• Welcome to The Campaign Builder's Guild.
 

Campaign Settings: Distillation or Detailing?

Started by Weave, July 25, 2012, 04:29:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Weave

I've always had a love for short, pithy setting write-ups that really convey the settings character, its egde, its crux. They don't always detail exactly how the kingdom is being ruled, who the prominent figures are, how magic works, etc., and there's a certain simplistic, sometimes mysterious beauty to that. It retains an atmosphere that might be tarnished by the meticulous detailing of every facet of the city fo X or the fotest of Y.

On the other hand, there's a certain unquestionable richness that comes from having a detailed, well-understood setting, one with layers of history and dripping with knowledge; when it's done right, the veritable pages of information can be really rewarding for players as they stumble upon the next unique or cool facet of the setting. Questions the players have can generally be answered on the spot, and to me, that's neat.

But, are the two mutually exclusive? I've come to think that they are, erroneously or not. I have a fairly detailed setting that's growing in complexity as I write about it, but sometimes I can't help but feel like I'm losing some mystery as I try to explain it, like a magician explaining his magic trick after he performs it. I've considered "distilling" it a bit to loosen the reigns on my mind and making it easier to digest for people that aren't me. I'm sure I'll figure out exactly what I want to do to it as time goes on.

I want to ask you guys what you preferred in setting design: detail, just giving the bits that matter, something else?

sparkletwist

I personally am inclined to agree with the view that "short and pithy" is generally better. When you can convey the core feel of a place or thing within the setting, you've written enough, and more might just be superfluous. Part of the point of an RPG is the players and GM creating a story together, and I feel like having things too rigidly defined from the beginning can hurt that ability. Many players like being able to make their mark on a setting, so it's nice to leave room to do that. If you're using a system like FATE where players are explicitly granted a certain amount of narrative control, this becomes even more important, I think.

Seraph

I think it can go both ways, but I certainly am much more likely to pay attention to a new setting if it is short and pithy.    Though I think this is also due to my attention span.  I like Setting posts with enough to get me interested and excited, but not so much as to put me off because of the wall of text. 

I think a high level of detail can be a useful thing to have around, but it's not necessarily all something that needs to be shared. 
Brother Guillotine of Loving Wisdom
My Campaigns:
Discuss Avayevnon here at the New Discussion Thread
Discuss Cad Goleor here: Cad Goleor

Bardistry Wands on Etsy

Review Badges:
[spoiler=Award(s)]   [/spoiler]

Steerpike

#3
While I've enjoyed reading plenty of short/pithy settings, for actual play I'm of the opinion that generally the more detail, the better, and I never get tired to reading about settings I like.  I think it's quite possible to move from a short, broad overview of a setting to a more detailed account of its ins and outs.

Other people, I'm sure, have a different GMing style than I do, but when I GM I like to have everything prepped.  Some of my favourite settings both on the boards (Clockwork Jungle especially comes to mind)  and off the boards (Planescape, Westeros, Bas-Lag) I like specifically because of their intensive approach to world-building.

I mean, it's great to describe a city mysteriously using a few sentences to lend it an enigmatic atmosphere, but what happens when the PCs show up?

I suppose what this amounts to, for me, is that while minimalism can give a setting a certain pleasing aesthetic aura, the iceberg method does not lend itself well to gaming utility.

EDIT: I'd also argue that at a certain point a huge amount of detail starts to "give back" in terms of atmosphere and feel.  I think the key point is when the world gets big enough that you feel you'll never read everything about it or take it all in, that it exists beyond the page.  It starts to feel like you're reading about a real place.  I love that.  Instead of hints and glimpses you get a kind of overload of information.

Xeviat

I want to have a short, pithy, description of my setting to hand out as a primer (and to be at the front of my "book"), while still having heavy detail. But players don't need the detail at first, and neither do DMs who are picking up a setting to play.
Endless Horizons: Action and adventure set in a grand world ripe for exploration.

Proud recipient of the Silver Tortoise Award for extra Krunchyness.

sparkletwist

Quote from: SteerpikeOther people, I'm sure, have a different GMing style than I do, but when I GM I like to have everything prepped.
Can you ever really have everything prepped, or even close to that?

