(long, rambling...but detailed post deleted so I sound less like a narcissistic windbag)

What do you feel makes for a great setting, and what are your thoughts on how the game system should be "in synch" with it?

I have several facets of this that i understand and try to utilize but have a hard time voicing in apointed manner.  I simply call it the "cool factor", which I use to decribe both system and setting, and how the interact to form a game.

I am hoping that by your thoughts and points that I can moer clearly focus my own; as well as learn a few things from everyone else.

(Besides, we're kind of snowed in and the wifey is in cleaning mode and I have been instructed to stay out of her way until it's either naughty fun time, or time to play RISK...or both )

Quote from: GladenWhat do you feel makes for a great setting, and what are your thoughts on how the game system should be "in synch" with it?

S. John Ross came up with a list of 5 Elements of a Commercially Successful Role-Playing Setting (which he now regrets and refuses to write about) that I think touched on some points that people don't consider.  A few of them are fairly easy to figure out but the two that stick out as being both important but easy to miss are Anarchy and Cliché.

Anarchy means that there needs to be enough about the setting that's uncontrolled, ungoverned, and wild in the setting for players to do their own think and skirt the law, at least from time to time.  The complaint about the Magic Deer is, beyond a political or philosophical complaint, a complaint about the absence of Anarchy in the Blue Rose setting.  Similarly, when magic or science fiction make it such that a perpetrator can always be found, the players lose the ability to solve problems outside of the laws.

Cliché means that the setting is familiar enough that the GM can draw on familiar cliches for descriptions, plot elements, and NPCs.  It's unsurprising the S. John Ross feels that clichés are important given the prominent role they play in Risus.  But clichés are important in almost any setting because they make it easier for the players (and GM, if it's a commercial setting) to get the gist of the various elements and know what the setting is about.  Exotic settings are interesting but if they are too exotic, the effort required to learn the setting can be discouraging and burdensome.  They clichés also help during play by giving the GM a rich pool of elements to draw on to decide what's happening and to quickly and reasonably accurately convey to the players what's being described to them.

A great setting obviously stands out through some unique features. If it's a classical Setting like the Realms or Middle Earth, the obviously this doesn't apply (or, it did in the past) and the whole thing works because we know and love it already.
The unique background should have a sense of adventure, metaplot, feeling etc, that practically demands your character to be and act there. This can be one big thing like the "War of the Lance" or just a smaller metaplot that links well designed smaller regions together.
The world must have a sense of briskness. There should be no feeling of clear status quo ("this is our righteous king, he shall rule one hundred years"). It must be clear that intrigue and political turmoil just begs to be unleashed. Most Fantasy Worlds, however, are so far fetched and unbelievable it's not really an issue and 90% of all (mainstream) players usually don't care for this. But in a great setting, the world doesn't have to be a dark and grim place, yet it must be clear that even without the novels or the gamemaster's creativity, things don't stand still.
It's an additional plus if the nature of this setting itself can be so hostile, mysterious and bizarre or whatnot that mere survival would be quite a feat, like in a post-apocalyptical setting (e.g.Degenesis).
Also, if parts of the world have to be discovered or rediscovered is surely a good thing, because "adventuring" is much more plausible and dramatic.
Of course, all these things should be balanced for the audience you intend to cater for. Your buddies may like Talislanta, but it's not hugely poular with the mainstream. The mainstream also can cope sometimes with the stupidiest excuses and cliches for "dungeons", while RPGConnaisseurs like to have presented a fine explanation for stuff like that (eg Caers in Earthdawn). It helps to make the feel of the setting consistent and believable.
About fluff: It is pure art if a designer knows how to mix known elements together. Humans always compare everything they discover with things they know, automatically. To this comes the fact that it's usually a good thing to present culturally known memes to add a sense of instinctive familiarity.
That means concretely: If you happen to design a mogol like race, it doesn't hurt to give them at least a few similar attributes (this could be pretty much anything: their style of dress, their language, their fondness for war etc.) A pretty blunt approach with this is for example "Sovereign Stone". But it can be a lot more subtle (Star Wars).

It's getting late. I'm stopping here, good night-
Einzelgaenger

A good fantasy setting avoids worldbuilding for its own sake. In the case of novels, worldbuilding is subordinate to plot; in the case of games, worldbuilding is subordinate to adventures. Therefore, a good game setting should directly encourage adventuring activity with all of its aspects; the creator of the setting should focus on his or her material being immediately useable. The golden rule is, if it comes up in play and adds to the experience, it is good. If it doesn't, it should be omitted. Even so, it is better to be terse and evocative than detailed and complex; decent GMs are always able to improvise a lot of mundane content. Most of the time, this comes back to S. John's "Clich": Cliché gives us something that is easy to identify with... where adding "props" from the real world is a snap, versus a setting where this is not possible (c.f. Tékumel vs. more digestible fantasy settings).

