cared one tiny bit about anything ''official'' TSR/Wizards ever did. My Realms are at best and Alternate Reality to the Core Realms.I can think of several reasons why, most of boil down to these two: they tend to be presented that way, as in that is how you are supposed to use them and changing them means extra work. They former you can ignore, the second may seem like a cop out but people to want to sit down and have fun (it is a game) and maybe they don't enjoy crafting a setting. That might even be why they are using an existing campaign setting in the first place.

Incidentally, I enjoy world building and every campaign I have ever run has been in a setting I built, or at least helped build, and often that setting was made just for that campaign.


I think making the players feel ''needed'' is the wrong way to go, and it makes the players feel to special and that the world revolves around them.It can and it should. No seriously the game should revolve around the players, the same cannot be said of the player characters. It is a subtle distinction but an important one. ... I mean maybe you meant to say player characters but I felt I should say this either way.


Exactly how many Forgotten Realms novels have you read? I'm going to guess it was not too many. There are dozens of low and mid level fiction. It's really cherry picking to single out a couple novels out of like 100 and say they represent the whole. I think you need to widen your examples...I have read a lot of D&D books and in general I would say that that "power" in the books does not map to the "power" in the game very well. Yes it can be done (and if you do it you get all sorts of levels) but ultimately I believe most authors didn't have character sheets in mind when they wrote the story.

My favourite example is I can recall all of one instance where there an event in the story even hinted at Valcan spell casting.

Faily
2016-07-02, 07:18 PM
It's completely possible to play a campaign setting and toss the official timeline out the window. I've done it all the time with Legend of the Five Rings and see many fellow GMs of it do the same... heck, L5R even published Imperial Histories I and II, where they outlined details of playing in certain time-periods in Rokugan, as well as alternate timelines where something else happened instead, basically encouraging that you do not need to follow the official storyline.

You can play Vampire: The Masquerade and drop the Gehenna meta-plot if you so wish, or play Forgotten Realms and not care about the Time of Troubles or the Spellplague (or whatever 4th edition was called), or play Dragonlance and decide to not have the gods sod off a second time. Playgroups do this ALL THE TIME, because campaign settings are not set in stone. They exist to provide a backdrop, to provide a starting point for all in the group to know about the setting.

To me, when I think of player-friendly campaign settings, I think of ones that aren't very complicated in terms of social order. To use L5R as an example again, as much as I love the setting, I do not often recommend it to new players or players unwilling to make an effort into learning the society of Rokugan; it's a society very different from many RPG-settings, and often features a lot more politics and social drama than an average D&D campaign (there are exceptions on both, of course).

So most D&D settings (from Forgotten Realms to Eberron), most White Wolf settings, and all of Star Wars are all campaign-settings I consider player-friendly. They have an easy point of entry; most D&D settings can be summarized to a new player as "imagine a fantasy world, kinda like Lord of the Rings", most White Wolf is set in the modern day of our own world so that's easy, and Star Wars is known to us through the movies.


Games like Ars Magica are set in medieval Europe, with a very clearly defined timeline of major events happening in Europe around the time. And as players and GMs, you are completely free to chuck that out and decide not to have these historically documented events happen. Because it's a game, and when you run a game, you have the power to decide what you want to include and exclude from a published campaign setting as you see fit.

And for the record, and I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with most of Darth Ultron's post above.

goto124
2016-07-02, 07:46 PM
You'll note I wasn't quoting Milo when I asked the question.

I meant Yora, my bad.

Cluedrew
2016-07-02, 08:23 PM
On Ignoring Cannon: It is true that if you are playing in an established setting you should probably just consider it "inspired" by the original setting and let things unfold on their own. Still I understand why people might not want to do that and would therefore like a setting where they don't have to do that.

I still like crafting my own settings, but that is something I enjoy for its own sake as well.

Milo v3
2016-07-02, 09:14 PM
I don't really understand the point of using a setting, and then deciding to ignore the setting. Why bother using the setting in the first place?

Cluedrew
2016-07-02, 09:24 PM
You don't ignore the entire setting just the parts of it you don't like. But then why have those parts? Well ideally you don't, and I suppose that is part of what makes some settings unfriendly.

