Reading posts on the WotC Campaign Setting forum there have been one or two times where people have recommended that prospective GMs ask their players what sort of setting they want to play in before designing it. But the settings here on the CBG just seem too detailed to be something that's built while players are waiting around.
So the question is this: do you builders here usually design your settings before finding players for them?
Yep I normally do. However my settings tend to be diverse and open (I think the term is divset) and so its easy to then ask players what they want to do and develop a campaign based on that.
Always. If you're going to design a setting for your players you might as well let them pick out which monsters they want to fight and which treasure they want to drop.
No, except for when I do, then yes. The settings you see here are more of a case of "exploring" what's in my mind (if you think that's scary, keep in mind that that's just the stuff I don't consider too weird for sharing). This stuff is usually built too much around interesting ideas for me to introduce to my players.
The stuff I use when actually gaming, however, tends to be much more player-oriented. It also happens to be more of an inside-out design then the stuff I have here. While it's still designing settings, I tend not to have as much consideration for these as I do for my posted stuff.
Quote from: JokerAlways. If you're going to design a setting for your players you might as well let them pick out which monsters they want to fight and which treasure they want to drop.
My thoughts exactly.
I always design my settings according to my tastes; after all it is my setting.
I design settings mostly for myself. They tend to not see play, anyway. However, I wouldn't force a player to play in a setting I created that they didn't like.
Quote from: XXsiriusXXQuote from: JokerAlways. If you're going to design a setting for your players you might as well let them pick out which monsters they want to fight and which treasure they want to drop.
My thoughts exactly.
I always design my settings according to my tastes; after all it is my setting.
You mean you don't do this? :D
Seriously, to answer the OP: Sometimes.
For a long time I was gaming with the same general crew--some players might change, but there was some consistency. I tended to ask players what kind of campaign they wanted, more than what kind of world (or let them choose which world to play in). Most of my current projects, like Eclipse, are brainstorming for fiction, now though.
I don't have players, so, my settings are designed for my own entertainment alone.
Beleive it or not, Celtricia was a product of mine and my players. It has grown and changed, but part of the reasons for it's success is due to constant player involvement. Even the size and the direction came from a poll amongst my players back in 1982.
And 5 of the players have write privilege on the celtrician wiki now.
There are a few types of settings.
1)GM-only creations for the sake of creating..almost none of these will ever see PC use. Most of the best GM jokes come from players who try these settings and post their experiences.
2)GM-only created setings made expressly to intrigue players...Most of these also fail, but some do take off.
3)Collaborative settings that allow for the give and take necessary to invest a PC in the setting.
4)Literary Rip-offs.
5)The Probability-Lich setting, where no one really knows what is going on or how it was made. Said setting is far too common.
Quote from: LordVreegBeleive it or not, Celtricia was a product of mine and my players. It has grown and changed, but part of the reasons for it's success is due to constant player involvement. Even the size and the direction came from a poll amongst my players back in 1982.
And 5 of the players have write privilege on the celtrician wiki now.
There are a few types of settings.
1)GM-only creations for the sake of creating..almost none of these will ever see PC use. Most of the best GM jokes come from players who try these settings and post their experiences.
2)GM-only created setings made expressly to intrigue players...Most of these also fail, but some do take off.
3)Collaborative settings that allow for the give and take necessary to invest a PC in the setting.
4)Literary Rip-offs.
5)The Probability-Lich setting, where no one really knows what is going on or how it was made. Said setting is far too common.
I'd actually love to work with players to build a setting and then run it, but actually designing it for the players... well, you're turning yourself more into a referee instead of a participant.
Those are damn good classifications.
That would be really cool, if you had the group for it. That is also how my current setting started. It was to be tailored to the game my only player wanted to play.
I like Vreeg's classifications, too.
I wonder how many settings start off as #5 and gradually go backwards through the classifications as time passes. Here's how it went for me:
5 - We just sort of haphazardly started roleplaying whatever we felt like.
4 - The setting needed some background material for some degree of consistency. Favorite fantasy tropes were liberally inserted in order to fill these gaps.
3 - At this point, we started mingling the tropes, and creating original history and background. Something that actually looked sort of original developed.
