What makes a good campaign setting?

[Thinker]

I like good campaign settings. Having worlds that are filled with interesting people, places, and adversaries are fun. Having unique hooks for the setting whether it is aesthetics (like magicpunk, cyberpunk, etc), game focus (such as angst, dramatic tension, looting tombs), or action (fighting, socializing, etc) can increase the fun found in a game. Still, how much is too much for a campaign setting and what is needed to reach this goal?

If I make a campaign setting with three distinct cultures, how much do I need to describe these cultures to make them feel real enough? Do I need to write about how their art is different from each other so that when I'm describing a statue I can start off with "In the style of..."? Is it enough to simply say "this society is based on the Greeks" and then just list the differences?

The gist of what I am wondering is, what do you look for in a campaign setting? How much information do you need in order to enjoy it?

[valadil]

How much information do you need in order to enjoy it?

I need inspiration rather than information. When I read about the capital city, my first thought should be "I want to go to there." When I open the chapter on whatever locale the PCs are approaching, I should get a ton of ideas for things I can do to the players in this city and only in this city.

[Quietus]

Believability and a solid vision. If a DM can put forward a good solid schtick for his world, and make me believe that it does, in fact, work - even if it's strained - then I can enjoy it, more often than not. If I have to stop and go "But wait, why is this area considered super poor when they've got access to X Y and Z, which everyone else needs?" on a regular basis, then it starts to fall apart, to me.

[Yora]

What makes a good setting, I have no idea.
But I recognize a good setting that by hearing about it, I start thinking "I so want to play a character being in that place".

So I'd say it's 90% atmosphere, the rest is mostly irrelevant.

[Thinker]

I need inspiration rather than information. When I read about the capital city, my first thought should be "I want to go to there." When I open the chapter on whatever locale the PCs are approaching, I should get a ton of ideas for things I can do to the players in this city and only in this city.

I like the Liz Lemon quote. So you're looking more for hooks to attract PC's? Should a campaign setting or fantasy world even worry about anything beyond a set of locations that might be interesting to the PCs?

Believability and a solid vision. If a DM can put forward a good solid schtick for his world, and make me believe that it does, in fact, work - even if it's strained - then I can enjoy it, more often than not. If I have to stop and go "But wait, why is this area considered super poor when they've got access to X Y and Z, which everyone else needs?" on a regular basis, then it starts to fall apart, to me.

If a place is downtrodden, you want there to be reasons for it to be downtrodden. That's understandable and gives the PCs something they can do while they're there (help/enslave/ignore downtrodden people). How far does your believability need to extend? Is it enough to know that the people with access to X, Y, and Z are poor because the evil marquis takes the resources for himself or do you need to know how the marquis accomplishes this?

What makes a good setting, I have no idea.
But I recognize a good setting that by hearing about it, I start thinking "I so want to play a character being in that place".

So I'd say it's 90% atmosphere, the rest is mostly irrelevant.

Atmosphere is a little bit ambiguous. Could you elaborate?

[Tyndmyr]

First, it needs to grab the reader's attention. It needs to be intriguing, and contain reasons for him to want to check it out, as a player. Everything else is secondary to this. Without interest, you have nothing.

Second, it needs to be well thought out. You don't want to have players start finding inconsistencies one after another and come to the conclusion that it's stupid, and they'd rather be playing something else.

Third, the players need to be important to the setting. It doesn't matter how awesome your giant mechwarrior-dueling world is, if the players can never drive mechs or fight them, they're reduced to bystanders. And that role is one that is ultimately unsatisfying over any length of time. Players want to be participants.

Fourth, depth. Add stuff that tends to only be discovered through play. Further layers of information to add long term interest. You don't want too much depth in the initial info, since length tends to turn some people off, but a further layer of detail can be quite helpful to a GM.

[Yora]

Elaborate? Well...

"If a setting looks cool!"

[Thinker]

First, it needs to grab the reader's attention. It needs to be intriguing, and contain reasons for him to want to check it out, as a player. Everything else is secondary to this. Without interest, you have nothing.

Second, it needs to be well thought out. You don't want to have players start finding inconsistencies one after another and come to the conclusion that it's stupid, and they'd rather be playing something else.

Third, the players need to be important to the setting. It doesn't matter how awesome your giant mechwarrior-dueling world is, if the players can never drive mechs or fight them, they're reduced to bystanders. And that role is one that is ultimately unsatisfying over any length of time. Players want to be participants.