Tiktakkat
2016-07-02, 09:24 PM
I don't really understand the point of using a setting, and then deciding to ignore the setting. Why bother using the setting in the first place?

Because it saves all the work of writing up the starting point of the setting.

What is the point of using a setting if you don't actually use it, which is to say let it evolve?
Why bother running an adventure if it can never be "finished"?

Darth Ultron
2016-07-02, 10:02 PM
I don't really understand the point of using a setting, and then deciding to ignore the setting. Why bother using the setting in the first place?

You don't ignore the setting. It's more the DM and players are the only ones that get to decide what happens in the world. It's like saying ''if you play D&D you must play 5E as it is the current game edition'' or even ''if you play D&D you must use all the rules''. So that includes encumbrance and spell components, things that few use, so you'd say ''why even play D&D if you will ignore the rules?"

Yora
2016-07-03, 01:03 AM
I think a problem of ignoring parts of the setting and contradicting them lies in that players can no longer assume that anything they know about the setting is still true. In my experience, simply not knowing what's the deal with something is preferable to having to relearn things you already knew. This leads back to agency. Players have agency in a game when they can predict what's about to happen and how they could change things through their actions. And this ability follows directly from knowing who else is there, what their motivations are, and what their resources are. And players will often not say out directly what they are thinking, which would give the GM a chance to tell them that some of their assumptions don't apply in the current campaign.
Which is why I am more comfortable with starting a new homebrew setting at zero and introduce it to the players over time and not having the players go into the game with partially false assumptions.

goto124
2016-07-03, 01:52 AM
In my experience, simply not knowing what's the deal with something is preferable to having to relearn things you already knew.

So a setting must have blank spaces. But how big? Where? Isn't the point of a setting to give the GM material to run? How do we also avoid the problem of dropping plot hooks that are unhelpful because they don't go anywhere and don't help the GM know what to place at the other end of the hook?

The Insanity
2016-07-03, 04:12 AM
I don't really understand the point of using a setting, and then deciding to ignore the setting. Why bother using the setting in the first place?
Well, maybe you don't do it so this analogy might fall on deaf ears, but... it's kinda like buying an AP and then tweaking it.


I think a problem of ignoring parts of the setting and contradicting them lies in that players can no longer assume that anything they know about the setting is still true.
IME talking to your players helps. A simple "Guys, we're playing FR, but my version, so not everything is like in the official books." And then, depending on how many and how complicated the changes are, you either list them all or encourage the players to ask about specific things that could/will affect their characters.

Faily
2016-07-03, 08:23 AM
To again use L5R as an example:

The empire of Rokugan has a very detailed timeline, and with the addition of the Imperial Histories I and II splatbooks, many historical events have been expanded on. In addition to this, L5R was also a continually evolving game with a continued storyline updated weekly. Which meant that if a GM was to follow the canon storyline to a T, they would have to be ready to implement events that happened *weekly* into their game.

While that works fine for some games, L5R was also very clear, especially with the release of Imperial Histories, that you are free to disregard the canon as you choose, and they even introduced alternate timelines for those who wanted a guide in what to do in case something else had happened in drastic events. Such as what would've happened if Fu Leng had won on the Second Day of Thunder. Or if another Kami had won the tournament at the Dawn of the Empire and become Emperor instead of Hantei, and what sort of Empire they would've founded instead.

In my experience, both as a player and a GM, it's as simple as saying "I'm running L5R. Everything up to the point of gamestart is canon, but we'll deviate from there, so you guys won't know what to expect". I ran a campaign like that. I'm also part of running a play-by-post campaign that has done a lot of changes, and players are fine with it. All the other campaigns I play in deviate from the canon at some point either by changing or removing some events, or being set in the distant past of Rokugan's history and thus changing canon through the actions of the players.

---

In Ars Magica, we've changed a lot of names, ages and marital statuses on many NPCs, because while we like history (everyone at the table is a history buff), we also want to introduce our own NPCs. We've had some historical events that never happened, and some historical events that should've happened, but didn't.

