No this isn't a thread about buttless chaps and trolls in cat suits. This is in regards to campaign discussion. :P
Anyhow I have noticed that I have a harder time responding to some campaign threads versus others. So I have decided to lay out why that is as far as I can tell. I invite everyone else to do likewise. However, this is not a thread for railing on other people's way of doing things. It is instead I hope something that will help everyone learn what they are doing wrong in attracting reviewers to their campaign threads. Furthermore it also should help to show what people are doing right to get your attention.
To start I think what gets me the most is when a thread is overly complex in design. I don't mean images and excerpts or anything else. What I am talking about is when I have to go through extra steps just to read the info on the setting. The most notable troublemakers here are PDFs (which take forever to load) and threads that get too wordy (saying 5 things where 1 would suffice). Other things that turn me off in this category are people linking to other sites and wikis without providing much in the main thread. I know I may sound lazy and really I am. However that is just how it is for me.
What else turns me off? 4e. No I am not a h4ter or anything like that. It is just a system I don't enjoy so when I see something that uses it I can't really comment unless I have something to say in regards to the fluff. 3.5e and 3e I am better with but I still have difficulty with them from time to time.
On the opposite end of the spectrum I get excited with in-depth and well organized posts. Tastefully arranged pictures and stories also score points with me. I especially love smoothly implemented custom rules (even just house rules). What will get me excited more than anything is when everything fits together or is starting to fit together in a new and interesting way (especially when it meshes well with real world believability). Most of all I want to be able to put in my 2 cents. So ask questions, spit out ideas, anything that gives me an opening to jump in and reply will grab me.
There are of course other things that get me one way or the other. These are just what I feel are the big ones. Feel free to drop me a line if you want something reviewed though, just remember that I will be more eager to view it if these facts are remembered.
So then, now its your turn. Tell me what gets you excited and drives you off when someone is laying out their new campaign world. Lets all help each other out in making this a more interactive review community.
What turns me on is people creating suggestive thread titles. ;) YEAH BABY!
But as I read further in, I see that this thread might deserve a better response than this and so I will try to oblige.
First off, I can tell that this was possibly prompted recently by my campaign thread. I have noticed some of these problems and I am working on gradually moving away from the PDFs once I have something worth looking at. I know my stuff can be a bit wordy but I often like it that way. If that scares some people away, so be it. I may, however, be making a shorter overview for each cultural group in time.
Now for me; I like it when thing are presented clearly. Formatting your posts to be read simply is a must! I prefer to read more fluff and less crunch. However, I particularly like crunch that is well tailored to fluff (and no, I don't mean things like monsters where the fluff exists because of the crunch, I like things like races that are well thought out and have stats to go with them that make sense).
Along the lines of how Nomadic said 4E can make him disinterested, I am this way with home made systems. I just can't get into learning a new system just to review things for someone else. Variant systems are the same way unless they are so minor as to be more a collection of house rules. I will still gladly give me thoughts on the fluff for these projects, however.
Skin-tight leather. Do I get an a-men, LV?
On a more serious note, it's generally a variety of things. I like simplicity in some places, complexity in others. I can't stand things that are too wordy. And it has to be intense, as if the setting in question were being spoken with energy and not sounding monotone. There have to be ups and downs, things that grab your attention, and different kinds of emphasis to different aspects.
Man, I could probably an entire book about what turns me off in fiction, and that includes game settings.
Things that turn me off: Anything that implies that life is harsh/brutal/cruel/a struggle/cannot be won/(I could go on). As soon as I read about large wars (i.e. wars that cover a large area or at least the main-focus area) that are happening or are about to, horrible demons/abberrations running amok, any emphasis on survival, and whatever else would fall under the previous sentence. Essentially if I could read about of version of it in a real-world newspaper I see no reason to need to encounter it again in a significant way in my fiction. Note: This also includes pretty much anything that falls under the word "intrigue".
Things that do not necessarily turn me off but aren't going to turn me on: Anything mundane. Also any attempt to build something "believable".
Things that turn me on: Wildly fantastic ideas.
Question for those who don't really like stuff being too wordy. For the world I'm working on now, after a short in-character intro on monsters, races, whatever's being presented in a given post, I divide the content based on mostly-fluff and mostly-crunch stuff and spoiler that. Does that help (so if you want the crunch you can skip right to it) or is that not what people mean by "too wordy"?