Fourth, depth. Add stuff that tends to only be discovered through play. Further layers of information to add long term interest. You don't want too much depth in the initial info, since length tends to turn some people off, but a further layer of detail can be quite helpful to a GM.

For player relevance, look at some settings like Seventh Sea or Shadowrun. The players will rarely make a global impact on those settings, but they are still fun and people play them.

For depth, I agree that players don't want to read a giant wall of text. The question is, what amount of depth is important and how do you present it?

Elaborate? Well...
"If a setting looks cool!"

Haha alright. How about this then? What do your favorite campaign settings have in common with each other?

[Cyrion]

Fourth, depth. Add stuff that tends to only be discovered through play. Further layers of information to add long term interest. You don't want too much depth in the initial info, since length tends to turn some people off, but a further layer of detail can be quite helpful to a GM.

This is really important. There has to be something for the players to discover and explore. They'll accept lots of adventure hooks if there's something interesting to discover along the way. Of course, you have to learn what your players consider interesting and give them enough sandbox to be active participants within the larger plot stories.

Introduce your finer details like art, etc. as you go rather than up front.

[Tyndmyr]

For player relevance, look at some settings like Seventh Sea or Shadowrun. The players will rarely make a global impact on those settings, but they are still fun and people play them.

Oddly enough, the published adventure paths for 7th Sea all result in the players making some pretty big impacts. Things that could reasonably be heard of by just about anyone. Stopping wars, playing kingmaker, that sort of thing.

They do tend to be short of "saves the world", though. I suspect that the saves the world plot device is actually a bit overused, myself.

[Tengu_temp]

A good campaign setting starts with a strong, specific concept. It must be something that lies within the interests of your players - if they like steampunk, go with steampunk. Don't go with something generic or already well-explored by other settings, give your setting a unique twist.

If you're making a setting that will just be used by you and your group, not something that's intended to be used by others, then don't get bogged down in the details. Unveil additional setting info when it becomes relevant, and don't be afraid to change not yet established aspects on the fly to suit the game.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, generic pretty much equals bad. I dunno how many blog posts I've read by people describing their generic settings. Around the time they start describing how the elves live in forests and the dwarves live in mountains and drink a lot, I mentally switch off and go look for something new.

Just because you drew a new map doesn't mean you have a setting.

[valadil]

I like the Liz Lemon quote. So you're looking more for hooks to attract PC's? Should a campaign setting or fantasy world even worry about anything beyond a set of locations that might be interesting to the PCs?

Sort of? I think what I'm looking for is more like the idea that precedes a hook. I would like to create the hook myself, but have something in the world to build the hook out of.

For instance, in the 4e FRCS, one of the cities whose name escapes me is composed of earthmotes chained together. That's cool in and of itself. But it also has message runners who basically do parkour to get from place to place. I think they included something about some genasi tumbling down the whole place, using some power to mitigate their falling damage with each landing.

That description doesn't directly give me any free plot hooks. But it puts an image in my head from which I can easily make my own hooks. The scenery is great. I really wanna run a chase scene in there. I could also see intrigue being neat in that environment. The way that messages are carried down from the top implies that information goes down quicker than up. Does all information get carried by messenger genasi or are things ever dropped overboard to someone down below? Now I'm getting images of a crimelord who pays all the homeless children under the earthmotes to retrieve rocks wrapped in paper messages.

I wouldn't expect other GMs to go in the same direction as me. That's a good thing. If the campaign setting was a list of hooks, you'd get players who had already played through Waterdeep and need the FRCS 2 (or the web enhancement FRCS) in order to not play through the same material. I guess what I want out of a setting is a premise. From there I can gather ideas and inspiration, and go forward with my own plot and hooks.

[The Big Dice]

They do tend to be short of "saves the world", though. I suspect that the saves the world plot device is actually a bit overused, myself.

Saving the world is overdone. These days I'm into the idea of saving the world, then wondering what is actually left after the dust settles. Like, the saving the world part was just the setup for the rebuilding it that comes afterwards.

As for what makes a good setting, that's a hard one to pin down. It needs to feel right. Though to be fair, there are lots of good settings out there. But very few great ones. Settings like Rokugan, Glorantha and Night City. Places that evoke a mood and a style just by mentioning their names.

It's like D&D has some good settings, but very few that I'd place on the truly great list. Planescape could be a contender to be a great one, but not the Forgotten Realms or Krynn.

