What do you look for in a setting?

[Lord Tataraus]

While fleshing out my gritty E6 setting "Thraan, City of Fear", I started thinking: What do potential players look for in a setting? So, that is my question for, to help me expand and increase the attraction of my setting and any future setting.

This question applies to any RPG system, any setting both homebrew and published.

Thanks in advance for your input!

[DraPrime]

I look for it to have something unique or interesting, but not ridiculous. A world that's a cube is ridiculous. A world that just came out of a cold war interesting. When a setting clearly mimics our world, then it's just uninteresting. Eberron is an example of this flaw. It's basically a magical post-WWI world. Breland is clearly America. The Mournlands are Germany. It's one of the reasons why I dislike Eberron.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I look for magic trains.

Seriously, while you do sort of have a point about Eberron and its fantasy counterpart cultures, giving the setting more than a cursory glance will demonstrate that it's not just inter-war Europe. It's a mishmash of real-life cultures from all over the globe ripping off drawing from history from the Age of Exploration through the Cold War, with a particularly heavy dose of the Victorian/Imperialist era. I fail to see how it doesn't fall under your general "world that has just come out of a civil war" example of an interesting hook.

This is the part that's relevant to the topic>>>

Plus, it has effort put into consistent internal design, lots of useful game information without a ton of irrelevant almanac minutiae, and isn't exactly like medieval Europe only with magic. And it has magic trains.

<<<This is the part that's relevant to the topic.

[TheLogman]

When I design my adventures, I like to add the following.

-A main Plot Hook that is impossible/too good to refuse (All the players are infected with Shadow energy, or maybe there are magic items, or maybe there is this new Module called the Tomb of Horrors I wanted to do.) Whatever the case, the reason for adventuring should be good enough they don't go off and do something else (Unless they really want to, in which case you can make Side-Quests to lead back to the main story anyway).

-Side Quests for after a main storyline are good. The players were just through a specially designed nearly one-way dungeon or scenario, and they'll probably appreciate a few small jobs or maybe a minor crisis in wherever they are

-Variance of monsters. After a while, the same old Hobgoblins and Gnolls get boring. The same CR encounter could be a larger amount of low monsters (Lotta Kobolds), or maybe a monster with a difference mechanic (Be it monsters with special abilities, or interesting types of monsters, like Incorporeal, Swarm, or maybe a puzzle-type boss)

-Variance of challenges, most players will get bored with just combat. Skill tests, Social Situations, Combat, and Puzzles should all be included, but in varying degrees, depending on player preference.

-Finally, a little obvious, but still. There should be some unifying theme in your encounters. If you are running a series of sessions, all the monsters and encounters should fit neatly in your world, and in their own habitats. This means more than just no Fire elementals underwater, but if you are in a dungeon, and you find a Construct like a Golem or something, there should probably both something for it to guard, and a creator or at least the signs of a previous creator.

[kieza]

Low-magic. I favor settings where magic is present, but either rare or distrusted. When magic items become involved, I want them to be significant, not something that came off of a shelf in a magic shop that had dozens like them.

Unfortunately, these are hard to find, so I'm making my own. (Link in my sig, although I haven't updated it lately.)

[Lord Tataraus]

Low-magic. I favor settings where magic is present, but either rare or distrusted. When magic items become involved, I want them to be significant, not something that came off of a shelf in a magic shop that had dozens like them.

Unfortunately, these are hard to find, so I'm making my own. (Link in my sig, although I haven't updated it lately.)

I must agree with you there. I really like Low-Magic because it can be more dynamic. Hence my setting of Thraan (I also like gritty). Though I have made highish magic settings in the past, I find that a low-magic setting is easier to create (or maybe its just because I like this setting so much).

[Starsinger]

I must agree with you there. I really like Low-Magic because it can be more dynamic. Hence my setting of Thraan (I also like gritty). Though I have made highish magic settings in the past, I find that a low-magic setting is easier to create (or maybe its just because I like this setting so much).