It seems like the one certainty about RPGing is that there is no certainty. I mean, that's part of the reason why we enjoy it, right? Everyone's creating a story together, rather it being like most fiction where there is just one author. So, I feel that to truly embrace that spirit, it's not even possible to prepare all that much.

Steerpike

Quote from: sparkletwistCan you ever really have everything prepped, or even close to that?

It seems like the one certainty about RPGing is that there is no certainty. I mean, that's part of the reason why we enjoy it, right? Everyone's creating a story together, rather it being like most fiction where there is just one author. So, I feel that to truly embrace that spirit, it's not even possible to prepare all that much.
Obviously, you can't prepare everything.  When I talk about preparation, I mean the setting more than the story.  When I GM, I like for my players to feel that they've stepped into another world, and so I tend to extensively prep things like cities and towns (sometimes down to street-by-street and shop-by-shop descriptions).  I like to prep lots and lots of NPCs for them to interact with, lots of events for them to witness and take part in, lots of seeds for subplots for them to run with (or not).  To me, if I left most of my worlds undefined or undetailed, I'd end up with a very sparse, unreal-seeming world, more like a movie set with cardboard cutouts with nothing behind them, or a video game with artificial boundaries as to where you can go and what you can do, or everything would seem rushed and hastily thought-up.

Of course improvisation is useful, and I tend to rely on improvisation heavily when it comes to how plots fit together, NPCs act, and stories develop.  But improvising the setting itself is harder, at least for me.  I like to have a healthy foundation of notes to lend the world verisimilitude.  Coming up with interesting locations and people on the fly can be very tough, and it's difficult to do consistently.

I'd argue that lots of detail doesn't preclude PC contributions to the story, it encourages them by giving players more to work with.  Players can still contribute to the story.  They choose what in the world to care about, who to interact with and how, how to tackle challenges.  Plots can be based on character backgrounds.  Detailed doesn't mean "rigid" or "inflexible."  And just because I prepared something ahead of time doesn't mean that it can't be changed on the fly if it makes sense in the narrative.

sparkletwist

That makes sense. Personally, I also like the "stepped into another world" feel, so I do some of that, but I think that if I prepared things to that degree of detail, I would feel a little disappointed if the players didn't get to see or use a lot of it. Maybe this doesn't happen to you, though. I do agree it can be tough to come up with interesting stuff on the fly, so it's always good to have something. I will admit that even now sometimes I come up with places or people that I think would make fun encounters and just drop them in wherever the players go. It's a little bit railroady, but, on the other hand, it's not like it's anything noticeable, either. How do they know what's where until they go there?

I do remember, quite a few years ago, doing a rather detailed drawing and writeup of a town, and letting the players spend a whole session just wandering around in the town and having various dealings and encounters there. It was fun, but it was also a lot of work, and I think that had they not spent the whole session wandering around there, it might have felt like I did a lot of work for nothing.  Of course, this was long enough ago that I was not nearly as good of a GM back then, so I basically told them "I've prepared a detailed town, wander around in it for a while because I don't have much else."

The thing is, though, not to rain on your exhaustive preparation work-- because I think it's good and if it's something you like doing that's great-- but sometimes I wonder how much most players actually care. I mean, I know they'd notice if you just hastily threw something nonsensical together, but I also think that being a bunch of world-builders we're more attuned to this kind of thing, and a lot of other players just see the setting as a background for "stuff that goes on," which is usually having some sort of adventure, and the "stuff that goes on" is what they're really focused on. (Even I am sort of this kind of player, sometimes, especially in Pathfinder. Despite being all into the world-building and setting-making!)


Seraph

Quote from: SteerpikeTo me, if I left most of my worlds undefined or undetailed, I'd end up with a very sparse, unreal-seeming world, more like a movie set with cardboard cutouts with nothing behind them, or a video game with artificial boundaries as to where you can go and what you can do, or everything would seem rushed and hastily thought-up.

I hate in video games when you randomly can't go somewhere you should by all logic be able to get to.  Especially when you're looking at a door, and you can't go through it into...whatever it is that's behind the door.  

