The Campaign Builder's Guild

We have a thread asking why we design, but now I'd like to ask a related but different question: What do you like?  That is, what elements of setting flavor cause you to want to read a thread?

For me the answer is the opposite of grim and gritty: hopeful and smooth.
Hopeful does not mean just a glimmer of hope, a small amount, but it means that the majority of the setting is worth saving, and it's worth it because it's a relatively nice place with relatively nice people who are at least trying to live without stabbing each other in the back.
Smooth is a little harder to define.  In one sense it means clean (interpreting "gritty" to mean a sort of dirty coating), where streets are often paved and buildings and people are washed.  The color is bright and things are nice to look at.  The other sense is in terms of how it flows: a smooth world doesn't get hung up on the deadliness of combat or the various consequences of court intrigue.

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?40033this thread[/url] is an interesting read. I'm not really sure whether or not it's addressing the same question you're asking here.

I would be interested to hear more description of the specific elements you are talking about for your own preferences. I find myself a little unsure about what you mean, possibly because much of your description seems to involve what your ideal world is not, rather than what it is. Could you elaborate a little more, perhaps?

Quote from: Luminous CrayonYou may find that this thread (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?40033) is an interesting read. I'm not really sure whether or not it's addressing the same question you're asking here.

It looks like it's more about formatting, while I'm trying to ask about what flavor things one likes.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI would be interested to hear more description of the specific elements you are talking about for your own preferences. I find myself a little unsure about what you mean, possibly because much of your description seems to involve what your ideal world is not, rather than what it is. Could you elaborate a little more, perhaps?

Half the problem with me expressing myself right now is that I'm in a depressed state, able to tell more easily what I don't like rather than what I like.  I'll give it a try, though.
To put it simply I treat a setting like an object: If it's pretty and sparkly I like it.  If it's ugly and dull I don't want it.  For a setting to be pretty it has to have more nice, tolerant, reasonably smart people than not.  For it to be sparkly it has to have the potential to include fantastic ideas without to much whining about consistency.

I can try to think more about it and get back to you if you want.

So, what's an example of a "pretty and sparkly" setting?

I think interesting conflict is the main thing for me. When I look at someone else's design or at published material my first thought is 'what kinds of adventures could happen here?" I also like simplicity--even when I'm running a game based on D&D I tend to limit the number of available intelligent races. I also like things to be epic or mythical--I don't like magic to be ordinary.

When it comes to gritty I think that I prefer it to clean and shiny. Not quite sure why except to say that I find when it comes to fantasy that I prefer the works of David Gemmell, George r.r. Martin and Robert E. Howard to...well, others.

Quote from: Epic MeepoSo, what's an example of a "pretty and sparkly" setting?

I'm not sure I can think of one that covers both elements equally well.  I've never found a published setting even close to this.  Comedy animé like "Slayers" and "Those Who Hunt Elves" have pretty done well, but not quite sparkly enough.  Animé and animé-inspired things often have the right sparkly, but generally are just too hung up on people falling over their own knives to be pretty.

I personally look for something new, as well as something old.

What I mean is, I want elements of exploration into new ideas for campaigns, but I don't want it to be so new I don't have a basic reference point.

As for specifics about what kind of "new" things I like...it really depends. I usually figure out pretty early on if I like it or not, but I have to start reading to know.

Taking from Tybalt's remark about what kind of adventures can happen, what I really look for in a setting is something that is engaging, but doesn't allow for loads of room to play over and over. I like the idea of a world that is more restricted in that you can have a party start from killing the occasional orc on the highway to visiting the depths of darkness and coming back unscathed, but I don't want the setting to feel like the game didn't really matter for it. You should be able to run a story or two in the world and then that be it. Not like FR when there seems to always be another maniacal wizard-plot going down, only in another region or with another legendary artifact uncovered and/or stolen from Hell. The player's actions should have a lasting effect, and then you should be able to move on and say "that was great guys, what setting would be nice to try next?"

That's a good point SovietTroll. I think that settings like Forgotten Realms for instance had an almost daunting feel for me because it seemed like as player or DM there was little lasting effect that any player group under 30th level could have.

Magic

For me, the essence of magic is in its inability to be encapsulated and defined.  I prefer it when there is a significant rift between the way things are and the way things seem, and the truth is ambiguous even from a metagame perspective.  So if I read the setting material and the laws of magic and the nature of the Gods is fairly explicitly described, that tends to be off-putting (truth be told, I only came to that conclusion when I saw the very same phenomenon in my own setting, Dystopia, and realised that it totally defied my intended tone).  I see magic, faith and superstition as intertwined; I love it when you can't tell which myths are just myths and which fabled lands really are fables, when the line between fate and coincidence becomes blurred and you most often question not what is real, but what is truly false.