Quote from: JokerSkin-tight leather. Do I get an a-men, LV?
On a more serious note, it's generally a variety of things. I like simplicity in some places, complexity in others. I can't stand things that are too wordy. And it has to be intense, as if the setting in question were being spoken with energy and not sounding monotone. There have to be ups and downs, things that grab your attention, and different kinds of emphasis to different aspects.
This is a really good use of a thread title. Don't abuse this dangerous skill.
If you ever want to learn how to get your setting threads looked at, look at allthe Celtricia threads, then do the opposite...(literally, that's why I just redid my openning post on the setting page). The original Celtricia thread was actuallty subtitled 'the Stream of Consiousness Disaster'.
Were I to start from scratch (and the way I have been changing The Celtricia Wiki), I would not create a full setting thread. Too much data, too much information, OVERLOAD!!! I'd compartmentalize a lot more. Because the continual issue with people trying to review is that there is too much to respond to, too much to grasp. So I probably would have broken down the setting thread into a cosmology/religion, a politics thread, a game play thread, and a tech/magic/development thread. Making it easier to respond to smaller, easier to digest posts.
SO this was not answered in the particular format requested, but the outcome is the same. I have learned the aformentioned from responding to dozens of threads and from peoples priivate responses. Ignore them at your peril.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThings that turn me off: Anything that implies that life is harsh/brutal/cruel/a struggle/cannot be won/(I could go on). As soon as I read about large wars (i.e. wars that cover a large area or at least the main-focus area) that are happening or are about to, horrible demons/abberrations running amok, any emphasis on survival, and whatever else would fall under the previous sentence. Essentially if I could read about of version of it in a real-world newspaper I see no reason to need to encounter it again in a significant way in my fiction. Note: This also includes pretty much anything that falls under the word "intrigue".
So... where do your conflicts come from, if you're ruling out war, monsters AND intrigue?
Quote from: KindlingSo... where do your conflicts come from, if you're ruling out war, monsters AND intrigue?
DU JOUR[/i] FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS!" or something similar, where a single kind of creature is
everywhere and you don't use any others, or it
only involves PCs fighting huge set-piece battles against hordes of mooks, that it doesn't work out.
Bullet points. That drives me to read a thread, more so than anything else here.
Quote from: KindlingSo... where do your conflicts come from, if you're ruling out war, monsters AND intrigue?
People.
The problem with those three factors is that too often they make the problem bigger than people. If your problem-solving agent is a small group then there's a point at which the problem will outstrip the ability of said agent to handle it on its own. The point of the game '" in my mind '" is for the focus to be on plucky people who save the day, not on people who gather armies. Unless you give them a plot device taking on a war, widespread horror [I'm not sure what you meant by simply saying "monster"], and/or intrigue tend to be out of the plucky peoples' league.
So what does that leave? Hero stories, the kind from myth where one hero or a small group face danger and overcome trials mostly without invoking large-scale solutions (as I've read them, you myths may vary). Intrigue? Scheming vizers who you can run a sword through. War? Occasionally, but generally not (and they really don't seem as much fun). Monsters? Sure, they're a staple. It's just that they're generally of the type you can eliminate without an army.
Personally I find that smaller discussions on a general topic the most interesting, especially if it touches on points that relate to whatever I'm working on. I tend not to read anything that needs multiple paragraphs of preamble before getting to the main point. Basically 90% of stuff that comes up in the Meta or Campaign Elements sections.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: KindlingSo... where do your conflicts come from, if you're ruling out war, monsters AND intrigue?
People. *snip*
A campaign setting with War, Monsters and Intrigue can be focused on the people. A perfect example of this in fiction is The Black Company by Glen Cook. It's an excellent story about a small group of people in a world full of war and intrigue, with a few monsters thrown in as well.
I think the important thing is the focus of the game. Are you focusing on the Giant War of Death, Doom and Destruction? Or are you focusing on the people who are affected by this war?
Quote from: PellanorI think the important thing is the focus of the game. Are you focusing on the Giant War of Death, Doom and Destruction? Or are you focusing on the people who are affected by this war?
I tend to see those as the same thing: the war is going to feel like it's overshadowing the people no matter the focus because it is just this big huge thing around them that they aren't and probably can't resolve. I prefer if there's going to be war that it be a background piece, e.g. in the past or somewhere not too near.