I guess what I am trying to say is that Steerpike makes a good point about a real-seeming place.  Now, I don't think I'd ever be able to work out an entire town, but I could work out a few important ones (or ones I just EXPECT/"Plan" for them to interact with), and keep a table of random businesses for when they point and go "What's that building over there?"
Brother Guillotine of Loving Wisdom
My Campaigns:
Discuss Avayevnon here at the New Discussion Thread
Discuss Cad Goleor here: Cad Goleor

Bardistry Wands on Etsy

Review Badges:
[spoiler=Award(s)]   [/spoiler]

Steerpike

#9
I think the players caring bit is a very valid point, thought it depends greatly on the players.  But I think a skillful use of the setting can tie it into the plot in a way that makes the setting more than mere backdrop.  Take your Sixsura game, for example, where the plot was very much tied to the space station itself.  Or my first Sixguns game, where the nature of the setting (the petrified Great Old One) was central to the plot.  Sometimes the "stuff that goes on" can't be easily separated from the backdrop.

I'd definitely agree that a lot of what I write doesn't end up getting used.  I enjoy writing and designing anyway, so I don't feel like it was time totally wasted, though I definitely spend too much time on these things (my campaign notes for some games are longer than small novels...).  Often I engineer things so that players end up going through various bits of a given town, or whatnot.

Quote from: Sereaphine HarmoniumI hate in video games when you randomly can't go somewhere you should by all logic be able to get to.
Yeah, totally.  This is why for all their many flaws I adore the Elder Scrolls games so much.

LordVreeg

One can engage with the 'teaser' write up and then put the detailed stuff elsewhere, the first issue comes when one tries to do both in the same vehicle.

But part of that is based on what the vehicle is for.  Are you making a write up to get players or to convey the feel, or are you writing to actually play the game or setting?  Because these necessitate different approaches.

I also find that like the Pike, I create partially as a creative exercise, and partially as prep.   

Vreeg's Sixth Rule of Setting/Game Design.
"That in a good Sandbox, it will create itself as it needs to be.
I have noticed, in a Sandbox, that there is a skill (and something of an art) to building a lot of information in the direction you think the players are moving towards, but still filling in histories and side-bits as well as (most importantly) enough information sketched on the outskirts of this path and nearby that the GM can logically extrapolate and the players never know when they have mved from the center of the detailed part of notes off to the more 'sketched-in' areas. This is a critical part of good GMing, and is part of the fifth Rule, about the 'illusion of preparedness'.
Especially because the good sandbox GM is very Aurelian in nature ("The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.") and between session in the same way, will adapt to the new 'direction' of the PCs and detailing more fully in that area and sketching in the sides and big-picture stuff around that new Player direction.


This deals with prepping and zen-prepping a game, to take the larger, more established setting info and work at a finer level of granularity in the direction the PCs seem to be moving, but still at multiple levels of detail.  Even with the SIG group going into the Ruins for the 5th time, I still make sure that the changes are notated and such; part of the World in Motion ideal, things have changed and continued along, the cultists and Trine Vexchian have been fighting, new turf made and lost, etc.


Also, Steerpike mentions the one-offs and shorter, games..and it must be stated that differentl types of games, in terms of longevity, need different levels of detail written.  I have Encounter charts for most of the cradle areas of Celtricia, but very localized ones for Accis...because of this.

Detail also layers on detail; the longer you do something, the more the detail increases.  But, as warned, I like writing detail. 
VerkonenVreeg, The Nice.Celtricia, World of Factions

Steel Island Online gaming thread
The Collegium Arcana Online Game
Old, evil, twisted, damaged, and afflicted.  Orbis non sufficit.Thread Murderer Extraordinaire, and supposedly pragmatic...\"That is my interpretation. That the same rules designed to reduce the role of the GM and to empower the player also destroyed the autonomy to create a consistent setting. And more importantly, these rules reduce the Roleplaying component of what is supposed to be a \'Fantasy Roleplaying game\' to something else\"-Vreeg

Polycarp

Quote from: sparkletwistThe thing is, though, not to rain on your exhaustive preparation work-- because I think it's good and if it's something you like doing that's great-- sometimes I wonder how much most players actually care.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.  It has never mattered much to me.  Of course, you never want to beat people over the head with background - reciting the grand history of your world to the players is generally undesirable - but if I enjoy the creation of that background, it matters not at all whether the players care.  I care, and that is entirely sufficient.

