Inspired by J Arcane's reference to an old RPGnet thread on modern-day Earth as an adventure setting...

Is it necessary when creating a fictional setting to ensure that every locale be a potential adventure-location? Or is it okay to have a mix of "hard & crunchy" with "soft & chewy"? Like, nobody assumes that suburban Phoenix, AZ doesn't exist in your mercenaries game. It might even have a function in terms of providing a place for your PC to rest between adventures. But it doesn't get detailed in a module the way that some border region in Africa does.

Would this work in a fantasy, SF, or historical setting, too? What ramifications might it have either for mechanics or presentation?

No, I don't think so.  I think it is better to divide a setting along the lines of a traditional conception of conventional warfare.  You have a home guard, which is utterly safe in terms of adventure (Nothing Happens Here).  You have a rear area where things are pacified, but not secure (The Inn, in terms of its place as where adventures begin, is here).  You have a front line, where most of the fighting happens (most adventures here).  Finally, Enemy Territory (some happen here, often the Big Event adventures).

Adventure happens wherever the hereoes are standing.

Thus, every entry about the setting should have something cool about it to spur on possible adventure.    Everything shouldn't have a Moria underneath, but "cool stuff happens here" is always important.

Palladium's Wormwood is an interesting setting because you have the Demon Zone, the War Zone, and the Church Zone and while the Demon Zone is the most dangerous from a combat perspective, the Church Zone has its own political and ideological dangers.

No, I don't think it's necessary to have every corner of the world fleshed out in adventure-ready details.  I think that you can have safe spots or safe zones in a setting.  Just look at LotR; prior to their (Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin) return to the Shire, adventuring in the Shire would be very lack luster and bland.  Unless, you play a game in a Robert Jordan style where there is copious amounts of skirt tugging and braid pulling, and it's all about the interpersonal drama.

Yes, I do agree that drama can be found anywhere. At least that's sort-of what you're suggesting.

I suppose what I'm getting at, though, is that there are reasons to have a bit of "focus" in your setting design. (Note: regardless of whether we're talking about a commercial product or homebrew.) Or another way of putting it, the kinds of activities that are well-suited to a frontier region don't necessarily have to be supported in a settled region. Vice-versa: the type of game your group is looking for can dictate the part of the world that gets detailed, but that doesn't mean other parts don't exist.

I'm pretty sure that we're on the same wave length here, Elliot.

Almost all settings have a focus or focal point.   One of criticisms of the Talislanta setting is that it lack focus, or direction for the players.  I feel that this is an unfounded criticism because the focus of the setting is the Seven Kingdoms, and the city of Cymril itself.  I am sure that there are some settings out there that don't have a focal point, but I bet if you those under the magnifying glass then the number of setting that actually have absolutely no focal point will be very low.

I would think this is a bit genre dependent- Post apocalyptic and Superhero settings seem to me to be amenable to adventure in 100% of the setting- same thing with CoC and horror in general really (aprt of what makes it horrific is that it can happen anywhere).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;335370Inspired by J Arcane's reference to an old RPGnet thread on modern-day Earth as an adventure setting...

Is it necessary when creating a fictional setting to ensure that every locale be a potential adventure-location? Or is it okay to have a mix of "hard & crunchy" with "soft & chewy"? Like, nobody assumes that suburban Phoenix, AZ doesn't exist in your mercenaries game. It might even have a function in terms of providing a place for your PC to rest between adventures. But it doesn't get detailed in a module the way that some border region in Africa does.

Would this work in a fantasy, SF, or historical setting, too? What ramifications might it have either for mechanics or presentation?

Whatever makes sense for the setting.

I think there should be a healthy amount of potential for adventures, obviously, but there is also such a thing as too much, as in "over the top", "gonzo" adventure settings, where you can do nothing else but run into an adventure as soon as you move from Hex A to any other Hex on the map.

It's all a matter of balance between providing adventure sites in the first place, and still have a world that makes sense, and is endearing to the players' tastes and combined imagination.

There is as well a difference between the world as it is prepped or written on the page, and what the players get to actually see in-game, through their characters. One could be loaded with opportunities for adventure while the other could feel completely differently from the PCs' point of views. Cf. Middle-earth as depicted in the Encyclopedia of Arda vs. what the Fellowship of the Ring gets to actually experience from the world in their travels.

For the sake of continuing the conversation, here's the salient posts from the thread Eliot refers to:  

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you were to remove the factor of "We live here", the Planet Earth would be derided almost universally as a campaign setting for any RPG.

You can't simplify it into some "high concept". There's no catchphrase to sum it up. There's no great overarcing metaplot for the most part. No singular menace for all the world to fear (though some trry to create one now and again). Humans don't have kewl powers.

