http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/the-setting-is-not-the-role-playing
QuoteDec 11, 2008 by Patrick Benson
The Setting is not the Role Playing
During our last session at my friendly local gaming shop where I am a player in a Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game I picked up a copy of the recently released Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons. I am currently running a 4e game where dragons are a major part of the story arc, so I was considering whether or not to purchase the title.
I skimmed the contents and I was a bit disappointed. This is not to say that the Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons is a bad product. I cannot endorse or denounce a work that I have not read completely through. What little I did read of the title was not what I was hoping to find nor was it a pleasant surprise.
In one part of the Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons there is a detailed description of a typical dragon's anatomy. The inner workings of the skeletal, nervous, and cardiovascular systems as well as other details are covered. This anatomy lesson is pure fluff in my mind. Possibly entertaining to some, but it did not convince me to buy the product.
I read some of the fluff out loud and with a sigh I placed the book back on the shelf. I then muttered out loud 'What good is that going to do for my game?'
In response one of the other players said 'Um, it's called role playing!'
I chuckled but then it hit me '" no, it is not called role playing. It is called setting. Details of that nature help to flesh out a setting. The reason that I was disappointed with the product was that it would not encourage the role playing aspect of my game. I wanted a product that would help create a sense of mystique and intrigue regarding dragons. A copy of Grey's Anatomy: Newly Revised Dragons Edition is setting material that actually hinders the atmosphere that I want to create in my game. This fluff took away some of the mystique of the dragon mythos with its approach.
This setting material only provided in finer detail common concepts about dragons which I and my players already have. In other words, I do not need a picture of a dragon's muscular system in order to understand that a dragon is a strong and fearsome beast. I do not need a comment on the size of a dragon's brain in order to conceive of it as being smart. The stats in the system convey all of that information to me already.
What I wanted was to see material that would help me role play a dragon. Setting may help you understand a world, it may help you shape and define a character, but a setting does not provide you with role playing. Role playing is how you decide to portray the character within the setting. Setting and role playing are complimentary, but setting and role playing are not substitutes for each other.
Furthermore, and even more important, having a detailed setting does not guarantee that you will encourage role playing. Creating character incentives within the setting may lead to an increase in role playing, but providing details that are unlikely to be useful to the characters does not lead to drama or tension for the characters to react to.
Keep this in mind that next time that you work on the world that you are designing or are considering setting material for your game. If your objective is to flesh out the world in greater detail then any setting material that you want to use is fine, but if you want to promote role playing focus on the structure of your plot and character dynamics and tailor your setting to enhance those aspects of your game instead. Setting is a powerful tool that every Game Master must learn to use well, but do not think of it as the only tool that is available to you when running your games.
That is my opinion on the matter, so what is yours? Leave your comments for others to read and share your own experiences with me and other members of the Gnome Stew community. And no matter what happens, don't forget that the GM is a player too! Have fun with it!
Discuss!
There's a lot to be said for filling in all the small details.
There's also a lot to be said for deliberately leaving great big gaps.
I don't think coining a lot of terms and definitions for things like "role playing" and "setting" and making a big deal out of their interactions is a terribly productive use of time. I do, however, see the author's point (or perhaps, one of his several points): too much knowledge can undermine a particular sense of awe or mythos that might be one of a world-builder's (or game-runner's) goals. Familiarity really does breed contempt.
Postponing for the moment all discussion of how the information is going to be of any use in a game, how does the arrangement and disposition of a dragon's nervous system become known to the expert characters within a world? (I'm jumping to this assumption because if it's not known to any characters, there's no reason for players to know it, either. GM-only secrets are the purview of the GM; the only thing that's reliably secret is information the GM cooks up custom for his or her own game.) Presumably, to know about dragon anatomy, somebody had to get awfully familiar with dragons (or perhaps, their butchered remains). This has a strong, maybe inevitably strong, potential to reduce dragons from the mythic creatures you may want them to be, to something much less remarkable. "Oh, another dragon-- we know all about those." Even if your group hasn't personally slain one, enough people presumably have so that they know it's eminently doable. Boring.
As for my specific take on this specific example: yeah, I have some dragons in my setting. Nine of them, total, throughout the whole recorded history of the world. Some of those nine are dead; others are unaccounted-for, at-large, whereabouts-unknown. They all have names and historical significance and personalities; none of them have stat blocks. Read into that what you will, I guess.
There are places in my writing where I fill in all the small details.
There are other places in my writing where I deliberately leave great big gaps.
I agree about details vs. gaps, and that setting isn't the only tool DMs should be using to create a good roleplaying experience.
QuoteFurthermore, and even more important, having a detailed setting does not guarantee that you will encourage role playing.
What I'd say to this is that while having a detailed setting doesn't guarantee you'll encourage roleplaying, having a very shallow and undetailed setting guarantees you'll discourage it. It's like the old saying that money doesn't buy happiness. The inevitable retort is that poverty sure as hell doesn't buy happiness either.
I like details (even though there are big, BIG gaps in some of my settings, big intentional ones, to create mystique/mystery/atmosphere), and even though its a bad idea to rely purely on setting details to create roleplaying, that doesn't mean that details are bad or unnecessary or don't enrich the game.
Some players like tactical challenges and big cinematic set pieces; some players like rich character development or story. And some players - and I'd count myself as one of them - roleplay primarily to explore a strange, new world. This doesn't have to equate to pure escapism: the new world that's entered might not be a pleasant one. In fact, I think there's a lot to be said for the perverse and often unexamined desire to "escape" into a world that's a lot
worse than our own. But my point is that to players (and DMs) whose fundamental interest in roleplaying is to travel to an otherwise utterly inaccessible place, details are absolutely key. Details are what attract my interest in the first place, and what sustain my interest once I'm there.
A lot of details might not make someone buy a book. However, details rarely
hurt, in my opinion.
Quote from: SteerpikeThe inevitable retort is that poverty sure as hell doesn't buy happiness either.
I've never actually heard this one before :P
That having been said, I agree with Steerpike, I don't really see how details can hurt, unless your trying to evoke something that's anti-detail (mystery, etc)
The point of the initial post is somewhat telling.
It's not about details being good or bad. It's the substance of those details.
Don't tell me just what it is, tell me how to play/GM it. When the Gm in question is mandering on as to why the size of the creatures cranial cavity is included, what he is looking for is, "tell me how to play this dragon". Tell me what it wants, what it craves, why it does what it does, what is the thing's psychology, and strengths and weaknesses? How does it talk, and what does it like to talk about?
These are the details that encourage/enable roleplaying.
It's not about details being good or bad. It;s what type of details are included, versus left out. And details or ommisions that encourage roleplay while giving a setting versimilitude are gold; anything else is tin dressed up as silver.
Nice post, Missing bard. Glad to have you back.
Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipDon't tell me just what it is, tell me how to play/GM it. When the Gm in question is mandering on as to why the size of the creatures cranial cavity is included, what he is looking for is, "tell me how to play this dragon". Tell me what it wants, what it craves, why it does what it does, what is the thing's psychology, and strengths and weaknesses? How does it talk, and what does it like to talk about?
Which puts the creators of those books in somewhat of a double-bind, as any of that stuff is usually deemed 'unnecessary fluff that anyone can figure out on their own.'
I had a markedly different take on that section of the 3.5 draconomicon, incidentally. It allowed me to actually say what's in a dragon when the inevitable part-harvesting began for my group.
If he had bothered to look further into the book (again, going from the 3.5 book) there was a nice quarter of the book dedicated to a fully fleshed dragon of every color and every age grouping. Including personality and goals.