Amphetryon
2016-07-03, 08:56 AM
To again use L5R as an example:

The empire of Rokugan has a very detailed timeline, and with the addition of the Imperial Histories I and II splatbooks, many historical events have been expanded on. In addition to this, L5R was also a continually evolving game with a continued storyline updated weekly. Which meant that if a GM was to follow the canon storyline to a T, they would have to be ready to implement events that happened *weekly* into their game.

While that works fine for some games, L5R was also very clear, especially with the release of Imperial Histories, that you are free to disregard the canon as you choose, and they even introduced alternate timelines for those who wanted a guide in what to do in case something else had happened in drastic events. Such as what would've happened if Fu Leng had won on the Second Day of Thunder. Or if another Kami had won the tournament at the Dawn of the Empire and become Emperor instead of Hantei, and what sort of Empire they would've founded instead.

In my experience, both as a player and a GM, it's as simple as saying "I'm running L5R. Everything up to the point of gamestart is canon, but we'll deviate from there, so you guys won't know what to expect". I ran a campaign like that. I'm also part of running a play-by-post campaign that has done a lot of changes, and players are fine with it. All the other campaigns I play in deviate from the canon at some point either by changing or removing some events, or being set in the distant past of Rokugan's history and thus changing canon through the actions of the players.

---

In Ars Magica, we've changed a lot of names, ages and marital statuses on many NPCs, because while we like history (everyone at the table is a history buff), we also want to introduce our own NPCs. We've had some historical events that never happened, and some historical events that should've happened, but didn't.
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is also very clear in stating that you are free to disregard the canon as you choose:

Rule 1: It's Your World
This campaign setting is packed with details about Faerun and the world of Toril, but the book provides only a broad sampling of the people, places, and things the world contains.
The real details are left up to you. Make additions as you see fit. . . .Likewise, the details in this book reflect what the people of Faerun know about their world - but only you know the truth. . . . Don't be a slave to the map or this book, and don't be afraid to alter anything you want to.
Given that this is explicit in the book, I read Yora's comments as indicative that this is insufficient freedom from canon for his purposes. At the same time, there are these parameters to consider to meet Yora's criteria (pulled from several posts in this thread):

My problem with Forgotten Realms in particular, but it also applies to Eberron and Dark Sun, is that those hooks are all too flimsy for me. . . .Another thing that is less then ideal for running a campaign is when the players are wondering why they are needed in the first place. Good setting design should start with outlining the role of player characters in the world and then build the organizations and NPCs around that. . . .While an active casts of prominent NPCs does not actively get in the way of player characters going on mundane adventures, they still have the effect that those mundane adventures feel less significant. . . .I think metaplots and regular timeline advancements never work in the favor of the players. . . .
So, from this, a good setting design has to start with outlining the role of PCs (who will generally not be created at the time a for-general-use setting is created). It should not have an active cast of prominent NPCs with whom the PCs can interact. It should not have any metaplot running through it because such things never work in the favor of the PCs. At the same, the PCs should have a clear idea, from the start, of why they are needed within the campaign. It should have blank spaces to explore, while clearly telling the GM how those blank spaces are to be filled, and in greater detail than provided within, for example, the FR or Eberron books.

By my reading, that set of parameters cannot be fulfilled in a published setting.

goto124
2016-07-03, 09:14 AM
Being free to ignore certain things doesn't tell you what you can safely ignore without breaking the consistency and internal logic of the setting.

A GM might decide to remove a battle that would've dragged the game on without having any apparent purpose, only to realize it was key to another event that the GM has already made important in the game. Doesn't help when there're a lot of details flying around and a GM could easily miss some.

Amphetryon
2016-07-03, 09:38 AM
Being free to ignore certain things doesn't tell you what you can safely ignore without breaking the consistency and internal logic of the setting.

A GM might decide to remove a battle that would've dragged the game on without having any apparent purpose, only to realize it was key to another event that the GM has already made important in the game. Doesn't help when there're a lot of details flying around and a GM could easily miss some.

How would a battle that happened off-screen drag a game on? Why would a GM choose to remove that particular off-screen battle if that GM had already decided that it was a key to another event within that GM's game? If it's not happening off-screen, how are you ignoring it?