I can actually be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to what gets me going on a setting, I think... I can go on for hours about certain things in my own setting, but if another setting doesn't get to the point fairly quickly I lose track.
Quote from: JokerI can actually be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to what gets me going on a setting, I think... I can go on for hours about certain things in my own setting, but if another setting doesn't get to the point fairly quickly I lose track.
I'm sort of the opposite. I realize that I have a tendency to go into excessive detail about, well,
anything when I (A) know a lot about it, (B) feel strongly about it, or (C) both, as is the case with my settings; thus, I do as much as I can to make my settings manageable--separate fluff and crunch, break things up into spoiler blocks, put everything new into their own posts, rely on an in-character piece to set the mood rather than five or six dry explanatory paragraphs, and so on.
Quote from: JokerI can actually be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to what gets me going on a setting, I think... I can go on for hours about certain things in my own setting, but if another setting doesn't get to the point fairly quickly I lose track.
Hypocrite? Just by posting this, you have removed yourself from that list, sir...
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: KindlingSo... where do your conflicts come from, if you're ruling out war, monsters AND intrigue?
People.
The problem with those three factors is that too often they make the problem bigger than people. If your problem-solving agent is a small group then there's a point at which the problem will outstrip the ability of said agent to handle it on its own. The point of the game '" in my mind '" is for the focus to be on plucky people who save the day, not on people who gather armies. Unless you give them a plot device taking on a war, widespread horror [I'm not sure what you meant by simply saying "monster"], and/or intrigue tend to be out of the plucky peoples' league.
So what does that leave? Hero stories, the kind from myth where one hero or a small group face danger and overcome trials mostly without invoking large-scale solutions (as I've read them, you myths may vary). Intrigue? Scheming vizers who you can run a sword through. War? Occasionally, but generally not (and they really don't seem as much fun). Monsters? Sure, they're a staple. It's just that they're generally of the type you can eliminate without an army.
A setting in which wars, intrigue, and/or an overabundance of monsters are prominent does not mean that the PCs are expected to "solve" all the problems of the setting. Rather, it simply means that there are a plethora of opportunities for plot hooks and conflicts in which the PCs can get involved and make a difference.
In a setting without such an emphasis, conflicts tend to be the exception rather than the rule, requiring a greater suspension of disbelief (in that it is unreasonable to expect a single group of persons to routinely become involved in conflicts which, for the general populous, are once-in-a-lifetime experiences, if that).
All the following (that is a quote) is opinion:
Quote from: KindlingA setting in which wars, intrigue, and/or an overabundance of monsters are prominent does not mean that the PCs are expected to "solve" all the problems of the setting.
This has never made sense to me: Small problems are caused by the big ones. Therefore never solving the big ones is simply an exercise in ensuring that you are never going to be done. Unfortunately I'm just not interested in
anything enough to put up with this sort of behavior.
Also I'm confused by these three things: What do you
do with them? What purpose do they serve
beyond causing conflict? My argument is that if they're only there to cause conflict than you don't need use all that much of them.
Quote from: Kindling'¦'¦'¦it simply means that there are a plethora of opportunities for plot hooks and conflicts in which the PCs can get involved'¦'¦
I see no reason why you can't have that situation without those factors.
Quote from: Kindling'¦'¦and make a difference.
See "never solving the big ones is simply an exercise in ensuring that you are never going to be done" above.
Quote from: KindlingIn a setting without such an emphasis, conflicts tend to be the exception rather than the rule, requiring a greater suspension of disbelief (in that it is unreasonable to expect a single group of persons to routinely become involved in conflicts which, for the general populous, are once-in-a-lifetime experiences, if that).
Lack of emphasis on a thing does not mean lack of the thing itself. It simply means that you can solve problems without this big thing simply ruining all your hard work.
Quote from: JokerI can actually be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to what gets me going on a setting, I think... I can go on for hours about certain things in my own setting, but if another setting doesn't get to the point fairly quickly I lose track.
I think alot of people do this. I can never quite tell when I've written too much or too little detail on my own stuff and often explain things too much to the point of being overly wordy. At the same time, it takes something unique to draw me in to read a specific setting. Typically anything overtly strange or very dark and 'gothic' attract my attention. Anything that's typical fantasy fare drives me away as does anything that uses a system I'm not familiar with..no idea why though.