2 - Most of the players drifted away. I took direct control of the setting and started fleshing out a lot of history that had been left open, and making major changes.
1 - All of the players are gone. Just me left. Oh well. :P
Does the collaborative approach actually work? From my point of view it sounds like the entire thing should get bogged down in the varying tastes and wants of the players vs. the GM.
There's nothing wrong with asking your players for ideas about what and where they would like to explore and do,in general terms. DM's who do this often have more enriching campaigns because their players will be tuned in right from the beginning. If your players want to be Viking Paladins sent on holy quests that fling them across the northern seas, then give it to them! Obviously you wouldn't let them dictate to you that their BBEG will be a Black Dragon who polymorphs into Angelina Jolie and seduces the young, brash Fighter all the while summoning a horde of lusty chainmail-bikini-clad Valkyries from Valhalla whose only purpose in life is to drink mead, lay on their backs and cough up platinum pieces every time a PC 'wins.'
Granted, that would be totally awesome IRL but at the table it just doesn't work. So, I guess the main point would be there's a limit to how much control you allow your players... but in reality that's just sound DMing advice no matter what you're doing. :)
I usually design according to a mixture of #1 and #2 on Vreeg's List; I design for myself, then somebody takes some interest and says 'Whoa! Why not, when can we play?" I've had three campaign settings run so far without any real issues this way (though sadly all ended up being terminated earlier than I wanted due to changing jobs and locations, they all ran long enough that I was satisfied they were successful ideas). Which is actually more or less why I ended up here; now that I'm finally about to return from Egypt I can finish Asilikos and beguile a whole new group into trying to stand in the way of apocalypse.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawDoes the collaborative approach actually work? From my point of view it sounds like the entire thing should get bogged down in the varying tastes and wants of the players vs. the GM.
You said a mouthful.
Collaboration takes many forms. In Celtricia, the first poll (and I recomend poll formats) dealt with size, world-in motion-vs-overarching plotline, population, and a few questions of what were then the amoeba-like squirmings of the Guildschool system.
The main map was drawn with a few other players, as well. The original spreadsheet (done in Lotus 1-2-3, I believe) was also partially done by the Players.
However, after that, the plots and politics needed to be the GM's. [note=players on crunch] I will promise you now, most of the arguments a GM has with players are over crunch, not fluff. It;s just the way it is. We've all heard of 'rules lawyers', and no one has ever talked about a 'fluff lawyer', at least in gaming terms. Player input on rules, weather in homebrew rules systems or the house-rules, is CRITICAL for player-GM harmony.{/note]The Players have helped flesh stuff out (especially the guilds they belong to and the churches) and in terms of crunch. Characters and NPC's can come and go, but the underlying physics of the world they are playing in is something they have to like, or they will go elsewhere. I was quite the rules snob and autocrat at one point; now I take pride in the contributions of my brilliant players.
The first hard, cold, ice-water-in-the-face moment when the PC's contest something (normally crunch, but sometimes fluff) does suck. But I bring up the exact example as it has worked in keeping this thing rolling on for decades...and my only player resentment comes from the fact we don't play more often, or that the online sessions only last a few hours.
No fluff lawyers? You've never had an argument like, "That just wouldn't work like that!" or "That just doesn't make any sense!"
A lot of these type arguments either get shut down with Rule 0, or devolve into a long and detailed argument about some real world historical analog. But in my experience, they can be just as corrosive as any rules-lawyering argument.
FYI, my setting is almost surely of type 1. I don't expect to ever have time to actually run it anyway.
Very true, Vreeg. To amend what I wrote above slightly, even if I've created the world largely without input I will guage reactions and poll the players during character creation and in the fluff intro part of the first adventure to find out what grabs their interest. Do they want to stay in the starting city/town/tavern for a while, or do they want to explore an ancient ruin I mentioned only as a bit of afterthought flavor? Does Player A want to become a knight or noble as his goal, even if I've already stated only characters of Player B's type ever rise to prominence?