Quote from: John MorrowS. John Ross came up with a list of 5 Elements of a Commercially Successful Role-Playing Setting (which he now regrets and refuses to write about) that I think touched on some points that people don't consider.

Can this somewhere be found online? I think setting design is a totally under-explored area of RPG theory, and as I have a lot of respect for S. John Ross I'd be very interested into his thoughts on this matter.

Quote from: SkyrockCan this somewhere be found online? I think setting design is a totally under-explored area of RPG theory, and as I have a lot of respect for S. John Ross I'd be very interested into his thoughts on this matter.

I try not to post the whole thing out of respect for S. John Ross, since he apparently regrets coming up with it and he refuses to write about it (I even offered him some money at one point to write an article about it).  I think his concern is that they'll become 5 hard rules by which every setting will be judged and he doesn't want to be responsible for constraining setting design that way.  Some creative Googling can turn it up, though, or you can think of three over things that a commercially successful role-playing setting should have.  Two of the remaining three are pretty easy to figure out.

I won't talk commercially successful settings here, but I will talk about things I like to see in a setting, and what I try to put into every setting.

1: Opportunitied

This means that the setting as presented is balanced, but precariously. Pressure put at the right point could change things. The PCs could be that pressure.

2: Chairoscuroed

This means that not all is light, and not all is dark. No matter how brutal a tyrrany, the tyrant does some things well. Mussolini made the trains run on time and all. The freshest facade can hide the worst internal rot. Utopias are never much fun to play in.

3: Placed

PCs have a place to stand in society that is theirs. They are connected to society. They have friends, family, and loves.

4: Ideosyncratic

The setting has things that are different, and things that are similar. The similarities make it comprehensible, and the differences make it piquant.

5: Humanocentric

Regular human beings are worth cherishing and protecting. This concept can be expanded - elves, aliens, robots, whatever are equal to humans and just as worthy - but not contracted.

6: Multi-pathed

There are many ways PCs can change things, and many levels they may change things on.

That's my take.

-clash

A good setting for me is one that has just enough detail to set the mood and style to provide ideas for adventures.  Keep the extraneous fluff to a minimum and fill it with active components that can be used in play.

So what I'm hearing, from so many points of view, is more or less the same, unless I am missing the individual points.

A good setting shuold first allow one to easily be immersed, be that by cliches that we can identify with, capturing the imagination through it's spirit (with or without extraeneous content) and "racial memories" (to quote Jung), and give us a backdrop to paint our own spirited adventures.

Secondly, a setting should be one that draw supon our basic psuche, but also enhances it to spur us forward to new areas of adventure and imagination.

Interwoven through this, a setting should also have the ability to spur both the players (as observers) and the characters (as participents) into a "realistic" mode of freedom, from which true adventure, without being in a stoic plot that only the GM has control over, from which true adventure...and hence discovery...may take place.  Paramount to that is also the ability to have virgin territory to enhance the feel of adventure through geological discovery, as well as roleplaying discovery.

Any such padding, or piffle disguised as profundity may have its place, but is not an important ingredient to the essence of a setting, most especially if it is there merely for the mental masturbation of the authors.

Thanks everyone.  that really helped me focus my thoughts.

Quote from: MelanA good fantasy setting avoids worldbuilding for its own sake. In the case of novels, worldbuilding is subordinate to plot; in the case of games, worldbuilding is subordinate to adventures. Therefore, a good game setting should directly encourage adventuring activity with all of its aspects; the creator of the setting should focus on his or her material being immediately useable. The golden rule is, if it comes up in play and adds to the experience, it is good. If it doesn't, it should be omitted. Even so, it is better to be terse and evocative than detailed and complex; decent GMs are always able to improvise a lot of mundane content. Most of the time, this comes back to S. John's "Clich": Cliché gives us something that is easy to identify with... where adding "props" from the real world is a snap, versus a setting where this is not possible (c.f. Tékumel vs. more digestible fantasy settings).

I call Bullshit. That thinking applied thoroughly leads to Encount4rdization.
The world should be as the world is, totally on it´s own right.

Wolrdbuilding!: The most important part in suspending the disbelief.

Only in that way can a grand game truly come to be.

Strategy can only exist in a well built world.
Immersion can only happen in a World that functions on it´s own right.

Hi!
  I think there are some things that are NEEDED to make a good setting:
Plot hooks
Starting points
Unresolved conflicts
Flavor and style of the setting
Important places
Important names
Political landscape
Culture/customs/economy/geography/flora/fauna

  And there are some things that should NOT be in a setting:
Avatars for the author
Signature characters that if they die, it breaks the setting
Resolved conflicts
No niche for the chars to occupy

 And its important that the rules reflect the setting style. If the setting talks about peasant rebellions and the peasants die by the dozen against a starting character, I am not buying it...

