The Campaign Builder's Guild

I'm going to try to get back into Arga, but I'm at a bit of a crossroads stylistically. On one hand, I would like to do the setting with a very mythical touch, reminiscent of Homer and Tolkien - keeping things "sparse" and poetic, not getting into overly banal details, and focusing on themes and ideas more than events and features. Things, places, and events on the margins of Arga will be ever more sparse, with only fleeting, tantalizing references.

On the other hand, there is a part of me that wishes to pursue and somewhat more irreverent, almost tongue-in-cheek style, something along the lines of Planescape or even the more bizarre Magic: The Gathering settings - think flying ships, golems, goofy tinkerers and weird machines.

I'm not quite sure where to go, I'm leaning ever-so-slightly towards the first approach, but any input would be much welcomed.

Both of these can be good, but there is a question of whether each other these styles is right for ARGA.  Is the "Irreverant, tongue-in-cheek" style suiting with what you want this setting to be?  Or does this warrant another setting?

Another setting! I cant barely keep up with one!

But that may be a good idea, just file away those thoughts into the "Silly Folder."

EDIT: So the first approach than?

I prefer the second approach. But that's just me. :D

Is it entirely impossible to have both in one setting?

I've tried to reconcile them, and it only works to an extent. While it's not really the content I'm worried about, as I have no problem with anachronisms and a little bit of strange, it's more in the way it's presented and the language I use.

I actually had a thread started a while ago on a topic very similar to, if not exactly the same as, this. Link!

It might be worth checking out for some useful answers.

I, like sparkletwist, also prefer the second approach, but it's always been very hard for me as well. I've seen beautiful settings done in the first approach (Ghostman's Savage Age comes to mind), and just as many in the second. I've come to find that the second approach tends to be more common, but I also think the second approach is a little easier than the first, from a design perspective, though maybe that's just me.

Quote from: Kindling
Is it entirely impossible to have both in one setting?

Hi folks, new guy here. I hope you don't mind my $0.02.

I haven't seen your Arga setting, SL, but if it's big enough, maybe you can set aside a localized area where those more humorous/outrageous themes apply? My own setting is pretty low-magic (magic is still recovering from an ancient catastrophe) but there are still rare flying ships and floating islands. The nice thing about that is that they really POP as standout, wild, and mysterious things. And I occasionally throw in a funny NPC name, such as Lypton Fulothru (Lipton Flow-thru) and Jandrak Feller (John D. Rockefeller) when the occasion warrants. My players eat it up and it helps break the tension of the more typically-serious stuff.

Cheers,
~Stebby

While I often like to get down into the micromanaging nitty-gritty, I also really enjoy reading settings that are painted with much broader strokes. While there's a lot to be said for fantasy worlds that 'work' in a realistic, technical sense, if that's not something your or your players are going to get hung up about, I'd as soon leave everything as vague and evocative as possible.

Quote from: Superbright
While I often like to get down into the micromanaging nitty-gritty, I also really enjoy reading settings that are painted with much broader strokes. While there's a lot to be said for fantasy worlds that 'work' in a realistic, technical sense, if that's not something your or your players are going to get hung up about, I'd as soon leave everything as vague and evocative as possible.

This right here is a thing I've been struggling with lately. I've been in a bit of a creative paralysis because I'm having a hard time figuring out how to strike that balance.

Quote from: LuminousI've been in a bit of a creative paralysis because I'm having a hard time figuring out how to strike that balance.

As in you haven't been working on anything, or the thing you are working on is at a stand-still?

Micro vs macro is a different discussion from style.  I like the first style better, and I think micro and macro can be done together.

I'm not sure I follow the Tolkien/Homer = low detail connection.  Tolkien's world is absurdly detailed in places - the guy has invented languages, hobbit geneologies, treatises on pipeweed, a history that spans thousands of years, a cohesive mythology, maps of the setting from different stages of its existence, entire books dedicated to back-story, detailed timelines, hundreds of characters, and a host of different cultures, even averting the problem of racial monocultures to a large extent (wood elves live different from the elves of Rivendell, the uruk-hai live differently than morgul orcs or Misty Mountain goblins, petty dwarves are distinct from regular dwarves, and the Bagginses, Brandybucks, Tooks, etc all have distinct ways of life...).  Homer is a bit different, but arguably he's pretty detailed as well, with island-by-island descriptions of a pretty small geographic location, and the Illiad devotes 15,693 lines to a single long siege.  So, in essence, I agree with Vreeg to some extent here that the issue of detail (micro/macro as he puts it) can be distinct from tone or style.

Still, I see the conundrum you've got: the mythic, sweeping, poetic stuff versus the irreverent, "punk," strange stuff.  At this particular moment I probably favour the latter overall, by a smidge, but both can be fun (and tomorrow I might feel differently... my tastes seem to fluctuate a lot).  I'd ask yourself the utilitarian question - what kind of game would you like to run in Arga, or alternatively what kind of stories would you like to write set there?  What use will you be putting the setting to?  Which kind of setting do you most enjoy playing/GMing/writing for?

Quote from: Steerpike
I'm not sure I follow the Tolkien/Homer = low detail connection.  Tolkien's world is absurdly detailed in places - the guy has invented languages, hobbit geneologies, treatises on pipeweed, a history that spans thousands of years, a cohesive mythology, maps of the setting from different stages of its existence, entire books dedicated to back-story, detailed timelines, hundreds of characters, and a host of different cultures, even averting the problem of racial monocultures to a large extent (wood elves live different from the elves of Rivendell, the uruk-hai live differently than morgul orcs or Misty Mountain goblins, petty dwarves are distinct from regular dwarves, and the Bagginses, Brandybucks, Tooks, etc all have distinct ways of life...).  Homer is a bit different, but arguably he's pretty detailed as well, with island-by-island descriptions of a pretty small geographic location, and the Illiad devotes 15,693 lines to a single long siege.  So, in essence, I agree with Vreeg to some extent here that the issue of detail (micro/macro as he puts it) can be distinct from tone or style.

Still, I see the conundrum you've got: the mythic, sweeping, poetic stuff versus the irreverent, "punk," strange stuff.  At this particular moment I probably favour the latter overall, by a smidge, but both can be fun (and tomorrow I might feel differently... my tastes seem to fluctuate a lot).  I'd ask yourself the utilitarian question - what kind of game would you like to run in Arga, or alternatively what kind of stories would you like to write set there?  What use will you be putting the setting to?  Which kind of setting do you most enjoy playing/GMing/writing for?

This.

Quote from: Exegesis

Quote from: LuminousI've been in a bit of a creative paralysis because I'm having a hard time figuring out how to strike that balance.

As in you haven't been working on anything, or the thing you are working on is at a stand-still?

When it comes to design and world-building, the former; when it comes to running actual games, the latter. (Though that's really more due to lack of people in my area and lack of available time, really. Pardon the red herrings.)

I'm having this conflict because I've recently come up against new ideas about how to run games and how to use setting, and I'm not sure the high-detail approach (that I've been using with the Jade Stage) is really ideal anymore. High detail will get you a lot of good things, but the more your setting material resembles a gigantic tome, the more you're setting up a barrier to entry for new players ("I have to understand how much before we start playing?!") and the more you lock down details in advance so that there is less room for players to co-create.

So this boils down to "I'm not sure the kind of setting I've been working on is the kind of setting I want to run games in anymore," which is tough.