Quote from: JackOfTalesQuote from: JokerI can actually be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to what gets me going on a setting, I think... I can go on for hours about certain things in my own setting, but if another setting doesn't get to the point fairly quickly I lose track.
I think alot of people do this. I can never quite tell when I've written too much or too little detail on my own stuff and often explain things too much to the point of being overly wordy. At the same time, it takes something unique to draw me in to read a specific setting. Typically anything overtly strange or very dark and 'gothic' attract my attention. Anything that's typical fantasy fare drives me away as does anything that uses a system I'm not familiar with..no idea why though.
Those are the exact same things that usually draw me in.
Silvercat I understand that your post is just an opinion and that is perfectly fine. However you did say you are confused so I think I can answer your questions here.
Despite what it may seem like at first having things like wars doesn't require greater suspension of disbelief. It in fact for many people requires less as it is in line with the real world and the real world feeling of hopelessness war gives to many people caught up in it. Furthermore unless you are running a classic DnD dungeon crawl (and sometimes even if you are) you are likely going to need to have overarching ideas in the setting. Things that cannot be solved (at least not directly by the PCs). It gives a general feel to the setting and a place to pull new ideas from for new campaigns (instead of running one campaign and being forced to stop completely). Never being done isn't a bad thing. It is a fact of life that you will never solve all the conflicts (or even solve one large one). Does this mean you can't have it like you do? Certainly not and indeed some people prefer a more simple setup to having to spend all that extra time designing a campaign. This is fine and I myself enjoy such games from time to time. However you shouldn't discount the fact that there are people who enjoy extra realism and depth even if it requires extra work. This is in regard to the general fact of having wars and massive things going on that one person or even a small group of people can't hope to solve. Taking it too far is, yes, going to be a problem in suspension of disbelief. So it is necessary to strike a balance to achieve optimum verisimilitude (and thus more work than normal is required).
Quote from: KindlingA setting in which wars, intrigue, and/or an overabundance of monsters are prominent does not mean that the PCs are expected to "solve" all the problems of the setting. Rather, it simply means that there are a plethora of opportunities for plot hooks and conflicts in which the PCs can get involved and make a difference.
a lot[/b] of great historical figures and there is a raging debate among historians over who is greater, who did the most, and so on. The PCs can change the world, but they don't have to be the only ones who ever did or will.
Quote from: Nomadic'¦'¦you did say you are confused so I think I can answer your questions here.
Sorry, but now I'm confused as to what question you just answered. Did I give you the impression I expected people to act a certain way? I didn't exactly mean it like that: yeah, I do expect it out of them, but I know from experience that they won't, and I know enough not to want to be a person who presses their views on other people. So sorry for doing whatever it is I did.
I still want to try to explain my position:
I find that big problems you can't solve just take up unnecessary space. If you can't solve something there's no point in getting worked up over it and so you might as well avoid it (I believe this to be especially true in the case of things like war and intrigue where the participants obviously could resolve their problems without resorting to all the stupid they get up to). But if it's all around you then you're going to keep bumping into it whether you want to or not. Do I want to
completely eliminate war? No, I just think it works better "elsewhere", that is either in far off places or in the past where it only has tangential effects. It's like those high-level NPCs I hear people hate from Forgotten Realms.
Don't worry I don't think you are pressing anything on anybody. I was just trying to explain the other viewpoint. You can have wars around the PCs just fine. Even if you did make it too large for them to solve on their own. In such a case it isn't the place of the PC to "solve" the war but to survive in it. Like you say though, wars are huge things too large for a PC to handle themselves. Therefore a war isn't a plot hook but more of a plot setting. It changes the feel of the whole game and the overall focus. Not always a bad thing. Endless war though is something which does shift me towards agreeing with your points. Unless the whole campaign is totally focused on fighting there is no reason for never ending wars. So then, you can have war, you can have it up front. It just has to be done right.
Unfortunately perhaps I see war (and intrigue) as too easy to cliché: the same old reasons for it and the same old forms. Probably other people don't have this problem, but I do. This is one of the reasons why I like to look for settings without them: it's something I haven't seen and feels refreshing.
And to get back on track:
Turn on: Setting description that isn't taking the whole thing too seriously. I appreciate the seriousness of world-building (I tend to take it that way, to my frustration), but that's not really what I'm interested in for a game.