[SillySymphonies]

WotC uses a template for campaign settings which provides some insight:

Spoiler

Show

1. Core ethos sentence: [A sentence that describes the core ethos of the world]
2. Who are the heroes? [Brief description of heroes central to the setting. This need not be a comprehensive list.]
3. What do they do? [What are the main objectives of the heroes, and what steps do they take to achieve those objectives?]
4. Threats, conflicts, villains: [What is the main danger to the world, and from whom does it come?]
5. Nature of magic: [What is the source of magic? How abundant/scarce is it?]
6. What's new? What's different? [What makes this setting unique?]

1 Premise

I need inspiration rather than information.

I guess what I want out of a setting is a premise. From there I can gather ideas and inspiration, and go forward with my own plot and hooks.

A good premise is appealing even when summarized into one sentence; a bad premise will never be appealing, no matter how much you elaborate on it: top-down design over bottom-up design.
The entire campaign setting should be able to be summarized on one page: players shouldn't be forced to read the entire campaign setting just to grasp the premise.

Spoiler

Show

Examples of core ethos sentences:
"Forgotten Realms is a world of sword-and-sorcery adventure, where heroes battle monsters with magic." [WotC, 2002]
Eberron: "Lord of the Rings meets Indiana Jones and The Maltese Falcon." [source] (Traditional medieval fantasy meets swashbuckling pulp fiction and film noir.)

2 Protagonists

(...) the players need to be important to the setting. It doesn't matter how awesome your giant mechwarrior-dueling world is, if the players can never drive mechs or fight them, they're reduced to bystanders. And that role is one that is ultimately unsatisfying over any length of time. Players want to be participants.

The game is about the players, not the campaign world. That doesn't mean the PCs need to be the most powerful entities around, or even powerful at all (consider Call of Cthulhu or Dark Heresy), rather there should be no-one to bail out the PCs if they screw up: you can have your Elminster, as long as he isn't a deus ex machina or an NPC to showcase that the DM can always do better than the PCs.

3 Objectives; 4 Obstacles
These speak for themselves: the PCs need objectives to achieve and antagonists and other obstacles along the way that want to thwart said objectives.

5 Magic
Since we're still talking fantasy here, the nature of magic is an important aspect to consider: abundant (Eberron) or scarce (Lord of the Rings); mundane (Eberron) or mystical and mythical (Lord of the Rings); a tool (D&D) or inherently dangerous (Call of Cthulhu; Dark Heresy) etcetera.

6 Orginality

I dunno how many blog posts I've read by people describing their generic settings. Around the time they start describing how the elves live in forests and the dwarves live in mountains and drink a lot, I mentally switch off and go look for something new.

What Tolkien did in the first half of the 20th century was (and still is) original, fresh and interesting. Since then a lot of mediocre writers have taken the aesthetics and superficialities of Tolkien's work (whilst ignoring the underlying issues, subtleties and complexities) and thus gave birth to the generic forest-elves-and-mountain-dwaves fantasy.

Original does not mean whacky or way-out-there! A minor but interesting twist on an old concept or turning to a concept's mythological/folkloristic roots can work wonders: instead of generic, evil, trap-setting miners, kobolds could become mountain spirits that steal metal (ore) and replace it with worthless kobold-ore (cobalt); instead of generic brutes, bugbears could become psychotic serial killers who live for the smell of fear and are unnervingly good at hiding in places nothing that huge should be able to fit - like behind your door, or under your bed (Pathfinder); instead of Scottish clansmen living in the mountains and hoarding treasure, dwarves could become $crooge McDucks controlling corporate business: still Scottish, still hoarding treasure, but with an original twist (Eberron).

Addendum
Show me something fantastic and evocative: fantasy is about the fantastic, not about dwarves and elves!

Examples of the fantastic:

Spoiler

Show

- and of course Disney's Fantasia.

[Goober4473]

the players need to be important to the setting. It doesn't matter how awesome your giant mechwarrior-dueling world is, if the players can never drive mechs or fight them, they're reduced to bystanders. And that role is one that is ultimately unsatisfying over any length of time. Players want to be participants.

This is pretty big for me. I use campaign settings as a part of the story, not just a backdrop. The player characters' actions need to be able to affect the world. I rarely use the same setting twice unless the first game in the setting doesn't come to a real conclusion, because usually once the player characters' story is over, so is the setting's. If I do use the setting again, it's usually a very different place, with a new story to be told.