I'm the sort that likes a decent background from players on their characters for that reason. No matter how much time I've spent on a setting, however much detail I've craned out, player input ultimately determines a lot about what adventures I run and how the campaign world develops. I actually enjoy making changes due to player input, especially clever ones that neatly fold into the gray areas but exist outside of what I may have thought of. So I guess ultimately #3 applies to my settings as well.
I've yet to be disappointed by the results.
This is somewhat topical.
http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/nonlinear-sandbox-games#comment-2969
I like sparkletwist's observation too. I think a lot of good campaigns start out kind of haphazard, which provides room to explore what types of characters and stories will work best for that specific group. As the group begins to evolve their own style, more depth, consistency, and background will grow in the setting. But by this time the nature of the setting has conformed to the players, rather than the reverse.
If you take a setting like mine, designed primarily for my own fun - well, it contains a lot of assumptions about the kind of game I like to play, and the kind of stories I would be interested in. Good luck to me in finding enough players that share my vision.
Quote from: LordVreeg2)GM-only created settings made expressly to intrigue players...Most of these also fail, but some do take off.
4)Literary Rip-offs.
[/quote]
5)The Probability-Lich setting, where no one really knows what is going on or how it was made. Said setting is far too common.
[/quote]
I don't really understand exactly what you mean here, but Probability-Lich is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
[blockquote=Llum]
Quote from: LlumQuote from: LlumQuote from: LlumQuote from: LlumQuote from: LordVreeg5)The Probability-Lich setting, where no one really knows what is going on or how it was made. Said setting is far too common.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=836
Comes from here somewhere. I agree, the term makes you think of some chaos lich...but it comes from that comic (which, as I said, has many of the jokes that will illustrate a poorly designed game built in). I do have to point out that for anyone who has not read these, I laughed out loud a multitude of times.
I'm actually cracking up as we speak seeing a few of these older ones...
You must read this one...
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1231
Quote from: Lord VreegI said collaborative, not 'Completely Player Shared'. Look at an earlier post on this thread and you'll see what I mean...It is critical to maintain a sense of wonder and amazement and exploration, but letting the PC's fill in some of the details about the guild they are in or the religion or other non-plot-central elements engages their pride and invests them in the campaign.
Kind of a chicken and egg problem here. How do you get the players invested enough in the game that they want to spend the time to get themselves invested in the game?
Not that I have any answers. How one campaign takes off and another doesn't is probably very dependent on the GM's story-telling prowess more as anything else, but there is a whole host of factors having to do with the relationships between players, time commitments, and who knows what else.problem here. How
I like creating my setting, and I certainly admit that I am doing it for my own enjoyment more than anything else. This certainly works against the setting ever being successfully played. If there was one thing I'd like to do to improve the odds, it would be to start playing one-on-one with a player who had a real interest.
From my own experience, running a campaign has actually been fairly player-interactive when it comes to setting it up, both in picking a world and theme. As a few of you may be aware I run games on the Otherworlders IRC network (the same one that our chat is hosted on) and when I get the need to DM I usually pick a few ideas of stuff I want to run and drag that network's waters for some bodies... And the most popular idea usually goes.
It works pretty well. It's just on the opposite end from what I envisioned the "collaboration" to be when I first posted.
The other method I use is always to throw a disclaimer onto my pre-game character-building ceremonies, which kind of lets the players know what they're in for and kind of comes up the same as having a themed game - my players will know before the game starts that my horror knob is turned on OVERDRIVE OF ULTIMATE DOOM and that I like using a lot of creepy creatures like undead and demons. Ironically I have yet to have a single game where the party is a group of demon-hunting, vampire-staking badasses.
(snakefing) Well, in my example above, I mention asking for character background. While it can be a little intimidating for some new players, the fact is that if they're willing to provide such, they've already taken the biggest step in the direction of taking initiative and being involved. Holding their interest is less burdensome then (IMO).
Of course, I may just be lucky.
Quote from: LVAnother, less-biased accounting will came from this little site right here. Let's count up settings that have been created and setting ideas...and then see how many have been really played. If all of these settings had been played, the CBG would have a sister site, the POPG (Pissed off Players Guild).