I like low-magic, in a different sort of way.. I like Low-Magic wherein the party members can still be magic users, but with the appropriate social stigma involved. I don't play spell casters because I want to "win" (I play blaster sorcs and heal bots). I play spell casters because I like the idea of channeling raw magical energy and using it to accomplish something that mundanes can't do. So I like to play casters in a generally caster-less world. Unfortunately for me, when most people say low-magic they mean "up to 4 caster levels, if any" if they're being lenient or "fighters, rogues, barbarians, warriors, aristocrats, experts and commoners only."

[kieza]

I like low-magic, in a different sort of way.. I like Low-Magic wherein the party members can still be magic users, but with the appropriate social stigma involved. I don't play spell casters because I want to "win" (I play blaster sorcs and heal bots). I play spell casters because I like the idea of channeling raw magical energy and using it to accomplish something that mundanes can't do. So I like to play casters in a generally caster-less world. Unfortunately for me, when most people say low-magic they mean "up to 4 caster levels, if any" if they're being lenient or "fighters, rogues, barbarians, warriors, aristocrats, experts and commoners only."

Precisely! I designed my campaign around the idea that magic should be rare, but still an option for players. My setting is based around a magical accident about a millenium ago that killed off the spellcasters of the day and caused a new dark age. Most commoners have had it drilled into them that magic = bad, so people who are willing to mess around with it enough to learn to use it are rare. They are also the sort of people who would turn to adventuring, though, and so I have no problem with PC spellcasters.

Most of the people in my campaign are level 1. A veteran soldier is maybe level 3, a legendary general is level 5-6, and a hero of legend is level 7-10. A court magician might be level 5, and an archmage might be level 8. I usually run campaigns starting at levels 3-5, so my PCs typically become the some of the best in the world at what they do. It makes for rather epic storytelling, which my players and I like.

[deadseashoals]

I like settings that don't require massive suspension of disbelief, due to their inherent inconsistencies with the way the rules work. I also like settings with a few very strong, unique themes going on that really drive the world, and make them different from other existing campaign worlds.

Failing that, robots, airships, and magic trains.

[nerulean]

I'm going to stick my paw up in the air and say that I've really enjoyed playing a very traditional D&D setting, where "adventurer" is a valid career choice and "kill things and take their stuff" is the principle the economy is based on.

I think what's really made the setting, though, is the cool NPC organisations: a powerful empire on one continent and a jedi-like organisation on another. Yet more things pulled straight out of the geek collective consciousness, and still strangely appealing, despite the fact we've seen it all before.

[Skjaldbakka]

Halflings.

. . .

. . .

. . .

Also, completeness. I want to be able to see that stuff is going on beyond the scope of the adventure. I want to be able to see effects of actions I have taken. I want for there to be things to hate, things to love, and things not to care about. I want to be able to go somewhere that the DM didn't plan, and for him to already have an idea of what is over there, because the setting is that well developed. I want for there to be things in the world that are not always CR appropriate. I want challenge worth thought, and hope of success.

[senrath]

I like low-magic, in a different sort of way.. I like Low-Magic wherein the party members can still be magic users, but with the appropriate social stigma involved. I don't play spell casters because I want to "win" (I play blaster sorcs and heal bots). I play spell casters because I like the idea of channeling raw magical energy and using it to accomplish something that mundanes can't do. So I like to play casters in a generally caster-less world. Unfortunately for me, when most people say low-magic they mean "up to 4 caster levels, if any" if they're being lenient or "fighters, rogues, barbarians, warriors, aristocrats, experts and commoners only."

Agreed with that. I like to take spellcasters in a world where people hate spellcasters, or some such thing, mostly because I like to help without being recognized, etc.

Anyway, what I look for is really just a good backstory that makes sense. Also, I like the setting better if the party isn't the only hope for salvation, etc. Makes it much nicer when you can say "let's goof off for a bit" instead of "if we goof off, everything's dead".