For instance, I'm running an Eberron campaign right now, and by the end, most of the mysteries of the world will be answered (the Mournlands, the reason for dragonmarks, etc.), and will be tied directly to the player characters' story.

I think people have covered most of the other stuff that I look for in a setting: cool themes, interesting antagonists, etc. I love a good mystery that the DM gets to decide the truth of too.

[Vortling]

Biggest question I ask when reading a campaign setting for the first time is "What makes this one different from the others in the genre?" If the answer is "not much" I take the few things that are different and ignore the rest of the setting. Conversely if the unique things in the setting are the majority, I run a game in the setting.
The other question I like to ask is "How does the setting support the playstyle?" If the setting is supposed to be for big damn heroes, how does the information in the setting inspire the GM and players to be big damn heroes.

A few settings I found to be good campaign settings: Eberron, Necessary Evil, Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies

[Ichneumon]

Question: What makes a good campaign setting?
Answer: A good DM

[randomhero00]

Showmanship. If the DM can't make it seem cool, then it aint gonna be fun.

[Lappy9000]

For depth, I agree that players don't want to read a giant wall of text. The question is, what amount of depth is important and how do you present it?

I'd use the LEGO approach for this. Whenever the company comes out with a new set of themed models, they are sold in different prices. $5, $10, $20, $30, $50, $80 or generally a similar progression, each giving you more for how much you choose to put into it.

I like to write settings the same way. Have a brief description of themes for the setting for those who just wanna get on with it and play and gradually increase in depth so those who wish to delve into the lore have the option to do so. The trick is to pace it out by having the brief stuff at the front and the heavy-ended stuff further in so players can choose to quit reading whenever they wish.

As to enjoying a setting? Believe it or not, format. Seems awfully mechanical, but the same 2,000 words spread out with pictures, different paragraphs for different topics, and tables is read far easier than a 2,000 word block of text.

Question: What makes a good campaign setting?
Answer: A good DM

Extremely important. A good DM can make a horrible setting seem awesome.

[Thinker]

Question: What makes a good campaign setting?
Answer: A good DM

Showmanship. If the DM can't make it seem cool, then it aint gonna be fun.

Thanks for your replies, but this is not exactly what I'm looking for. The answer to any question about "What makes a good X?" could be "a good DM". A good DM is important to running a game, but being a good DM does not necessarily include making a good campaign setting. I am specifically looking for what people enjoy in the setting itself, regardless of the DM.

I'd use the LEGO approach for this. Whenever the company comes out with a new set of themed models, they are sold in different prices. $5, $10, $20, $30, $50, $80 or generally a similar progression, each giving you more for how much you choose to put into it.

I like this idea.

[potatocubed]

What I look for in a setting is room to improvise; I need space to plan and execute my own plots, not a setting which is covered in exhaustive detail down to the square inch (Forgotten Realms, I'm looking at you.)

Evocative concepts work well for me, and I love complex politics: I like the Pathfinder setting of Golarion, for example (although Eberron doesn't do it for me - don't know why).

I like a setting where no one is coming to bail the PCs out if they screw up, and where the big bads are big enough that the PCs really are the only hope: Dark Sun, for example.

I love Planescape, for all the above.

[Yora]

I agree with that. Playing an RPG in a novel or movie setting can be interesting an fun.
But if you make a setting with a primary use in an RPG in mind, the requirements are quite different. When creating a setting, I think right after you've decided on a theme, you have to find an answer to the question, what the PCs will do in the world.
A setting about political intrigue between kings can't show it's best aspects when the role of the players is picking up random quests in a town inn. However in Birthright, the role of the players is that of high ranking nobles. But at the same time, such a campaign doesn't care for a random ruin with some dire rats and three goblins that stole a chest of tax money.

And that's the problem with for example the Forgotten Realms: On one side it focuses strongly on the actions of super powerful archmages. But at the same time a lot of campaigns are doing odd jobs in some villages. It's certainly not a bad setting and I had great fun playing random adventurer in a nice little town with its shrines and temples of interesting religions and NPC from diverse backgrounds, but in retroperspective, the whole marketing concept could have been handled much better.

[alchemyprime]

My players have seemed pretty happy with my campaign settings so far (though most are all different locations of the same world) and I think this is why:

Each place of the world is different enough from Forgotten Realms/Eberron/Dragonlance/Middle-Earth that when we go and play games in those, they still feel fresh too.

