The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Phoenix

Quote from: PhoenixEither way, I think it's a rather broad statement.

It has to be broad: that's what I see.  I see the ancient myths I know, and then I see the game settings, and the ancient myths are simple in comparason to what goes on in so many of the settings I've come across.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: Phoenix

QuoteHow often do you see complex societies/politics in those stories? I can't recall any.

Compared to the societies presented in so many of the RPG settings I've read I'd say none of these are complex.  I don't recall any politics in Norse legends/myths.  For the others I'm not as familiar.  But I've just never encountered a society in myth that's as complex as what setting designers come up with.

The societies are representative of real Germanic societies, which did indeed have some complexities (like all societies). But I was actually referring to your other claim, that they have no politics. See the Volsung Saga or especially Frithiof Saga for complex politics.

Quote from: PhoenixThe societies are representative of real Germanic societies, which did indeed have some complexities (like all societies). But I was actually referring to your other claim, that they have no politics. See the Volsung Saga or especially Frithiof Saga for complex politics.

*sigh* You're probably right.  Also my fault for being an idiot: I said "ancient myths" thinking there couldn't be any others than the ones I'd read.  I'm stupid that way.

But I really mean it when I say I consider fantasy devoid of that sort of stuff: complexity and politics.  To me fantasy is a story, and I don't see a story as having or needing all the details about society and politics that get crammed into nearly every single P&P RPG setting I've ever seen or read.  (Nor anything referred to as a "game", but that's another thread.....)

Fantasy doesn't need complex politics to be fantasy, but neither does it really lose anything by their inclusion. It simply adds new elements to the story, influencing it's flavour. Whether one likes that kind of flavour or not, comes down to personal tastes.

I for one enjoy political intrigue and plots in general, so I prefer my fantasy with plenty of them :)

Some more thoughts:

- The world needs some conflicts the players can really care about. After all, gaming and stories both thrive on conflict.

- The players need to know what they can do - the abilities of the protagonists must be placed within the overall context of the world, and thus it must be understandable what is possible for them. This isn't merely about game rules. A 200 CP GURPS mage in a world with only a dozen mages will be rather different than the same mage in a world where half the population has some magical training, even if the game stats are identical.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: PhoenixThe societies are representative of real Germanic societies, which did indeed have some complexities (like all societies). But I was actually referring to your other claim, that they have no politics. See the Volsung Saga or especially Frithiof Saga for complex politics.

*sigh* You're probably right.  Also my fault for being an idiot: I said "ancient myths" thinking there couldn't be any others than the ones I'd read.  I'm stupid that way.

But I really mean it when I say I consider fantasy devoid of that sort of stuff: complexity and politics.  To me fantasy is a story, and I don't see a story as having or needing all the details about society and politics that get crammed into nearly every single P&P RPG setting I've ever seen or read.  (Nor anything referred to as a "game", but that's another thread.....)

Have you considered that most games include more material than they need intentionally, and that each individual game played in that system/setting will only focus on one or two things?

It's kind of like how they map the whole world... how often do you really use the whole world in one session? And yet it's fun as hell to just explore, and more convenient for the DM to already know what's on the other side of that forest.

So a story might include law enforcement if the heroes get arrested, the army if the story turns to war, a bunch of bandits if the PCs travel the wrong road at night, etc, etc... But rarely does one session use or need everything the setting has to offer.

Quote from: beejazzHave you considered that most games include more material than they need intentionally, and that each individual game played in that system/setting will only focus on one or two things?

I don't know.  I feel like I did, then decided that it was better if information didn't exist until finalized or things got inflexible.

Also amount of information doesn't have an impact on what I think a fantasy setting should be like: I think complexity detracts from a story at any level.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI don't know.  I feel like I did, then decided that it was better if information didn't exist until finalized or things got inflexible.

Also amount of information doesn't have an impact on what I think a fantasy setting should be like: I think complexity detracts from a story at any level.
[/quote]
I don't see why that would be the case.

Quote from: beejazzI think it really depends on what kind of game you're running. A big world with a lot to explore, I'd rather have an idea (as a GM) of what's over the next hill. For a mystery, I'd like (as a GM) to already have a plausible answer on hand. For something highly social? Takes a lot more winging it, as people are unpredictable.

I guess I do feel more like social games than other kinds.

I just tend to feel a kind of drag, though, when a setting doesn't leave a lot of room (not just size) to go wild in.

Quote from: beejazz

QuoteAlso amount of information doesn't have an impact on what I think a fantasy setting should be like: I think complexity detracts from a story at any level.

It's distracting.

Quote from: beejazzI think it really depends on what kind of game you're running. A big world with a lot to explore, I'd rather have an idea (as a GM) of what's over the next hill. For a mystery, I'd like (as a GM) to already have a plausible answer on hand. For something highly social? Takes a lot more winging it, as people are unpredictable.

I guess I do feel more like social games than other kinds.

I just tend to feel a kind of drag, though, when a setting doesn't leave a lot of room (not just size) to go wild in.[/quote]
It's distracting.
[/quote]
I think this is only the case if used in excess. One or two complications is fine. Besides which, it's important to make the distinction between a complication and, say, an obstacle. Of the two, I prefer the former because it usually entails more of a decision to be made and less of an impediment to the game.

Its funny, increasingly I've come to the reailzation that Silvercat Moonpaw and I are exact polar opposites with regards to roleplaying style.  Nothing wrong with that at all (in fact I still very much enjoy your work, Silvercat, and find your opinions incredibly challenging and illuminating, forcing me to view things from a difefrent perspective), just a comment... we're almost totally antithetical in terms of taste.  A little overlap in certain regions of pulp fiction, perhaps, but otherwise...

To me a good fantasy setting entails many things, a smattering of enough detail that holds some sort of logic to build a solid framework to place a story.

As an artist working in a variety of media, especially for the purposes of fantasy cartography, especially at encounter scale. I put in lots of detail - rubble, a skeleton here, a cob web there, furniture, whatever elements I need to help explain what is in a given chamber or wilderness location. Using photographic texture fills helps bring more reality into a given map. However, I don't try to duplicate natures total complexity, I place just enough to give a viewer a good idea what's going on. The detail is there to hint to the viewer what else might this room contain.

I see that as the same thing in a fantasy setting. The devil's in the detail. I try to touch upon many aspects to a given world. I do need to know how economies work, how the political structure is built, how magic works, are the gods real, really as much as I can fit into an "armload" then piece back together into a coherent whole.

Perhaps no adventure will go down all aspects of a world, maybe just a few. But understanding that it exists and how it exists makes the setting that much more solid. Think of the details as threads, not object ideas. The threads have to be woven together to make sense. With enough detail threads you weave together a fabric and that is the setting.

Once a given player understands how things work, and what's available they know what options they can take to give them the best advantage in both character progression and story-telling.

Fictional work often needs far less detail to make a magical literary exploration. What works for fiction or pure story-telling, doesn't necessarily work as a game. I need a cohesive and comprehensive playing field as a ground to stand on. Then telling an effective story that fits in the framework, providing challenges and surprises (players sometimes do the "surprising", due to their understanding of the world and how they can take advantage, that I as a GM did not see.)

Knowing the world makes the play experience more complete. The adventure/story becomes another thread that is woven into the greater fabric of the setting.

I never memorize every detail of a given setting, but knowing that that information is available helps me tell better stories.

GP