[Jarlax]

i look for a setting that i can pick up and run after 5 minutes or 5 hours. for example i recently got the Xcrawl sourcebook. i picked it up and skimmed the pages and got a general feel for the setting in 5 minutes, its a modern environment where dungeon crawls are a blood sport circulated on cable tv and pay per view.

but there is a lot of history stuff in there i could take 5 hours to read too. how the Xcrawl games and the setting as a whole developed historically, a breakdown of the social classes, etc. that stuff is readily available for me to pull out of the book but i dont need to read it to run a game in the setting and i definitely don't need to convey it to my players for them to "get" the setting.

[Keld Denar]

I like Greyhawk, or more specifically, the world of Greyhawk as developed by the Living Greyhawk community. I mean, seriously, how do you get more content and flavor than through the effort of thousands of writters and players from almost 2 dozen countries. There are richly detail lands you know about (probably the region you live in and play in), neighboring regions you love or love to hate (Ket!) and mysterious far off places where strange rumors circulate (regional plot lines and stories told by RL travelers from other regions).

None of my characters have ever been to the Pale, where the Theocrat of Pholtus rules with a "benevolant" hand. My characters have met other characters from the Pale, and have heard rumors of things that intrigue them. None of my characters have ever been to Dyvers, but from people they've met, they've learned that coin is king there, where money CAN probably buy happiness, or at least a large number of armed bodyguards. Its a system set up to promote gamer interaction, as well as character interaction, which I feel is the stongest point of the setting.

The regions have rich storylines, with overarcing plot lines, recognizable NPCs, dramatic locations, organizations you can join, and other noteworth items that instill a sense of pride in a player and a character from being from a region.

Plus, its got all the big names that you know and love. Rary, Mordenkanen, Tensor, Bigby. The places many of you are familiar with, like White Plume Mt, the Ghost Tower of Invernus, Storm Tower, and some Keep on the Boarderlands. What's not to love?

[Ellisande]

I started thinking: What do potential players look for in a setting?

While I don't see much disagreement so far in this thread, there's a large element of opinion or taste in what goes into a good setting, so... you'll never make something to please everyone. That said, the things I like/hate most as a player:

1) Internal coherency: I like a world that has a believable set of political, religious and economic systems. Not necessarily modern systems (usually the exact opposite--nothing is more frustrating to see than an advanced market economy using the scientific method in a 'feudal' society!), but a set of systems that fit together in a way that makes sense.
2) I also like low magic, but as an extension of 1). The more supernatural things that get put into a world, the harder it is to have them believably integrated.
3) Depth (rather than breadth): This may get more towards the campaign- or adventure- level, but I like games that aren't as wide ranging. That is to say, nothing's wrong with travel, but I oft find that the party never meets an NPC twice, because each game is in a new place. The tavern never needs a name, because you'll never be back to this town. I'd prefer to see a smaller number of NPCs and places, but in more depth.

The biggest problem with many settings, I think, is that they try to fit too much in. Especially with published settings, which (seeking mass appeal) throw in everything and the kitchen sink, they end up with a patchwork mishmash that weakens and cheapens the whole setting.

All that said, a games set in Thraan sounds like a riot. Any chance you'll be playing it as a PbP?

[Storm Bringer]

I agree with jarlax that i like a setting where you can get the jist of a setting in a page or two of text, but it can be elaborated out into a fairly large novel if you really wanted to.

I also agree with senrath on his dislike of the 'only you can save mankind' set ups. While having a village sized community say "you're pretty much the only hope we have to defeating the bandit king" isn't jarring, being told that in the whole world, thier is only a half-dozen heros capable of stopping the Big Bad, who just happened to meet up and adventure together for some time before the stakes were revealed, just....doesn't work for me.

i suppose the thing i like most about settings are ones where i can see the pesants as simply living. A world suffciently stable that it a mighty band of heros are NOT needed every month to save it form total destruction. A world where most of the populance worry about the bad grain harvest, or the recent bandit raids on the roads, not the Archdeamons Of Hell plotting thier deaths or the Great Evil From Beyond that has a taste for planets.