On SilvercatMoonpaw
When I see Silvercat post in a thread like this I can usually anticipate the kind of things he's going to say, and also the flurry of responses his opinion often generates. His perspective seems a very different one from many, and I'm thankful for that. I think his "why all the doom and gloom?" attitude has really helped the maturation of my own ideas.
So thanks, Silver!
As for things that turn me on:
Wondrous magic, without a huge, complex convoluted metaphysical system behind it. Mysterious magic that fills the world's people with inspiration, curiosity and purpose, but also deceives and deludes. Magic I've never seen before. Weird magic that blows my mind wide open, dares me to look beyond my own lazy perception.
Monstrous monsters. The kind whose horror derives from their familiarity to human experience, perversions of normality. Monsters whose anatomies and psychologies are challenging to our sensibilities, confronting our values and defying our moral rightness. Unique monsters, each with a form unrepeated amongst its kin, with bloodlines, passions and vendettas. Vengeful, hungry monsters, that dream and yearn. Monsters who prove by their very existence that our way is not the only way.
New worlds. Worlds with strange geographies and unfamiliar people. Worlds rich in history but not subsumed with degradation. Beautiful worlds, teeming with wonder, mad worlds and unborn worlds, worlds on fire and worlds adrift on the shoulders of angels.
Fantasy. I think we often forget what fantasy is. We forget that it is the limitless genre that encompasses all others; not truly a genre at all but our very desire to create and innovate, encapsulated in a word. Every tale is fantasy, and so it is bewildering to see the limitations we impose upon ourselves, ascribing one form to that which is by nature multitudinous. Fantasy doesn't need magic. it doesn't need swords or guns or elves or creation stories or jealous gods or an impending doom. Being everything, it is in need of nothing.
Sounds like a very interesting set of desires to fulfill. Just one thing:
Quote from: Satanic Panic 4EMonsters whose anatomies and psychologies are challenging to our sensibilities, confronting our values and defying our moral rightness.
What does this mean?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSounds like a very interesting set of desires to fulfill. Just one thing:
Quote from: Satanic Panic 4EMonsters whose anatomies and psychologies are challenging to our sensibilities, confronting our values and defying our moral rightness.
What does this mean?
Check out his Menagerie of the Grotesque (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?51198), that may supply you with answers.
Quote from: IshmaylCheck out his Menagerie of the Grotesque (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?51198), that may supply you with answers.
Sorry, I still need it explained. :shy:
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: IshmaylCheck out his Menagerie of the Grotesque (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?51198), that may supply you with answers.
Sorry, I still need it explained. :shy:
Creatures who are mockeries of what we consider normal to the point that they offend the senses. A creature that disguises itself as a muffin and turns your stomach to mush when you eat it, a being that is abnormally beautiful so as to lull you into a false sense of security (whereupon it devours you at your most vulnerable point). Basically the very thing that makes monsters monstrous.
For the record: I don't endorse any explanations of my statements or opinions. It means what it says, and that's about the end of it.
Turn-off:
Magic based on perception. This is a funny one, because my principle setting has that, and it's apparently part of its appeal. But pseudoExistentialist solipsism-magic has been done to death as far as my tastes go, so it really doesn't interest me any more.
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: IshmaylCheck out his Menagerie of the Grotesque (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?51198), that may supply you with answers.
Sorry, I still need it explained. :shy:
Creatures who are mockeries of what we consider normal to the point that they offend the senses. A creature that disguises itself as a muffin and turns your stomach to mush when you eat it, a being that is abnormally beautiful so as to lull you into a false sense of security (whereupon it devours you at your most vulnerable point). Basically the very thing that makes monsters monstrous.
Ah, how I miss the New Scary Events Thread on WotC...
Quote from: Satanic Panic 4EIt means what it says, and that's about the end of it.
Words like "values" and "moral rightness" don't mean anything until defined for the individual. Or at least they have to be for me.
Quote from: Satanic Panic 4EMagic based on perception.'¦'¦'¦'¦pseudoExistentialist solispism-magic has been done to death as far as my tastes go, so it really doesn't interest me any more.
I'd completely agree, except I'm not sure what "pseudoExistentialist solispism" means (and know you don't want anyone to explain it). I do agree that I hate any "magic is based upon reality being an illusion created by the mind and thus can be manipulated by it" or other such ideas.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Satanic Panic 4EIt means what it says, and that's about the end of it.
Words like "values" and "moral rightness" don't mean anything until defined for the individual. Or at least they have to be for me.