Alternately, how do you envision a campaign setting being written where the outcome of all future battles is sufficiently detailed for the GM to prepare, gives the PCs agency to interact with the battle or not as they see fit, and does not impinge upon any consistency within the setting?

Darth Ultron
2016-07-03, 11:33 AM
I think a problem of ignoring parts of the setting and contradicting them lies in that players can no longer assume that anything they know about the setting is still true.

Correct. Everything a player thinks they know about the setting should be treated as a rumor, at best. So the PC knows a bunch of vague information, but not hard facts.

And even more so all the ''official'' stuff is very limited. A player read that ''King Ornd like cheese'' and that is all that is written about that NPC. So it's not like they know everything about him.


In my experience, simply not knowing what's the deal with something is preferable to having to relearn things you already knew. This leads back to agency. Players have agency in a game when they can predict what's about to happen and how they could change things through their actions. And this ability follows directly from knowing who else is there, what their motivations are, and what their resources are. And players will often not say out directly what they are thinking, which would give the GM a chance to tell them that some of their assumptions don't apply in the current campaign.
Which is why I am more comfortable with starting a new homebrew setting at zero and introduce it to the players over time and not having the players go into the game with partially false assumptions.[/QUOTE]

Well, first off I'd note that players are going to have assumptions no matter what. Unless you write up a 100,000 page campaign setting book. A one page hand out or the DM saying ''my elves are special and different'', does not cut it.

And, ok, so you like clueless players who have to stop every couple of minutes and ask ''um, what town is to the north?'' or ''Um, what does your custom race Asokloris look like?" But, after the first game or so, the players will know a lot about the setting and you'd be right back to the same problem.


Being free to ignore certain things doesn't tell you what you can safely ignore without breaking the consistency and internal logic of the setting.

A GM might decide to remove a battle that would've dragged the game on without having any apparent purpose, only to realize it was key to another event that the GM has already made important in the game. Doesn't help when there're a lot of details flying around and a GM could easily miss some.

It is safe to say that most DM's that use a setting us it as they like the setting. So, they will change almost nothing ''big''. If they was a bunch of big things they did not like with a setting, a DM would just not use it.

And the DM is the one that says what reality is in the game. So even if the DM did change something there would never be a problem or conflict. The DM would just say so, and it would be.

2D8HP
2016-07-04, 04:33 PM
Well for this player.....
In general I dislike settings that are closer to "the real world", I CAN WALK OUT MY DOOR FOR THAT!

I prefer settings with Dragons!
Dragons even when they can't speak (maybe even especially then) are simply BADASS! With Awesome! on top of Awesome!, next to the Awesome!, with a side order of AWESOME! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html)

And they know it! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0754.html)

My wife likes to watch Game of Thrones, the brutality of which would frankly make it unwatchable for me if it weren't for the Dragons! (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o8RZa62feQE&itct=CBwQpDAYACITCL-mqu_h0c0CFZAhfgoddu8KCDIHcmVsYXRlZEi4hqqpk-HIn6kB)

Or take the movie Dragonslayer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHJ-gZUqD2o) which with an Ogre or a Giant would be as forgettable as "The Sword and the Sorcerer" (which came out the same year), but Vermithrax makes it a must see!
Now while they are some degenerates in need of treatment that prefer boring RPG's (Cyberpunk, Vampire etc.) with settings that lack Dragons, it is clearly evident that the deficit of AWESOME renders such settings as LAME!