Mostly, this seems to push me to lower-magic settings, where the party has the only magic for 50 miles each way. However that i have no objection to high magic settings. Ebberon is quite nice as a change of pace form Fearun-clone settings, and Spelljammer manages to be so awesome I can forgive the most stupid bits (anthropomorphic hippos. with a gun fetish. as a playable race).

it's just.....being one of less than a thousand or so people on a continent of millions who is able to control the forces of magic just hightens the power you have, even when it's a small amount of power.

[Ganurath]

A well written out backstory. I want my character to be a part of a believable world... without Drow. A change of alignment is not a change of species, and if there aren't Drow then there won't be Drizzt ripoffs. Beyond that... I want it to be possible to run an evil PC, even if it's against evil opponents.

[Lord Tataraus]

While I don't see much disagreement so far in this thread, there's a large element of opinion or taste in what goes into a good setting, so... you'll never make something to please everyone. That said, the things I like/hate most as a player:

I fully realize I can't please everyone, but I can try to please most of them, that's the purpose of this thread and so far it has been very helpful.

1) Internal coherency: I like a world that has a believable set of political, religious and economic systems. Not necessarily modern systems (usually the exact opposite--nothing is more frustrating to see than an advanced market economy using the scientific method in a 'feudal' society!), but a set of systems that fit together in a way that makes sense.

I found this quite interesting because I've never really thought about it beyond an economy disconnected from the PC's abuses of money and some places with higher/lower prices.

2) I also like low magic, but as an extension of 1). The more supernatural things that get put into a world, the harder it is to have them believably integrated.

I am somewhat surprised to see how many like low magic, especially where "Everyone hates magic-users". Of course I'm glad people like that because that is a main focus of Thraan. Just when you thought everyone hated you, you find out even more people hate you! (I'll hopefully have that stuff up soon...)

3) Depth (rather than breadth): This may get more towards the campaign- or adventure- level, but I like games that aren't as wide ranging. That is to say, nothing's wrong with travel, but I oft find that the party never meets an NPC twice, because each game is in a new place. The tavern never needs a name, because you'll never be back to this town. I'd prefer to see a smaller number of NPCs and places, but in more depth.

I must say that is my favorite thing to do when building a world. I love setting up a small group of organizations then a handful of smaller ones, each with their own motives and see the background interaction as the PCs get caught up in power struggles.

The biggest problem with many settings, I think, is that they try to fit too much in. Especially with published settings, which (seeking mass appeal) throw in everything and the kitchen sink, they end up with a patchwork mishmash that weakens and cheapens the whole setting.

I would agree wholly. Whenever I create a setting I pick a certain theme and stick with it. Of course Thraan is just a city in an ambiguous world so its much easier to stay away from this trap.

All that said, a games set in Thraan sounds like a riot. Any chance you'll be playing it as a PbP?

It is a very good possibility. My RL players probably won't like it too much so I most likely will have to play it PbP. Of course, it is not near to finished I still have to write up all the stuff on 10 more organizations and the Undercity as well as finished up the districts.

I know I can't respond to all replies but I would like to thank you all for your input and assure you I'll use it to make my settings better present and future. Of course, additional responses are encouraged

[Alyosha]

This might sound cliche or silly, but I always appreciated a campaign setting with a clearly defined "Forbidden Zone." Whether it's a blistering waste, arctic tundra, or a large ruin in a nigh-inaccessible valley.

Such places breed stories of legends and wonders. Crazy old men tell stories of what they saw in those strange places. Legends of people in past centuries tell of the odd and wonderful things they brought back and hid away.

Maybe it makes a good adventuring hook too easy to come by, but finding treasures from this place, or even finding the place itself and visiting it gives anyone plenty of motivation to adventure into the world.

[Saph]

I like settings that are as clichéd as possible, without being generic.

Yes, seriously. I don't like novel settings. I appreciate that the DM's gone to all the work to build a world of his own, but novel means different, and different means I have to learn the differences, and learning the differences means work, and work is boring. I don't want to have to read 15 pages of geography, history, and theology to figure out where my character could have come from and where she might be going, especially when it's not all that interesting. This is why I like big well-developed settings which have been around a while, where I know most of the stuff already and don't have to work hard to learn it.