A few examples of what I got:

Van Kyr - A Wild West, rootin, tootin setting where it's the Civilized Races vs the Savage Races (though they do team up for the occasional Old West Eldritch Horror). The Civilized Races are ruled over by Dons, and their capital is a fantasy equivalent of Las Vegas. All it takes to be a new Don is get enough money to build your own Casino and don't get killed by another Don.

Van Kreev - A matriarchial parliamentary magocracy. A parliament made entirely of female mages. Not to say men and martial characters don't have their place. A fusion of a rather nice place, and a rather bad place.

Liam Island - Two warring city states here: The Immolation, a LG group of clerics, paladins, shugenja and cantors following a LG god of fire who are convinced Clockwork and Steamtech are the way to Ragnarok, and the Workers, a NG group of engineers, artificers and cloistered clerics who live in a clockwork city powered by a gravity engine (think with Portals). The end game will (eventually) involve the PCs taking sides (or their own side) and the Immolation using a giant suit of armor powered by the fire of their god, piloted by their high priest, and the Workers turning their city into a Steampunk/Clockwork God Mech, similar to Metroplex from Transformers.

That's right. It ends with a smaller version of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann fighting a Clockwork Transformer. And if the PCs want to oppose both? They get to find an ancient Gianttech mech that turns into a DRAGON!


... Okay, best way to make a cool campaign setting? Play where you want to play, and think to yourself "What would be awesome right here, and how do I make it more awesome?"

[The Big Dice]

The trick with a setting like the Forgotten Realms is simply to ignore any and all spinoff material. Forget about it completely, apart fromt he bits you like. Don't be bound by what other people have written, let your campaign go where it wants to go and take ownership of the setting.

Like the Star Wars game I ran, originally set in the Force Unleashed era. Then for some random reason I thouht it would be cool to have Darth Revan in suspended animation rather than killed, so I could give his sheet to one player and Vader's to another. See who wins and all that. Then it seemed like a good idea to introduce the Reborn and the Star Forge. Before long, the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the movies, EU or anything else. And all involved had a great time.

So that's my advice on every setting: forget canon and just go with what your game needs.

[Mastikator]

For player relevance, look at some settings like Seventh Sea or Shadowrun. The players will rarely make a global impact on those settings, but they are still fun and people play them.

Doesn't need to be a global impact, as long as it's impact on the scale that matters to the players.

[Thinker]

Doesn't need to be a global impact, as long as it's impact on the scale that matters to the players.

The message I was replying to implied meaningful impact and that is something that has been repeated in this thread. Those people do want their characters to affect the setting as a whole.

[akma]

As a player, I would like to see intresting places, have intresting opportuinities, and have choices. I wouldn`t want to see things being banned arbitarly.

As a DM (if I would use other people campaign settings) I would want something that I could make adventures in with minimum work. That`s my goal with my own settings - to work on them enough, so when I`ll want to run an adventure in a certain area in them, it wouldn`t require much work. Also, I need to feel that I could start an adventure there without explaining about the setting in more then 5 minutes. It also have to qualify to the standerts in the paragraph below.

As a reader, I would like to see orginiality and coolness, and of course, a focus on it. It should also be as short as possible, or at least seem short in the begining - to let me get immersad in it. It needs to be written in just the right amount of detail to contain the big details, but not too much specification on little things.

Spoilers are good ways to avoid walls of texts to those who don`t want to delve deep yet.

[Sebastrd]

Spoiler

Show

The trick with a setting like the Forgotten Realms is simply to ignore any and all spinoff material. Forget about it completely, apart fromt he bits you like. Don't be bound by what other people have written, let your campaign go where it wants to go and take ownership of the setting.

Like the Star Wars game I ran, originally set in the Force Unleashed era. Then for some random reason I thouht it would be cool to have Darth Revan in suspended animation rather than killed, so I could give his sheet to one player and Vader's to another. See who wins and all that. Then it seemed like a good idea to introduce the Reborn and the Star Forge. Before long, the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the movies, EU or anything else. And all involved had a great time.

So that's my advice on every setting: forget canon and just go with what your game needs.

I would say, do not write any canon that removes choices. Every bit of canon should open doors, not close them.

[Yora]

I don't think that statement actually works in practice.

Canon means making a final descision how a certain thing is. By that very definition, it always removes options from a former state of uncertainty.
And I think that's a good thing. It only becomes problematic when you decide to fix something that had been left open for a very long time and had people come up with their own solutions to a certain aspects.