Quote from: dindenverI think there are some things that are NEEDED to make a good setting:
[...]
Unresolved conflicts
[...]
And there are some things that should NOT be in a setting:
[...]
Resolved conflicts

Conflict was one of S. John Ross' other 5 Elements of a Commercially Successful RPG.  It's one of the easier ones to figure out.  It's another reason why utopian fantasies don't make for interesting settings.

Quote from: SettembriniI call Bullshit. That thinking applied thoroughly leads to Encount4rdization.
The world should be as the world is, totally on it´s own right.

Wolrdbuilding!: The most important part in suspending the disbelief.

No, worldbuilding is just a feature of modern fantasy and fan culture, and its cancerous growth is especially typical in 2nd edition AD&D products. In a great number of cases, worldbuilding is the clutter that complicates a design and makes a game product cumbersome, and which invites all the world's failed novellists to ply their trade at the cost of in-game utility. Not even sandbox settings need worldbuilding: the original Wilderlands of High Fantasy is perfectly usable as is - and it is just a bunch of maps and terse location descriptions. Hell, even its modern incarnation is underexposed compared to almost any other commercial setting of the same caliber; it has its assumptions, but not the obsessive, drooling details on things that don't matter.

Worldbuilding is the refuge of our inner Trekkie.

A working, defined economy

Spend some time thinking about the economics of the environment -- by that I mean things like "what's valuable?" and "what do people do to live?"

This is important for a variety of reasons -- the economics of the environment create the underlying assumptions and constraints that form the perspective, actions and outcomes of the character's behavior.

Putting some thought into the economy will help provide a logical explanation for why things are the way they are which, in turn

* Helps the PC's figure out where they fit into society
* Help the GM extrapolate about what parts of the world that aren't super-detailed in the game book might be like
* Creates a common understanding of why NPC's act the way they do that isn't dependent (purely) on genre or plot requirements

The more fantastical the environment, the more important this is, I think: stock fantasy (e.g. feudal) or any flavor of historical reality have fairly well understood underlying economies. SF or really out-there settings, far less so.

Also: even if the setting is familiar, if the effect or genre you're going for would benefit from some special economic foundation, it's worthwhile to address it:

* Star Trek: I have a reasonable knowledge of both Classic and Next Generation (much less exposure to other shows), but I have a heck of a time figuring out what life for non-Star Fleet people like (both Federation and otherwise). For 80%+ of the scenarios, it probably doesn't matter: you're out on the frontier, or you're dealing with Star Fleet, or whatever... just like the shows do... but in my experience games often go places the source material didn't. I would want a section in a Star Trek book talking about what the economy and culture of the Federation is like (at a high level) and explaining, for instance how interesting and game-relevant characters like Harry Mudd fit into that world.

* Firefly, Cowboy Bebop, Traveler: In a lot of fiction, characters are motivated by money. In extreme cases, they may take (exciting) jobs that seem like a bad idea because they're in need of money. A game *could* just say, "You're always nearly broke. No matter how the last job went, and the GM will tell you that you've gotta take the next job." -- that would simulate a lot of the fiction, but I'd rather have the game lay out (in at least broad strokes) how running a ship works (expenses, expected revenue, etc.) so that it generally replicates the fiction: profit margins are low, payments are high. You have to take risks to get a higher level of reward... things are always breaking... etc.

In fact, for any game fiction where money is always in short supply and thus a primary motivator having a working economy is, IME, important. In a lot of fiction (like the space games above) a HUGE component of the economy is expense -- and (for me, at least) balancing income from jobs with expenses is something I'd like help with.

I'm not actually in favor of tracking every penny or or anything -- I'd be happy with some general guidelines that establish what kind of economic situation most crew members would find themselves in assuming average performance and average lifestyle.

* Sin City: Noir, in general, tends to make some assumptions about characters being trapped to one degree or another by their circumstances. IMO noir works best when the characters can't (easily) "just leave." Clearly some of these constraints are psychological, but many of them appear to have economic aspects as well. I'd want a Sin City game book to help me make a character who needs to work out his problems in town, even if that's looking like a bad idea. I'd also like some help knowing what "enough" money to leave is -- if my character's mission is to make a "modest score" and move to a cleaner, less corrupt city, I'd like to have some idea of how many jobs he needs to pull.

Cheers,
-E.

Thank you everyone!  Great stuff here from all lines of thought.

I now have much more clear idea of what everyone feels would make a setting good.  It has allowed me to solidify my thoughts from nebulous ideas that I could not readily communicate to solid ideas that have the weight of my own ideas and everyone else's.

I think that i might try to write them down in a train-of-thought essay of sorts and let everyone critique, add, subtract, etc.