If I'm making a setting for players, I try to put all the information that they'll need to know about the campaign setting on one page of A4 paper. If it takes more than that, they're probably not going to remember it. Likewise, when I'm playing, I want to be able to pick up all I absolutely have to know about the setting in a few minutes. So something like; "Low-magic, low-level, gunpowder technology, one main continent, Mediterranean-style climate" is good. Anything that starts with "In the beginning the world was created by the god Hoojamaflip. The deities Whatsisname and Whatshecalled assisted him, but the god Whogivesafrack rebelled and . . ." is going to send me to sleep. How the hell am I expected to remember all that stuff?

The closer the setting is to the standards I'm familiar with in fantasy tropes or pop culture, the sooner I can take it in, and the more time I can spend on coming up with an interesting character and actually playing the game.

- Saph

[Satyr]

What do potential players look for in a setting?

A Sense of Wonder. Magical or supernatural (opr just breathtaking beautiful or disgustin) story elements come up, and keep mthis feeling of awe. When magie becomes too normal and part of daily life, it becomes dull as well. A truly fascinating setting therefore offers sceneries of great spectacle and wonder, but makes them rare as well, so they can be appreciated.

Heroism. I want a game where the main characters are heros. TRhat doesn't mean that they have to be morally superior, but I really hater games where the characters alone can wipe ouit hole civilisations. To be a hero, you have top be chalenged by your opponent. You are going against the odds. The opposite is stronger than you - and you still fight on, and probably win.

Plausibility. The game worls is not necessarily realistic, but it follow an own inner logic and sticks to it. There are rational (within the gaming world) reasons why things happens or how the different structures and elements came to be.

Ambivalence. I think terms like "good" or "evil" are shortcomings and show a great lack of originality or deeper understandings of how sentient species behave. In a good gaming world, completely opposite positions should be shown as equal acceptable and understandable.

[Lord Tataraus]

I would agree that cliches should not be avoided. They work so well or else they wouldn't be cliches! The forbidden zone is something I have not thought about before, but I think I know of the perfect location in my setting, thanks for the idea!

[Prometheus]

1) A regular amount of magic: Low magic seems bound to either be a failure or have replacements that aren't as interesting. If you entire gaming group is power-gamers that cannot resist becoming Batman or Cheeseballs, play a different game
2) Powerful natural hazards: There is nothing more silly than a hazard like and Avalanche, Sandstorm, or Quicksand which utterly ineffective to higher level players. They make for fine challenge when level appropriate, but I think that it should be able to scale a little higher, which can mean outlandish but also interesting terrain. Correspondingly, creatures of the wilderness should present a threat even too adventurers, which makes travel for commoners difficult. Perhaps a "Forbidden Zone" as described by Alyosha.
3) Unique cities: A kingdom with either expansionist or defensiveness strategies gets boring real quick. Mix up the system of government, culture, landscape, races, classes, etc.
4)Unifying theme: There should be something that connects the entire landscape. Landlocked? In the process of colonization? Island chain? Epidemic disease? Dominant religion? Or yes, even Low-Magic...Think Dune. Think Waterworld. Think Post-apocalypse. Think Salem. It also serves as a major plot device and a n explanatory factor for all major world interaction.
5) Good DMing: Seems to be much more influential than setting :P

[Sergeantbrother]

A Sense of Wonder. Magical or supernatural (opr just breathtaking beautiful or disgustin) story elements come up, and keep mthis feeling of awe. When magie becomes too normal and part of daily life, it becomes dull as well. A truly fascinating setting therefore offers sceneries of great spectacle and wonder, but makes them rare as well, so they can be appreciated.

Heroism. I want a game where the main characters are heros. TRhat doesn't mean that they have to be morally superior, but I really hater games where the characters alone can wipe ouit hole civilisations. To be a hero, you have top be chalenged by your opponent. You are going against the odds. The opposite is stronger than you - and you still fight on, and probably win.