Additionally, however, good setting elements inform other setting elements.  The only time I perceive part of the setting as being "wasted" is if it is adrift from the rest of the setting, something that could be excised from the setting without making any difference at all.  Sometimes I catch myself making things like this, and sometimes I end up abandoning them for this reason - the purpose of all that detail is not just to create material for players, but to construct a world that almost generates material for the players on its own because places, peoples, and cultures are connected with one another.  Think of it like a dungeon - certainly many dungeons have separate, discrete rooms, each with their own monster and treasure, a little microcosm of the adventure as a whole with no relationship with any other room of the dungeon.  If the players don't visit one of these rooms, it is indeed wasted.  However, a dungeon can also be an interconnected space, in which its monsters communicate with one another, use passages to retreat or bring up reinforcements, pull their property from one room to another to protect it from the advancing adventurers, or simply roam the halls instead of waiting for death in their 10' by 10' space.  In that kind of dungeon, even a room the PCs never visit (and don't strictly "care about") can serve a purpose.  In the same way, the actions and behaviors of NPCs in a setting may make decisions informed by history, culture, their neighbors, or other setting elements that the PCs do not know or do not care about; that internal logic can help the GM in designing a responsive and active world even if certain pieces of the background never actually "show up" in the campaign.

Quote from: LordVreegEspecially because the good sandbox GM is very Aurelian in nature ("The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.")

I see what you did there!
The Clockwork Jungle (wiki | thread)
"The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way." - Marcus Aurelius

Kindling

My players seem to think Dark Silver is far more detailed than it is, and I am loathe to disabuse them of this notion. When I say something like "Yeah the Balos are a seafaring people who come in strange ships with multiple decks of oars from their island homes in the west to sell tin" their belief makes them assume that there is an entirely formed culture and history for the Balos in my mind, while in actual fact the only details I have come up with about them not contained in that sentence are that their current royal house uses the seagull as its totem and that their culture has existed since the time of the First Empire.
all hail the reapers of hope

LordVreeg

Quote from: Kindling
My players seem to think Dark Silver is far more detailed than it is, and I am loathe to disabuse them of this notion. When I say something like "Yeah the Balos are a seafaring people who come in strange ships with multiple decks of oars from their island homes in the west to sell tin" their belief makes them assume that there is an entirely formed culture and history for the Balos in my mind, while in actual fact the only details I have come up with about them not contained in that sentence are that their current royal house uses the seagull as its totem and that their culture has existed since the time of the First Empire.

Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design

"The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion.   Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position.  The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability.


For a long term campaign, if the players cannot see the mind of the GM making things up or partially making stuff up, they assume it is all set in paper and 'real', for lack of a better term.  PLayers tend to believe, subconsiously, that if the GM wrote it down and prepared it, they are playing in and versus something set in stone and the GM is adjudicating, whereas if they see the GM making stuff up or they realize that is happening, they feel the GM playing against the players and the situation more.

It goes back to the thread about GM and pcs playing with or against each other...it is easier for the PCs to see the GM playing against them if the GM is adjudicating what is set in stone, versus if the PCs see the GM creating purely on the spot, they step outside their immersed Game self to watch the GM playing against them.
VerkonenVreeg, The Nice.Celtricia, World of Factions

Steel Island Online gaming thread
The Collegium Arcana Online Game
Old, evil, twisted, damaged, and afflicted.  Orbis non sufficit.Thread Murderer Extraordinaire, and supposedly pragmatic...\"That is my interpretation. That the same rules designed to reduce the role of the GM and to empower the player also destroyed the autonomy to create a consistent setting. And more importantly, these rules reduce the Roleplaying component of what is supposed to be a \'Fantasy Roleplaying game\' to something else\"-Vreeg

Steerpike

I'm interested in sparkletwist's opinion on Vreeg's fifth rule.  As I understand it, sparkletwist tends to favour a narrativist style of gaming where players significantly determine not only their characters' actions but details of the setting and how certain actions play out in the story - they collaborate in a very hands-on sense to the creation of the story, rather than shaping the story by telling the Gm what they want their characters to do.  Such an approach, it seems to me, is radically opposite the style Vreeg's fifth rule implies...