What turns you off/on

[Kindling]

So... where do your conflicts come from, if you're ruling out war, monsters AND intrigue?

People.

The problem with those three factors is that too often they make the problem bigger than people.  If your problem-solving agent is a small group then there's a point at which the problem will outstrip the ability of said agent to handle it on its own.  The point of the game '" in my mind '" is for the focus to be on plucky people who save the day, not on people who gather armies.  Unless you give them a plot device taking on a war, widespread horror [I'm not sure what you meant by simply saying "monster"], and/or intrigue tend to be out of the plucky peoples' league.

So what does that leave?  Hero stories, the kind from myth where one hero or a small group face danger and overcome trials mostly without invoking large-scale solutions (as I've read them, you myths may vary).  Intrigue?  Scheming vizers who you can run a sword through.  War?  Occasionally, but generally not (and they really don't seem as much fun).  Monsters?  Sure, they're a staple.  It's just that they're generally of the type you can eliminate without an army.

A setting in which wars, intrigue, and/or an overabundance of monsters are prominent does not mean that the PCs are expected to "solve" all the problems of the setting. Rather, it simply means that there are a plethora of opportunities for plot hooks and conflicts in which the PCs can get involved and make a difference.

In a setting without such an emphasis, conflicts tend to be the exception rather than the rule, requiring a greater suspension of disbelief (in that it is unreasonable to expect a single group of persons to routinely become involved in conflicts which, for the general populous, are once-in-a-lifetime experiences, if that).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

All the following (that is a quote) is opinion:

A setting in which wars, intrigue, and/or an overabundance of monsters are prominent does not mean that the PCs are expected to "solve" all the problems of the setting.

This has never made sense to me: Small problems are caused by the big ones.  Therefore never solving the big ones is simply an exercise in ensuring that you are never going to be done.  Unfortunately I'm just not interested in anything enough to put up with this sort of behavior.

Also I'm confused by these three things: What do you do with them?  What purpose do they serve beyond causing conflict?  My argument is that if they're only there to cause conflict than you don't need use all that much of them.

'¦'¦'¦it simply means that there are a plethora of opportunities for plot hooks and conflicts in which the PCs can get involved'¦'¦

I see no reason why you can't have that situation without those factors.

'¦'¦and make a difference.

See "never solving the big ones is simply an exercise in ensuring that you are never going to be done" above.

In a setting without such an emphasis, conflicts tend to be the exception rather than the rule, requiring a greater suspension of disbelief (in that it is unreasonable to expect a single group of persons to routinely become involved in conflicts which, for the general populous, are once-in-a-lifetime experiences, if that).

Lack of emphasis on a thing does not mean lack of the thing itself.  It simply means that you can solve problems without this big thing simply ruining all your hard work.

[JackOfTales]

I can actually be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to what gets me going on a setting, I think... I can go on for hours about certain things in my own setting, but if another setting doesn't get to the point fairly quickly I lose track.

I think alot of people do this. I can never quite tell when I've written too much or too little detail on my own stuff and often explain things too much to the point of being overly wordy. At the same time, it takes something unique to draw me in to read a specific setting. Typically anything overtly strange or very dark and 'gothic' attract my attention. Anything that's typical fantasy fare drives me away as does anything that uses a system I'm not familiar with..no idea why though.

[Hibou]

I can actually be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to what gets me going on a setting, I think... I can go on for hours about certain things in my own setting, but if another setting doesn't get to the point fairly quickly I lose track.

I think alot of people do this. I can never quite tell when I've written too much or too little detail on my own stuff and often explain things too much to the point of being overly wordy. At the same time, it takes something unique to draw me in to read a specific setting. Typically anything overtly strange or very dark and 'gothic' attract my attention. Anything that's typical fantasy fare drives me away as does anything that uses a system I'm not familiar with..no idea why though.

Those are the exact same things that usually draw me in.

[Nomadic]

Silvercat I understand that your post is just an opinion and that is perfectly fine. However you did say you are confused so I think I can answer your questions here.

Despite what it may seem like at first having things like wars doesn't require greater suspension of disbelief. It in fact for many people requires less as it is in line with the real world and the real world feeling of hopelessness war gives to many people caught up in it. Furthermore unless you are running a classic DnD dungeon crawl (and sometimes even if you are) you are likely going to need to have overarching ideas in the setting. Things that cannot be solved (at least not directly by the PCs). It gives a general feel to the setting and a place to pull new ideas from for new campaigns (instead of running one campaign and being forced to stop completely). Never being done isn't a bad thing. It is a fact of life that you will never solve all the conflicts (or even solve one large one). Does this mean you can't have it like you do? Certainly not and indeed some people prefer a more simple setup to having to spend all that extra time designing a campaign. This is fine and I myself enjoy such games from time to time. However you shouldn't discount the fact that there are people who enjoy extra realism and depth even if it requires extra work. This is in regard to the general fact of having wars and massive things going on that one person or even a small group of people can't hope to solve. Taking it too far is, yes, going to be a problem in suspension of disbelief. So it is necessary to strike a balance to achieve optimum verisimilitude (and thus more work than normal is required).