However........
I can remember some particularly fun sessions of Shadowrun that had no fantasy elements at all. The trick was that a very good gamemaster amped up the roll-playing aspects, and downplayed the role-playing aspects, with lots of action and suspense, resolved by many dice rolls (a chase were you roll at each corner or notable landmark lends itself well with this approach).
Other times that I've had a lot of fun involved lots of described magical elements and dialog, and almost no dice rolls at all. More boring RPG sessions seem to involve an intermediate amount of dialog (role-playing), and action resolved with dice rolls (roll-playing). So I would advise GM's to stay away from a "middle-of-the-road" approch, and to stick with what's working at the time. If the action is flowing keep the dice rolling, if the players are "playing" (doing the thespian thing), only stop them to roll dice for the suspense of it, otherwise keep 'em talking.
As a player I am interested in exploring a fantastic world, and I really don't want to think about the damn rules at all.
I could be very happy with a "character sheet" that lists my PC's name, the equipment my PC is carrying, hit points left, and nothing else!
I really only want to learn what my PC is perceiving. As to "mastering the crunch" so that my PC is "an optimal build"?
Boring!
Just tell me if the DRAGONS WINGS ARE STILL FLAPPING!
I also prefer if the Magic is well magical, so "spells" etc. that are not in the PHB please! I want wonder not accounting! I specifically don't play spell casters for that reason. Magic should be uncanny! But......

And then, there's the problem of changing too much. Your story (or campaign) could start to look like the memoirs of a really freaky acid trip, and nobody will be interested because it's just TOO different....they have no point of reference to start with.True! "Alice in Wonderland on LSD" "adventures" are not fun!
'Nuff said.
Try to keep world building bare bones. It's fun to read, not to play. If there's backstory, unless it's a map, journal etc.that my PC finds don't give me a damn handout! Are there no oracles, street prophets, and witches who will give voice to the backstory in character? Then use them!
One of the most successful (i.e. my players liked it) "campaigns" that I DM'd/Keeper'd (I reused the same setup for both Call of Cthullu and Dungeons & Dragons) was a mashup of the plot set-ups of "Conan the Destroyer" and "Young Sherlock Holmes" (cultist, Elder gods, yadda, yadda, yadda), I didn't map anything out on paper before hand at all! I just imagined "scenes", described them to my players, and had them roll dice to see if they did whatever they were trying to do, then on to the next scene!

I like killing monsters so riddles , cluedo and political RP puts me to sleep .
Yes!
Every problem my PC encounters should be solvable with either a sword or running!
:smile:

You may change it around a a little bit , but for me as long as the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a Warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play in that game.

For some good literary sources of the genre (or just want to read BADASS! stories, which were published from 1939 to 1977:

Induction (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0087/ERBAEN0087___1.htm)

The Jewels in the Forest (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm)

The Bleak Shore (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781625791528/9781625791528___2.htm)

Lean Times in Lankhmar (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___2.htm)

In the Witch's Tent (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0090/ERBAEN0090___1.htm)

The Circle Curse (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___1.htm)

The Sadness of the Executioner (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___1.htm)

Beauty and the Beasts (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___2.htm)

The Cloud of Hate (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___1.htm)

Sea Magic (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0093/ERBAEN0093___1.htm)

Lorsa
2016-07-07, 03:35 AM
For me, a "player friendly" campaign setting is simply one where the GM (and preferably also the players) comes up with tons of adventure ideas when reading it.

For example, when I read the campaign setting book for Forgotten Realms, I immediately get more ideas than can fit in one campaign. It is simply a great setting, written directly for D&D-style adventures. The setting, as written is basically "all you have to do to find adventure is to spin around, randomly choose a direction and start walking". If high-level NPCs somehow bother you, it's an easy thing to write them out - the setting is written with tweaking in mind.

When I read Lord of the Rings however, I get like... maybe one adventure idea at most. The setting isn't written to be full of small adventures wherever you go, it actually seems rather uneventful in general, with only a few specific adventures popping up every 100 or 1000 year or so (which are written in the story). Therefore, I don't quite like playing in it.

Star Wars is sort of similar, it's hard to see that adventure is lurking behind every corner, simply because of how the world is portrayed in the movies (with the adventure being a special occasion in an otherwise calm world).

If we think about book or movie settings, I can say that the opposite is true for Firefly. That is a setting where I feel there can be adventure basically everywhere. The setting is portrayed in a way that gives you the feeling that what the crew of Serenity encountered isn't really out of the ordinary, but could happen to any bunch of misfits flying around in a boat.

So basically, what I consider a good setting has everything to do with the number of adventure ideas I get while reading it and nothing to do with anything else. Some are written with adventures in mind, some are written as if "the story" (portrayed in the book/movie) is special and out of the ordinary. The first is the one I find to be player friendly.