Violence

I'm making a big distinction between this and combat, here.  With violence I'm talking about the intended infliction of harm on another creature, and the in-world repercussions for these actions.  My only real requirement here is that the consequences are realistic; that a one-sided, merciless bloodbath is treated as just that, and that those responsible are "compensated" as can be logically expected.  I abhor games with mindless killing - or an obsessive focus on the human propensity for evil - that consider themselves "mature games" (though I do enjoy blatantly gruesome and irreverent games like I Kill Bunnies for Satan), but contextual violence is fine and I enjoy a good fight scene if it makes sense.

Familiarity

I like settings that take familiar and distort it, associate it with things I haven't seen before or just generally go against type.  I'm quite jaded by most fantasy settings (the ol' Tolkien-Morecock shtick), and find it hard to be inspired by much fantasy because its familiarity makes it that much less fantastic.  There's no hard and fast rule about this - the combination of qualities can vary, so long as I'm surprised.

Negativity

This is the whole "dark" or "grim-n-gritty" deal.  Not long ago (less than a year) I was pretty far in the "dark" direction of the nasty/nice spectrum, but things have changed since then.  I actually really like it when things are pretty calm, harmonious and certain, but punctuated by varying degrees of unfamiliarity, abhorrence or confusion.  This can be a sudden murder, a shift in the social climate, the rise of a new metaphysical power, or really anything in between.  Violence, despair and deceit seem all the more contemptible when they are far from the norm, and unlike before I no longer think that a triumph of good is optimised when it arises in a time of great darkness.  Often, it takes but a little cruelty, treachery or selfishness to spoil a time of goodness, and a comparable act of good can be just as compelling or rewarding in these times as in a time of great peril.

Replayability

Perhaps not quite contradicting SovietTroll's remarks, but seemingly contrasting them; I like it when a world is malleable enough that its essence can be retained while allowing characters to make changes across many levels of power and influence.  This is hard to do, but that really depends on the setting's ethos: more concrete worlds with clearly detailed figures of power are more damaged by PC meddling than ones with more abstractly defined relationships between places, people and ideas.

Richness

I like a setting to be filled with little details.  Not comprehensive (just like with magic, this actually detracts from the experience for me), but a fecund source of inspiration and an expression of the depth of the setting.

It should therefore come as no surprise at all that the setting I'll be posting in the next few days is pretty much precisely all the things I just described.

Hmmm... excellent questions. I would have said "realism" five years ago. But I think I was wrong even then. What I most want is coherency. Not even complete logic, but consistency. If a world is flat, I want that to effect the views and function of the world's residents.

On a more personal level, I quit reading when I run into anime, mecha, science in my fiction, psionics and anything relating to DROW.

I love the idea of underdark worlds, but dislike just about every single dark race I've ever seen! I'm tired of dark=evil, depressing and threatening.

I like mysterious magic, fey elves, and a certain hint of the medieval, but not a strict adherence to "it was like this in the 13th century".

Trying to define my own terms a bit more, now that I've seen some things other people have said:

Magic
Magic should be two things: flashy and common.
"Flashy": When I play a mage I want to feel like reality handed me the keys to the sports car and said "You drive."  Part of this is that I'm not terribly good at thinking my actions out or being very subtle, so any magic rules that don't allow me to do something crazy are just going to fall apart on me.
"Common": This doesn't necessarily mean everyone can cast spells.  It means that the chance for weird and cool things to happen is greater than in a setting where a "realistic" consistency is adhered to, and that "magic" is integral to how the world works.  Magical creatures are common, and even the average peasant or soldier has a chance to pull something mind-boggling out of their hat.
Also I have no problem knowing how magic works.  In fact, I often find things interesting the more I know about how they work.

Familiarity
Give me something new.  I crave an idea I haven't thought of before.  This doesn't necessarily have to be a big difference from a cliché, just something thought-provoking.  Dwarves can live underground and be great miners and metalsmiths so long as it makes sense in a new way.  The greatest example of something like this is the dwarves from Discworld: Terry Pratchett takes the cliché and emphasizes it and builds on it until you don't notice it because it has all the little weird details that make you easily accept it as if it were a real human culture.

