I did a thread way back similar to this. (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13284.0#post_13335) Polls didn't even work way back then.
So, here's the deal. I'd like to know what's the first thing you look at a setting.
Is it:
*Cosmology?
*Crunch (i.e. mechanics for the setting)?
*Cultures (if they are distinct from races)?
*Geography?
*History?
*Myths?
*Politics?
*Races?
*Something else?
Feel free to answer from the list. Or feel free to answer anyway you'd like.
Polls work now (at least according to another new thread). I tend to look at whatever is at the top of the page in the setting thread.
However I'm just being a smartass, what I think you meant is what interests me the most. This would be Races, Cosmology and History, in no particular order.
Well I first off look for something that hooks me. If it doesn't hook me I have trouble getting into it enough to review it.
Things that hook me:
- Fancy Maps
- In depth history
- Original and/or exciting ideas
and most importantly...
- Settings that subvert the hell out of RPG tropes.
It's not about which element. It's about the tone of the first post. These days I just can't bring myself to read anything that sounds epic or verbose. I don't have the sort of attention span to pick the important bits of your grand or long sentences and paragraphs. Give me a quick run-down of the important points and interesting bits.
Maps. I love making maps and I love looking at maps. If your setting has a nice or interesting map, I'm much more likely to look at your setting. I know it sounds vain but its the truth. Beyond Maps I like reading about Races, Geography and Crunch.
I know you didn't ask but I enjoy a 'why is this topic/nation/thing important blurb.' It helps me hone in on what I may find interesting with out wading through pages of text.
General flavor of the setting or an ethos that otherwise makes it feel original.
Also, at the author. Bad, perhaps, but if I know the author is going to be active around the community and do other reviews or discussions, I'm more likely to give a look. Also, I try to give a glance at newer members, to be fair.
I second the Elf of Elements.
Evocative Imagery.
Physical Setting (not just Geography but also the layout of cities and cosmology).
New Ideas.
Atmosphere and Tone (particularly if it's strange, bizarre, grotesque, disturbing, "dark," unexpected, or otherwise twisted).
Intriguing Cultures, Races, and Magical Mechanics.
I look at Geography, then History. Here's why:
Geography: People are people. While we are all different, we are still all similar enough to make our responses to given stimuli highly predictable. Therefore the differences in the environment we live in is going to define the differences in who we are.
History: Geography may define the basics of who we are, but only the basics. We live in the Himalayas, therefore we are not real big farmers or sailors. We live on the banks of the Nile, therefore we are not real big on mountaineering or skiing. Fine and good, but culture is built up of today's reactions to the environment being stacked on yesterday's reactions, which are stacked on those of the day before.
Those two factors pretty much define the cultures that exist in a given place. Once you have that, myths, politics, religion, location and layout of cities, all become comparatively obvious. Note the word "comparatively". It's not suddenly easy, but knowing your environment and history makes it obvious what choices *don't* work.
Example: Dallas, TX. Dallas was founded where it was for one reason: There is a ridge of hard rock that crosses under the Trinity River right there, making it one of the few decent crossings within a hundred miles. Dallas continued to grow until it reached its present size for one reason: Because it won the political battle for where the railroad went through.
See? Geography and history, all else kind of clicks into place.
Because of that, I tend to assume that if a world designer made sure to get his geography and history right for what he wanted, the result will be a good work. His world will have depth, a 3 dimensional, realistic feel, rather than being cartoonish. Even if I personally don't find it entertaining, I will still be impressed by how well constructed it is.
I Try to see what kind of stories would be written/played in it, and if they would be original and deep, or just more of what has been done before.
[blockquote=Vreeg]I Try to see what kind of stories would be written/played in it, and if they would be original and deep, or just more of what has been done before.[/blockquote]
Doesn't surprise me this is what you look for - I've come to think of you as the most "game/play" oriented regular member on the site. How long have you been GMing, Vreeg?
Celtricia for 25 years. (3 of my players have been part of it for the full quarter century)
GMing for 30 years.
PLaying 32 years, starting with melee/wizards-Tunnels and Trolls-original D&D.
And the longer I go, the more I respect the story, and everything else is a vessel for that.
Just gonna chime in and say thanks for all the responses, guys and gals.
I hope this thread illuminates you as much as it did me.
Quote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip.Celtricia for 25 years. (3 of my players have been part of it for the full quarter century)
GMing for 30 years.
PLaying 32 years, starting with melee/wizards-Tunnels and Trolls-original D&D.
And the longer I go, the more I respect the story, and everything else is a vessel for that.
Exactly. I started playing in 1975, started GMing in 1978. And yes, I agree. Give them a story so full, with such depth and realism that they can be "caught up in it", and they'll forgive you anything and everything else.
Quote from: GrumpyOldFartQuote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip.Celtricia for 25 years. (3 of my players have been part of it for the full quarter century)
GMing for 30 years.
PLaying 32 years, starting with melee/wizards-Tunnels and Trolls-original D&D.
And the longer I go, the more I respect the story, and everything else is a vessel for that.
Exactly. I started playing in 1975, started GMing in 1978. And yes, I agree. Give them a story so full, with such depth and realism that they can be "caught up in it", and they'll forgive you anything and everything else.
So you, as a DM, give a story to your players? I do the opposite (well sort of), I prefer to give my players a template on which they can create their own stories. I don't restrict myself to what I want to do, rather I bring forth a world and people in it so that my players can do and see what they want.
It seems I never answered my own question. I had thought I did...
Well, I don't really tend to look for any one thing over another. What I really like to see is interesting, novel, or re-imagined concepts. Some kind of hook to draw me in.
Quote from: limetomIt seems I never answered my own question. I had thought I did...
Well, I don't really tend to look for any one thing over another. What I really like to see is interesting, novel, or re-imagined concepts. Some kind of hook to draw me in.
So something more unique than 'just another Greyhawk?' That makes sense because we can all make Greyhawk but few can create something special.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfSo you, as a DM, give a story to your players? I do the opposite (well sort of), I prefer to give my players a template on which they can create their own stories. I don't restrict myself to what I want to do, rather I bring forth a world and people in it so that my players can do and see what they want.
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. No, I don't give them a story, they make that up themselves. I'm the one who throws in all the little unlooked for details that give it depth.
[quote1229012138]I don't restrict myself to what I want to do, rather I bring forth a world and people in it so that my players can do and see what they want.[/quote]
Yeah, that.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: GrumpyOldFartQuote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip.Celtricia for 25 years. (3 of my players have been part of it for the full quarter century)
GMing for 30 years.
PLaying 32 years, starting with melee/wizards-Tunnels and Trolls-original D&D.
And the longer I go, the more I respect the story, and everything else is a vessel for that.
Exactly. I started playing in 1975, started GMing in 1978. And yes, I agree. Give them a story so full, with such depth and realism that they can be "caught up in it", and they'll forgive you anything and everything else.
So you, as a DM, give a story to your players? I do the opposite (well sort of), I prefer to give my players a template on which they can create their own stories. I don't restrict myself to what I want to do, rather I bring forth a world and people in it so that my players can do and see what they want.
Game mechanics, setting, style, goals, plot, the personalities...everything is an ingredient to creating a shared story. A good game and a good story have all of the same elements. So when I look at a setting (to bring this bakc around to the issue at hand) I look at the story it may serve to help create.
I don't know if we can all make Greyhawk... Greyhawk's pretty darn impressive. Unfortunately it's also a little schizophrenic.
I look for cultures first, history second, politics third, and geography fourth. I'm interested in knowing what the people of the world are like more than anything. Then I want to know what they did and what they are doing.