[sparkletwist]

A setting in which wars, intrigue, and/or an overabundance of monsters are prominent does not mean that the PCs are expected to "solve" all the problems of the setting. Rather, it simply means that there are a plethora of opportunities for plot hooks and conflicts in which the PCs can get involved and make a difference.

a lot[/b] of great historical figures and there is a raging debate among historians over who is greater, who did the most, and so on. The PCs can change the world, but they don't have to be the only ones who ever did or will.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

'¦'¦you did say you are confused so I think I can answer your questions here.

Sorry, but now I'm confused as to what question you just answered.  Did I give you the impression I expected people to act a certain way?  I didn't exactly mean it like that: yeah, I do expect it out of them, but I know from experience that they won't, and I know enough not to want to be a person who presses their views on other people.  So sorry for doing whatever it is I did.

I still want to try to explain my position:
I find that big problems you can't solve just take up unnecessary space.  If you can't solve something there's no point in getting worked up over it and so you might as well avoid it (I believe this to be especially true in the case of things like war and intrigue where the participants obviously could resolve their problems without resorting to all the stupid they get up to).  But if it's all around you then you're going to keep bumping into it whether you want to or not.  Do I want to completely eliminate war?  No, I just think it works better "elsewhere", that is either in far off places or in the past where it only has tangential effects.  It's like those high-level NPCs I hear people hate from Forgotten Realms.

[Nomadic]

Don't worry I don't think you are pressing anything on anybody. I was just trying to explain the other viewpoint. You can have wars around the PCs just fine. Even if you did make it too large for them to solve on their own. In such a case it isn't the place of the PC to "solve" the war but to survive in it. Like you say though, wars are huge things too large for a PC to handle themselves. Therefore a war isn't a plot hook but more of a plot setting. It changes the feel of the whole game and the overall focus. Not always a bad thing. Endless war though is something which does shift me towards agreeing with your points. Unless the whole campaign is totally focused on fighting there is no reason for never ending wars. So then, you can have war, you can have it up front. It just has to be done right.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Unfortunately perhaps I see war (and intrigue) as too easy to cliché: the same old reasons for it and the same old forms.  Probably other people don't have this problem, but I do. This is one of the reasons why I like to look for settings without them: it's something I haven't seen and feels refreshing.

And to get back on track:
Turn on: Setting description that isn't taking the whole thing too seriously.  I appreciate the seriousness of world-building (I tend to take it that way, to my frustration), but that's not really what I'm interested in for a game.

[SA]

On SilvercatMoonpaw

When I see Silvercat post in a thread like this I can usually anticipate the kind of things he's going to say, and also the flurry of responses his opinion often generates.  His perspective seems a very different one from many, and I'm thankful for that.  I think his "why all the doom and gloom?" attitude has really helped the maturation of my own ideas.

So thanks, Silver!

As for things that turn me on:

Wondrous magic, without a huge, complex convoluted metaphysical system behind it.  Mysterious magic that fills the world's people with inspiration, curiosity and purpose, but also deceives and deludes.  Magic I've never seen before.  Weird magic that blows my mind wide open, dares me to look beyond my own lazy perception.

Monstrous monsters.  The kind whose horror derives from their familiarity to human experience, perversions of normality.  Monsters whose anatomies and psychologies are challenging to our sensibilities, confronting our values and defying our moral rightness.  Unique monsters, each with a form unrepeated amongst its kin, with bloodlines, passions and vendettas.  Vengeful, hungry monsters, that dream and yearn.  Monsters who prove by their very existence that our way is not the only way.

New worlds.  Worlds with strange geographies and unfamiliar people. Worlds rich in history but not subsumed with degradation. Beautiful worlds, teeming with wonder, mad worlds and unborn worlds, worlds on fire and worlds adrift on the shoulders of angels.

Fantasy.  I think we often forget what fantasy is.  We forget that it is the limitless genre that encompasses all others; not truly a genre at all but our very desire to create and innovate, encapsulated in a word.  Every tale is fantasy, and so it is bewildering to see the limitations we impose upon ourselves, ascribing one form to that which is by nature multitudinous.  Fantasy doesn't need magic.  it doesn't need swords or guns or elves or creation stories or jealous gods or an impending doom.  Being everything, it is in need of nothing.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Sounds like a very interesting set of desires to fulfill.  Just one thing:

Monsters whose anatomies and psychologies are challenging to our sensibilities, confronting our values and defying our moral rightness.

What does this mean?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Sounds like a very interesting set of desires to fulfill.  Just one thing:

Monsters whose anatomies and psychologies are challenging to our sensibilities, confronting our values and defying our moral rightness.

What does this mean?

Check out his Menagerie of the Grotesque, that may supply you with answers.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Check out his Menagerie of the Grotesque, that may supply you with answers.

Sorry, I still need it explained.  :shy:

[Nomadic]

Check out his Menagerie of the Grotesque, that may supply you with answers.

Sorry, I still need it explained.  :shy:

Creatures who are mockeries of what we consider normal to the point that they offend the senses. A creature that disguises itself as a muffin and turns your stomach to mush when you eat it, a being that is abnormally beautiful so as to lull you into a false sense of security (whereupon it devours you at your most vulnerable point). Basically the very thing that makes monsters monstrous.

[SA]

For the record: I don't endorse any explanations of my statements or opinions.  It means what it says, and that's about the end of it.