Negativity
I don't like deep negativity.  I can't help but dwell on it and then anything associated with it is no fun.  A bit of it is expected and okay, like a distrust of a certain ethnic group or a dismissal of the capabilities of a gender or age.  But too much of it and a world turns into a message.  If I've heard the message once I've heard it enough to get it.

Richness
This is good, but I can't handle too much at once.  A setting doesn't needed to be loaded down with this stuff.

Coherency
I can't say for certain how much I need this.  I think I like coherency, but if I had to choose between this and a setting being just plain cool I'd go for the latter.

This is a really fascinating thread to read. I am thinking hard about how I would answer these questions for myself. It's a beneficial mental exercise!

P.S. - Not to blow my own horn or anything. But. Gilladian, you have pretty much described the Jade Stage with considerable precision. I'm curious about whether you've looked at it at all, and if you have, whether you enjoyed it.

I agree with the whole "Dark is overused to mean evil".  Dark is not evil.  Darkness is not evil.  Darkness simply the absence of the kind of light humans need to see by.  People need to stop being generically afraid of it and treat it with the respect it deserves.  Darkness actually has beneficial qualities: it provides a hiding place, both to hide from predators and sneak up on prey, and it provides the cheapest place to get cool in a sunny area.

There are lots of other elements that are similarly mistreated: cold, chaos, death.  None of them are inherently evil, and I like to see them as accepted elements in a setting.

I understand the human fear of the dark, though. It's easy for prey to sneak up on us. It's hard to see what's going on around us. Many dangerous things happen at night simply because we can't see as far as we can during the day. It's been with us since we developed the ability to tell the difference between light and dark.

That said, yes, Dark as evil is overdone. But I understand the fear.

Quote from: evil, depressing and threatening.[/quoteAgreed, 100%. While I do understand the fear of darkness, I'm tired of fear becoming and meaning contempt and hatred and villification. Healthy fear can breed respect, and it's not hard to envision a darkness-as-protector motiff to a setting. *marks down for use*

I'll ponder more my answer on the big question, but I had to chime in on this.

Hm.

Some interesting sub-themes here.  There seems to be a healthy hatred of the cliche developing.  
[blockquote=Gilladian]On a more personal level, I quit reading when I run into anime, mecha, science in my fiction, psionics and anything relating to DROW.[/blockquote]  This cracked me up.  I also kind of agreed.  There are elements of genres that seem to find there way into too many places, and I think I am sick of them as well.

[blockquote=SilvercatMoonpaw]The other sense is in terms of how it flows: a smooth world doesn't get hung up on the deadliness of combat or the various consequences of court intrigue. [/blockquote]   Oopsie.  Celtricia is a no-no for you to visit...Not a smooth setting at all, though I never thought of it that way.  Which is why this thread is so cool...

And this also garnered a chuckle...[blockquote=SA]I'm quite jaded by most fantasy settings (the ol' Tolkien-Morecock shtick), and find it hard to be inspired by much fantasy because its familiarity makes it that much less fantastic. There's no hard and fast rule about this - the combination of qualities can vary, so long as I'm surprised.[/blockquote]  There is a very discernable sourness in my mindset when i get that 'here we go again' feeling in a setting.  [note]Which Might explain why the bugbears are the smartest PC race in my setting. [/note]

[blockquote=SilvercatMoonpaw]There are lots of other elements that are similarly mistreated: cold, chaos, death. None of them are inherently evil, and I like to see them as accepted elements in a setting.[/blockquote]  I again must agree, though I also understand why many primitive setting may fear death.  I have had to explain a million times why necromancers in my setting are not necessarily evil, that for some of them communing with the dead can be a good or holy act...

ANyhow, intersting way of looking at a setting.

Quote from: LordVreegCeltricia is a no-no for you to visit...Not a smooth setting at all, though I never thought of it that way.  Which is why this thread is so cool...

I'm way too much of a "Saturday morning cartoon" person.  Real life contains enough of that sort of negativity.  I don't need my fix of it in fiction, I can open up a newspaper if I want any of that.

I also understand the reason why people are afraid of the dark, but to me that sort of thinking should go out the window when one actually has time to sit down and reason out a setting.  Darkness itself is not what we really fear, it's what's in the darkness.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: Epic MeepoSo, what's an example of a "pretty and sparkly" setting?