While the point is good, let us not forget that many CBGers use the site for brainstorming and thus the ideas they are posting are not nearly at the point where they are intended to be played. In some cases it is never intended to get beyond that stage--which I think might have been part of your point?
The thing is, most good works come from taking that first step first. We brainstorm out various ideas, then mine those ideas for something better, then create something even more enticing with what we've learned. However, I think in the case of something like Celtricia, the experience is different but it can change and grow continuously, but not massively re-invent itself at a stroke (at least I assume not if you're running continuous games in it).
I guess the point of all that rambling, is that a generalization of the creative process (like most generalizations, even this one ;)) has to be so broad as to be meaningless, or else be narrow enough that it can be limiting (and exclude some cases that should not be).
Also, we cannot judge a setting as successful only if it is designed for continuous non-linear campaigning or repeating campaigning (is that what's meant by sandbox gaming?). A setting might very well be designed for a single short campaign, even a single session, and be massively fun for that short time.
Phoenix-I think you are on the right track.
I do understand that many setting threads are just brainstorming. It;s a damn good idea, and the people seem to make some sense, and are pretty entertaining, to boot.
I was actually being funny and off the cuff when I classified the types of settings. Valid or not, there will be exceptions to them.
I think a succesful setting is frankly one that the PC's and the GM all agree was/is fun, and is memorable later down the road. All gamers know that they had a good time when they remember a specific gaming moment and all involved chuckle or laugh or get mad...
Quote from: JokerIronically I have yet to have a single game where the party is a group of demon-hunting, vampire-staking badasses.
Too bad for them!
Well, I'm biased... I like being a demon-hunting, vampire-staking badass. :D
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: JokerIronically I have yet to have a single game where the party is a group of demon-hunting, vampire-staking badasses.
Too bad for them!
Well, I'm biased... I like being a demon-hunting, vampire-staking badass. :D
Suddenly the girl in your avatar looks like Buffy to me.
@LV, yeah. If any criteria for evaluating a successful game setting exist, fun and memorable would be at the top.
As I've said before, a DivSet setting is often very fun to play, even if I find reading about it much less interesting than an Ethocentric one.
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: JokerIronically I have yet to have a single game where the party is a group of demon-hunting, vampire-staking badasses.
Too bad for them!
Well, I'm biased... I like being a demon-hunting, vampire-staking badass. :D
What about gazebo hunting badasses? Those gazebos are far more deadly than any puny demon.
In fact, I have had many more gazebo-involved disasters than demonic ones, in our real world...
Yeah, real world demonic disasters would suck. Glad to hear you haven't had too many, LV. Sorry to hear about all the gazebos. I hear they're vulnerable to fire, though.
on the other hand, there is something demonic about my influence on the integrity of Hard Drives. I just managed to destroy another one....SOmething off about my magnetic field...
Lord Vreeg a walking EMP, cursed to a life of dieing hard drives, glichy video drivers, jammed buttons, and bad cell phone reception?
I usually talk to my players about what type of location and theme they want, but let them know how i GM an RPG (adventure, interaction, exploration, looting usually in that order). I think Divset is the only type of prebuilt setting that can satisfying to most anyone, as their supposed to have a splash of everything, and any detail that gets in the way can be easily overridden without massive repercussions. Any singular idea/theme no matter how inviting and well executed cannot please everybody. Talking with your players is a must i think, at least for long term enjoyment.
Quote from: LathI think Divset is the only type of prebuilt setting that can satisfying to most anyone, as their supposed to have a splash of everything, and any detail that gets in the way can be easily overridden without massive repercussions. Any singular idea/theme no matter how inviting and well executed cannot please everybody.
To some extent I agree (assuming by everybody you mean everybody that agreed to play in the first place). But I think that a Ethocentric setting does not necessarily determine the type of campaign to be played--many may lend themselves to intrigue, hack & slash, exploration, or a mix.
DivSet is naturally going to accommodate more campaigns, and more diverse campaigns, simply because that's the idea behind the design--to sacrifice focus for diversity and accessibility. But few ethocentric settings are so narrowly focused that they allow only a single campaign, or focus literally on a single idea (unless the idea in question is incredibly broad).