Plausibility. The game worls is not necessarily realistic, but it follow an own inner logic and sticks to it. There are rational (within the gaming world) reasons why things happens or how the different structures and elements came to be.

Ambivalence. I think terms like "good" or "evil" are shortcomings and show a great lack of originality or deeper understandings of how sentient species behave. In a good gaming world, completely opposite positions should be shown as equal acceptable and understandable.

Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have always thought that the greatest portrayals of magic were in setting were magic was very rare. Likewise, I think that the greatest stories of morality happen in morally ambiguous settings.

[DraPrime]

I've found that a solution to having a low magic campaign, is that certain parts of the world fear magic, others are indifferent, and finally there are those that like it. It's purely fluff and has no mechanics, but with a good DM it will have the desired impact on a campaign.

[EvilElitest]

Halflings.

. . .

. . .

. . .

Also, completeness. I want to be able to see that stuff is going on beyond the scope of the adventure. I want to be able to see effects of actions I have taken. I want for there to be things to hate, things to love, and things not to care about. I want to be able to go somewhere that the DM didn't plan, and for him to already have an idea of what is over there, because the setting is that well developed. I want for there to be things in the world that are not always CR appropriate. I want challenge worth thought, and hope of success.

I agree

What i also like

Realistic based culture. I like it when a fantasy culture is based off of a real life one ( I don't like ebberon, because they didn't do it well
Interactive NPCs
A DM willing to let you explore the world without railroading
Realism, in a Song of Fire and Ice sort of way, mixed with Tolkion
Well thought out plots
The choice to pick what side were are on
Meat (fluff) before cruch
Good well thought out villians
stories make sense
history
Good culture
Ninjas
diverse cultures
lots of different monsters, races, and creatures
Both low and mid magic in different areas
Belivablitly
Tragicagy
Sarcastic characters
Genre savy character
People aren't clieche
PCs are inherintly special, they have to earn their status
However, people belivable act when seeing such dramatic wonderful actions
from,
EE

[John Campbell]

Okay, imagine the Forgotten Realms.

Now, imagine a setting that, if it were to come into contact with the Forgotten Realms, would cause matter/antimatter annihilation, completely destroying both settings in a tremendous explosion, and probably killing Mystra.

That second setting is the one I want to play in.

[EvilElitest]

Okay, imagine the Forgotten Realms.

Now, imagine a setting that, if it were to come into contact with the Forgotten Realms, would cause matter/antimatter annihilation, completely destroying both settings in a tremendous explosion, and probably killing Mystra.

That second setting is the one I want to play in.

I accually don't see the beef with FR. I mean, as long as you know how to tell a good story, and handle the NPCs in a realistic manner what is the problem? And don't go for the level 20 barkeep wizard, because it isn't true. I've always run FR like a combination of Baldur's gate and Morrawind/Oblivion and never had any problems
It i also the most fleshed out game
from,
EE

[zaei]

I accually don't see the beef with FR. I mean, as long as you know how to tell a good story, and handle the NPCs in a realistic manner what is the problem? And don't go for the level 20 barkeep wizard, because it isn't true. I've always run FR like a combination of Baldur's gate and Morrawind/Oblivion and never had any problems
It i also the most fleshed out game
from,
EE

At the very least, both BG and Oblivion had 20th level wizard barkeeps in them =]

Put me in the with low magic crowd (I LOVE the idea of E6 in particular). I also enjoy extreme conditions (wind-blasted icescapes, sun scorched deserts, even underdark, I suppose). At the same time, I enjoy city based games. A setting with a few cities spread out between enormous wastelands sounds pretty awesome. Maybe have zeppelins or teleportation gates between some of the cities (or magic trains, also awesome), played with the E6 rules... I wish I could conjure a custom DM out of thin air =]

[Lord Tataraus]

More good stuff, thanks! I see a few high-fantasy people have come out so that's good. I'm glad to see many of these these are incorporated in my settings already though there are a lot of things I never really thought much about.

@ zaei: it sounds like you might like my Thraan setting, I am planning on doing a PbP after its done so keep an eye out (if you're interested of course).