I'm not sure I can think of one that covers both elements equally well.  I've never found a published setting even close to this.  Comedy animé like "Slayers" and "Those Who Hunt Elves" have pretty done well, but not quite sparkly enough.  Animé and animé-inspired things often have the right sparkly, but generally are just too hung up on people falling over their own knives to be pretty.

An example of a "pretty/sparkly" game setting would be Blue Rose. It's basically romantic adventuring; think of it as the Disney version of d20. It has some interesting story elements, but focuses entirely too much on good guy/bad guy tropes.

Quote from: MonikerAn example of a "pretty/sparkly" game setting would be Blue Rose. It's basically romantic adventuring; think of it as the Disney version of d20. It has some interesting story elements, but focuses entirely too much on good guy/bad guy tropes.

Oh, I own Blue Rose.  Boring setting.  Not because the people of Aldea don't have great big prejudices, but because they're just too nice, and then the guys they fight are still that level of being evil that means you can't respect them.  It would work better if the people in Aldea could get along while doing some bickering and then Jarzon and Kern weren't cookie-cutter villains.

LC: I rather like what I've read of your Jade Stage setting. You're obviously a skilled writer and have some really creative ideas to express. I haven't read a great deal of your setting, though, so I can only say "I think I'd like playing in your world".

As far as pretty/sparkly vs dark/grim, I think I fall more on the pretty/sparkly side, but as I like a healthy dose of realism as well, my "perfect world" would be pretty and sparkly up to a point, but would then have to have some dirt somewhere; or what's the point of adventuring? I like quests that will improve my piece of the world, not just polish the silver, if you know what I mean.

Xiluh, I think, has two main elements. One is an exotic element, and the other is a natural element. It's certainly "pretty", due to the exotic element, but I'm not so sure I'd say it's "sparkly", or even "clean".

I think a good example of these two elements would be The Jungle Book, only without bears that sing and dance. Xiluh doesn't have the shiny, sparkly, smooth feels of a more "civilized" setting, but between the bright colors and great sense of wonder, there certainly are tones of "pretty", and even "warm".

What do you guys look for in settings as a player? How about as a DM? Are these different from what "reads well" in a sourcebook or a forum like this one?

Quote from: Bill VolkWhat do you guys look for in settings as a player? How about as a DM? Are these different from what "reads well" in a sourcebook or a forum like this one?

As a player, setting doesn't matter. As long as I have the freedom to create an interesting character background, I'm happy.

As a DM, I want latitude. As long as I can run three different games with three different themes in different regions of the setting, I'm happy.

Generally, that means I'm not a big fan of sourcebooks that "read well." I don't want a fancy backdrop that reads like a novel and oozes with themes and ongoing story arcs. I want an encyclopedia listing dozens of interlocking pieces, each of them interesting on its own merits. And preferably, it comes with framework - a map, a cosmology, a history, or something else - through which individual pieces can be referenced and tied together, as needed.

I pretty much have the same preferences as a player as I've stated for simple reading.  The difference is that I'm willing to be a bit more lenient.  The thing about being a player is that you can hope for some funny antics among your fellow gamers and/or the GM, meaning that even a setting that wouldn't fire my imagination is tolerable.

I still prefer worlds were there isn't going to be a focus on all the cr*p people regularly put each other through (war, intrigue, prejudice).  A bit for background is okay, but I'm in this for spy or action adventures and not Saving Private Ryan.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI pretty much have the same preferences as a player as I've stated for simple reading.  The difference is that I'm willing to be a bit more lenient.  The thing about being a player is that you can hope for some funny antics among your fellow gamers and/or the GM, meaning that even a setting that wouldn't fire my imagination is tolerable.

I still prefer worlds were there isn't going to be a focus on all the cr*p people regularly put each other through (war, intrigue, prejudice).  A bit for background is okay, but I'm in this for spy or action adventures and not Saving Private Ryan.

MMM.  Very good way of putting that.  Fantasy as fantasy, not as a gritty reality turned on it's head.
I tend to use my setting to explore issues like religious freedom and racism and the complexities of good and evil.  But I can certainly see using gaming to get away from all that crapola as well.

I do have to totally agree with you on the interaction comment.  My gamers may be old, but they have almost all have wicked senses of humor.  And that really can supercede the game (in a a good way) in terms of enjoyment.  As an example, We have a very masculine necromantic priest who has a very feminine tiara that he has to wear to use.  Nothing like the group leader, from the Guild of Torturers, no less, looking at you and telling the group that, "it's time to get pretty."