It's just a world, with people, and lots of different cultures.

And thus would tank completely if sold as an RPG.

QuoteThere's not enough violence.

Seriously, I know it sounds wierd to here, because yes, our planet has quite a lot of strife goign on at any one time, but by comparison to the way most RPG worlds are set up?

There's not nearly enough casual violence. People are actively discouraged from killing one another. There really are no wandering baddies to go slay, at least, not unless you want the law down on your head, since mst law enforcement units frown on vigilantism.

All the wars aren't nearly black and white enough. There's never a clear "good guy" and "bad guy" in most situations. The enemy is seldom a neatly subhuman evil, but is, instead, a real person, just like yourself.

And besides, even getting into the military or the police is hardly a guarantee a PC will see any action. Most individuals in either will probably never see a minute of combat in their lives.

Really, it's all quite boring when you look at it.

QuoteTo help you understand what I'm getting at, I'll explain what prompted my hypothesis.

Someone was discussing a game that I have always been very impressed with, because it was, for the most part, very good about being very much like a real world. Just a big place, with lots of different towns and peoples and cultures. No grand metaplot, no high concept, no over-indulgence of kewl factor.

Just a world, with people, who do stuff.

Then somebody complained that the setting was boring.

And I realized that, in a sense, they were right, when compared to what most people are looking for in an RPG, if the top sellers are any indication.

Even your examples were really a fictionalized, high concept version of Earth in some ways.

So it occured to me that in a lot of ways, good world building is counter-productive, because then people largely won't give a shit, because a real world doesn't tend to boil down to a few basic concepts the way a TV series or a movie or most RPGs do.

Quote from: Aos;335399I would think this is a bit genre dependent- Post apocalyptic and Superhero settings seem to me to be amenable to adventure in 100% of the setting- same thing with CoC and horror in general really (aprt of what makes it horrific is that it can happen anywhere).

Absolutely. Then again, do superhero & horror games even have, or (to be mindful of RPG publisher/purchaser habits) need settings--in any kind of broad detail? Sure, superheroes need a city to defend, and maybe some horror games similarly need a city to haunt, but do you need comprehensive maps/descriptions of continents and all the major urban areas?

Quote from: Drohem;335396I'm pretty sure that we're on the same wave length here, Elliot.

Almost all settings have a focus or focal point.   One of criticisms of the Talislanta setting is that it lack focus, or direction for the players.  I feel that this is an unfounded criticism because the focus of the setting is the Seven Kingdoms, and the city of Cymril itself.  I am sure that there are some settings out there that don't have a focal point, but I bet if you those under the magnifying glass then the number of setting that actually have absolutely no focal point will be very low.

Ironically, from my reading of the setting, the Seven Kingdoms is best seen as a starting point, though a rich one in terms of adventure opportunity. It's definitely the most "normal" place on Talislanta (which is pretty funny when you think about it).

But if you have a good idea of the type of campaign you want to run in Tal, then I think it would be easy to identify an appropriate region and then work from there--you could pretty much ignore the other regions.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;335370Would this work in a fantasy, SF, or historical setting, too? What ramifications might it have either for mechanics or presentation?

Forgotten Realms was moderately interesting before they went on a detail every hex spree. I think it may have been 3E onwards were each region had specific feats and such. I suppose it depends on the game but I think once you begin detailing every part of a setting, rules bloat sets in

Regards,
David R

I would break adventures down into types: fight monsters hand-to-hand, thwart plotters, solve mysteries, an so on. Each of those types can be broken down in reference to specific opponents.

If you plot on a map the central locations of each adventure and the areas each adventure effects, you will end up with some areas being rich in all types of adventure, some being rich in a few types, and some being relatively untouched by any. This makes for a rich setting. Not all the adventure worthy areas need to be detailed right off. Just be aware of the general trends.

So, no, an entire setting does not have to be adventure-worthy.

A good setting should have contrasts, if there is no civilised East Coast/Hobbiton, there is no allure to going to the Wild West/Mirkwood.

Well, I don't know about that--there are the "points of light" settings for example.

But I guess what I'm getting at, at the risk of being redundant, is that most any "setting" conceived as an entire world or universe can be a place for adventure. Or for other types of activity, too, if you prefer say skirt tugging and braid pulling. It's just a matter of picking the place, geographically/socially, where that stuff occurs, and choosing to develop your game/campaign based on that.

This isn't to say you couldn't take a broad focus if your group and game mechanics can't handle it. However J Arcane's mini-essay is, for me, a jumping off point into rebutting the idea that an RPG world without an overarching meta-focus can't be the location for any number of "settings", in the sense of frameworks for various types of campaigns.