Quote from: Satanic Panic 4EMagic based on perception.'¦'¦'¦'¦pseudoExistentialist solispism-magic has been done to death as far as my tastes go, so it really doesn't interest me any more.
I'd completely agree, except I'm not sure what "pseudoExistentialist solispism" means (and know you don't want anyone to explain it). I do agree that I hate any "magic is based upon reality being an illusion created by the mind and thus can be manipulated by it" or other such ideas.
What if the mind was an illusion created by magic?
Quote from: JokerQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Satanic Panic 4EIt means what it says, and that's about the end of it.
Words like "values" and "moral rightness" don't mean anything until defined for the individual. Or at least they have to be for me.
Quote from: Satanic Panic 4EMagic based on perception.'¦'¦'¦'¦pseudoExistentialist solispism-magic has been done to death as far as my tastes go, so it really doesn't interest me any more.
I'd completely agree, except I'm not sure what "pseudoExistentialist solispism" means (and know you don't want anyone to explain it). I do agree that I hate any "magic is based upon reality being an illusion created by the mind and thus can be manipulated by it" or other such ideas.
What if the mind was an illusion created by magic?
What if illusion was a mind created by magic... wait... nevermind
On: Cheerleader outfits and nurse's uniforms.
Off: Silicone
Sorry, coudln't resist the oppurtunity to make the cheap joke.
Realy as far as campaign settings here the main thing that turns me off is something bigger than a half-hour's worth of reading. Anything bigger than that is too developed to need me commenting on it anyway.
One thing I like is frequent paragraph breaks that include a double space between paragraphs. Not entirely unlike my own posting style.
Lately I've been finding the short fiction some people have been putting up (name escapes me right now for a particular). I also have been enjoying and been more willing to review settings that catch me emotionally or seem like they could have interesting stories within them.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatLately I've been finding the short fiction some people have been putting up (name escapes me right now for a particular). I also have been enjoying and been more willing to review settings that catch me emotionally or seem like they could have interesting stories within them.
Just called short stories. I call them self-excerpts/excerpts since they are ideas taken from the "book" which is our setting.
Oh no, I meant who's short stories I have been enjoying lately.
As for mine, let's see...
I like lots of detail--not the "wall o' text" variety, but detail about things the players might not encounter immediately and that are often glossed over (like how magic works or what the economy's like) so I can get a better feel for the setting. (This probably stems from my tendency to write pages and pages and pages and pages and pages about my settings, but still....)
I dislike medieval stasis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis) the most and try to incorporate some more modern ideas into my settings, even if it's something as innocuous as city planning, fiat money, modernized education systems, or the like (suitably fantasy-ized, of course).
Complicated question, because each situation is unique and how much a setting appeals may in part relate to things the poster can't control (like what kind of day I've had up to that point). But to generalize...
Turn ons (especially in terms of whether I will read it, not how much I'll like it):
A setting that deviates from norms (without losing touch with reality/humanity, see turn offs). I'm not just talking about thinking about elves in a new way, but something to feels legitimately fresh (it's what everybody wants in all writing, but there's no easy road to it).
Settings with tight focuses and themes. Certainly an Ethocentric setting will get my attention more.
On a related note, human-only settings, or settings that otherwise have not suffered a great bloat of races/magical traditions/whatever appeal to me. I tend to get bored with broader divset stuff.
Settings that have not gotten many reviews I tend to look at a little more.
Mythological interpretation often appeals to me. But sometimes not.
Pictures, maps, and other visual aids that bring a setting to life.
Turn offs:
Long paragraphs. Failure to space between paragraphs. Any other form of formatting that makes reading online more difficult. People's attention span is short enough to begin with, and more so online. Any passage that doesn't break its text into neat little ideas probably gets passed on without a fair chance.
Exceptionally long settings not broken off into a website/wiki. I find forums good for brainstorming, not slogging through vast piles of unconnected (or sometimes worse, haphazardly connected with forum links) text.
Poor organization in general. I don't want to spend my "leisure" time working to understand what the author intended or how to get to relevant information.
Settings that are just rehashing of D&D (or other games) norms, even with a fresh coat of paint will probably only get cursory looks, unless a direct question is posed right away.
Settings that lose touch with their audience. A setting so alien it forgets its supposed to express something humanity might be an intellectual achievement, and it might appeal to some people. But not to me. ("Books are humanity in print." -Barbara Tuchman.)