Quote from: LordVreegMMM.  Very good way of putting that.  Fantasy as fantasy, not as a gritty reality turned on it's head.

To be honest, I have no idea what you mean by "gritty reality turned on its head".  I think I agree with it, though.  For me it's just a sheer disbelief that anyone can be stupid enough to get bent out of shape by all their flipped-out thoughts.

For the "dark and gritty thing" I tend not to like either of the two extremes.

I don't like a bunch of despicable heroes whether they succeed or fail. And a totally dark world does get hard to care about.

On the same note I don't exactly think peace (or whatever they happen to want) is something you hand to players on a silver platter, nor do I like the good vs evil equals us vs them mentality.

I tend to prefer that middle ground, where the players are adventurers and opportunists and roguish scoundrels seeking their fortune. Not at the expense of "innocents" but often at the expense of anyone and everyone else... Likewise not necessarily facing oppressive or horrible opposition, but taking risks and accomplishing things that normal folks might never even try.

In other words, the world is crazy and a little effed up, but with some hard work and a little luck, you can do crazy awesome things in it. Hope instead of peace. Color instead of black, white, or gray.

Another reason to adventure in a world where things are mostly good is that it makes actually being a "hero" more of a challenge.  I think.  It's just that it occurs to me with a darker tone all you need is to be just a little bit nicer.  With a light tone you really do need to shine.  (And heck, the lighter the tone the more fun it actually is to be bad once and a while.)

As a player, my preferences are even more fickle then a pop diva. My preferences tend to be whatever is best suited to whatever my character-concept-of-the-week happens to be. (right now, that would be the high seas and political intrigue of a good swashbuckling adventure) That said, I'm usually laid back enough to accept whatever I'm given, and I try to work within that.

As a GM, I tend to be much more generous. Since I tend to be very whim-based as a player, I try to use settings flexible enough to cater towards the whims of my players. Unfortunately, that so far has only given me the opportunity to use a few bottom-up settings, but I hope to find a system-neutral (read: no setting-specific rules) setting flexible enough for just about anything my players could throw at me.

I prefer a good mixture of of themes. If a gaming world becomes too dark and realistic, it's frustrating. The real world is often depresing enough, I don't need that as well when I am trying to have some fun. Therefore, I don't like longer campaigns in too desperate settings.
On the other hand, I don't like too optimistic and rainbowy settings as well. I'm to old for adventures in the petting zoo, and if there is too much happinness and harmony around, I feel the urge to introduce manic cat hurlers or fairy wing collectors, just to tip of the scales again.

But severalo of my players have complained that my adventures become somewhat dark quite often, even when I still believe them to be glorious and heroic.

What I really look forward to in a setting are four main elements -  

A Sense of Wonder. Magical or supernatural (opr just breathtaking beautiful or disgusting) story elements come up, and keep this feeling of awe. When magie becomes too normal and a 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 every time they come up. If I think something like "Not another dragon!" The magic of the dragon has gone. The game world has become banal. I don't like banalty.

Heroism. I want a game where the main characters are heros. That doesn't mean that they have to be morally superior, but I really hate games where the characters alone can wipe out hole civilisations or save the world on a regular basis. To be a hero, you have to 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 and even desirable.

Quote from: Satyr'¦'¦if there is too much happinness and harmony around, I feel the urge to introduce manic cat hurlers or fairy wing collectors, just to tip of the scales again.

But the introducing of these elements into a world that is too dark wouldn't have the right kind of impact, showing that extremes of the light and dark scale overwhelm the material inside.

Quote from: SatyrA Sense of Wonder. Magical or supernatural (opr just breathtaking beautiful or disgusting) story elements come up, and keep this feeling of awe. When magie becomes too normal and a 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 every time they come up. If I think something like "Not another dragon!" The magic of the dragon has gone. The game world has become banal. I don't like banalty.

Hmmm.  To me the problem is that this attitude makes people too cautious.  They flinch away from the bold use of something fresh and new and keep giving us the same old tired ideas.  Sometimes I'd rather have dragons start to get too common rather than face another horde of orcs because everyone does orcs.

Quote from: SatyrHeroism. I want a game where the main characters are heros. That doesn't mean that they have to be morally superior, but I really hate games where the characters alone can wipe out hole civilisations or save the world on a regular basis. To be a hero, you have to 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.

I agree so long as "against the odds" isn't code for "and by odds, we mean you can't ever win".  I don't want a setting where no matter how many corrupt officials I take down I can't ever affect any meaningful change.