Normally I am drawn to campaign threads that simply start with the name of the setting. I am always being drawn to the Celtricia, Clockwork Jungle and Faded threads, simply because it has an intriuging name. And I love it when its split up into simple sections: Religion, georgaphy, races, classes, etc. It just makes it simpler to read. You can simply scroll down until you see something your interested in, and then comment about it.
Turn ons:
First and foremost, the fantastic or horrific, especially when it transcends well-worn tropes and cliches. "Originality," is one way of putting this, though I'm not always sure it's the right term - complete originality is almost impossible, and in reality a world, setting, character etc almost always becomes richer when it borrows, alludes, or draws from some intertextual source. Taking an idea and changing it or twisting it or using it rather than just pilfering it whole - this is my conception of what it means to be "original."
I like good names, and bad names annoy me. Good names don't need to be based on real words, though they can be. Lazy naming gets on my nerves.
I like evocative imagery. The unusual, the bizarre, the unsettling, the alienating, the disturbing, and the nightmarish are all compelling. Exoticism is always cool. Voluminous Hadron's Dystopia (and the more recent Panglossia) with its Ironheads, its Cephalopods, its colourful cosmology, its towering cities, and its strange races has always held immense appeal. Polycarp!'s freaking awesome Clockwork Jungle provides another example, meshing the natural and artificial - plus the Saffron Moss is just plain brilliant. I also find Luminous Crayon's Jade Stage and Joker's Nightmare and Wyldestorm Frontier intriguing for these qualities.
I love cities, and urban settings with attention to detail - Lord Vreeg's Igbar comes to mind, or the still fledgling but very, very promising Knife's Edge by Kindling - are amongst my favorites. When I GM I always spend most of my time writing up cities and towns, and I find it frustrating as a player when the party enters a city and aren't given much in the way of description. What kind of architecture does the place have? What are its sections? Its politics? When I buy I sword or a potion in a city, I hate it when GMs just say "sure, whatever, you go to the marketplace and buy it. 25 gp." Ideally I want to know what the marketplace looks and smells like, and even what the blacksmith's shop looks like, and maybe have some sort of minor encounter on my way. Yeah sure too much detail can bog a campaign down, but in my opinion too much is far better than too little. I also like cities that do things a bit differently, rather than thatched medieval grids with the King's palace at the center and big magic shops on every corner.
Turn offs:
Domesticated or boring magic and monsters. 90% of orcs, elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. Though I like it when settings take ideas and give them a new spin, there are some particular elements that increasingly deter me - they've been done too many times, and they weren't all that great to begin with. Dragons hit this too, though very occasionally I can accept them if they're treated properly (Iron Kingdoms, A Song of Ice and Fire, Celtrica... frankly Tolkien treated them properly too). The old, done-to-death tropes have to be pretty shaken up to incite my interest, and after, say, your halflings have become like punk rocker diabolist midgets who ride giant bats and spit acid or whatever, I'm always a bit confused as to why it's necessary to keep the name and the physiology as well - since they've already been changed practically beyond recognition, why not go whole hog and transform them completely? Also any time I see a "[Random Adjective] Elf" I roll my eyes.
While I hesitate to say medieval settings turn me off, they don't turn me on so much as other timeframes do.
The word epic has started to vaguely annoy me. I think it's overused, and sometimes misused. I generally prefer small details and intricate, personal drama to big panoramic stuff in general.
Turn Ons: Someone making a good non-human race, now I'm personally extremely fussy in how I handle this, not liking to do it all, (Don't think I could do it properly) but when someone does do it, I really enjoy it.
Dark stuff, the sorta proto-horror (I say proto-horror, because I don't think you can be truly horrified without living something, no matter how good an author its still too abstract for me) feeling, things not being that nice, I'm a huge cynic and occasional misanthropist, so I guess the stuff is comfy to me.
Random stuff, sometimes something will just catch my eye, its nice
And finally the most important thing, in my opinion, Characters, people, NPCs in a RPG way I guess, done well they fascinate me.
Turns Off: Seems to be fairly common, but cliches bug me in certain circumstances, but only when their over the top. I tend to use cliches so I'm somewhat hypocritical but what can you do.
Names, the reason I wrote this post is because Steerpike brought it up, but some names just turn me off, I prefer short names, anything longer then 4 syllables usually bugs me.