I don't think their argument is so stark. It's not a binary on/off issue of playability. It's more an issue of degree, of distance & pertinence. Again, back to my "last century's 'belle of the ball' ball gown," it's only as pertinent as it relates to the PCs' everyday today. Otherwise it might as well be extraneous.

Quote from: Opaopajr;946722I don't think their argument is so stark. It's not a binary on/off issue of playability. It's more an issue of degree, of distance & pertinence.

The example that springs to mind was our old Earthdawn GM. He LOVED that setting, was a walking encyclopedia of its history and trivia. That knowledge was behind a lot of the stuff he threw at us and the game was better for it... BUT, he also knew there was other fabulous stuff in every corner of the map... and had the campaign pushing to visit as much of it as we could. So when the setting info served the game, it was great... but when it became a travelogue of Barsaive, it kind of sucked. When he'd let us discover, or not, the reasons behind what was going on in-game... good... but when he'd get frustrated and give us long lectures, with maps, of what it all meant... bad.
We could tell that the evil nethermancer had reasons for what he did, but the GM needed to be OK with us not caring what they were and just wanting to beat him to death for being such a dick.

So I don't think it's 'wrong' to have that level of detail, but it seems to make people to want to use it all, show off their work/knowledge... and that's when it gets dull.

Which is why I started my defense of my original post on this topic by pointing out that marleycat had called my setting stupid sight unseen. The history of demihumans in my setting is a very small part of a lot (a metric fuckton. I measured them on an industrial scale) of words on the topic.   I don't mind if people think my work is stupid and/or bad, but I do object to blithe characterizations from ignorance.

That's an excellent example, Simlasa. It shows the difference from natural vs. forced pertinence, and likely why this can trigger 'bad GM habits' flashbacks (I really wish trigger was not such a laden word...). Background material revealed in regular play feels better to player agency than forced guided tours.

It's also possible to put background material in the forefront, like unavoidable play mechanics, such as in my 9-point alignment as race mutation example.

But either way it's also useful to consider how such material is pertinent for GMs at the table as well.

Quote from: Opaopajr;946467Whatever you need to keep your setting coherency at the forefront of your mind when improvising content at the table!

And this is where I see Spike and many creative others come in. Spike reminds me of Aos in how they approach creativity -- it's a different structured approach than mine, and seemingly more loose and inspired! than I can do. The results are fantastic, in my view! But it definitely seems like from an art-student-like creative brain, where the meandering and circuitousness is crucial to get to the campaign juicy morsels.

It may take me more reading, (or in the case of Aos, artwork,) to get to content I as a GM may want to separate for my campaign. But the content ends up being more of a buffet than a prix fixe, which is great for future divergent campaigns. However, you have to invest in exploring, analyzing, & re-synthesizing their content to your table needs. Not everyone's so interested in such investment, let alone interested in setting divergence.

That's why, since we all come to aesthetic challenges with our favored approaches, I am perfectly OK with whatever floats someone's creativity boat -- as long as it doesn't get too lost up its own navel. It's not for everyone, especially a lot of the "enough talk! let's play!" style. But one-size doesn't fit all when it comes to creativity and campaign organization.

I go with genetics.

Like horses and mules.  If humans and elves can breed their offspring is infertile, like a mule.  Same if humans and orcs can breed.  But if humans can breed with both orcs and elves, does that mean elves and orcs can breed?  IF so what do you get.

In general I really, really despise the half-this half-that mentality and does violence to internal setting consistency, genetics, and smacks of whining munchkinism of the highest order.  You get much more flavor from respecting genetics and just making up a new species if a payer just must have all the benefits.

Quote from: Opaopajr;946758And this is where I see Spike and many creative others come in. Spike reminds me of Aos in how they approach creativity -- it's a different structured approach than mine, and seemingly more loose and inspired! than I can do. The results are fantastic, in my view! But it definitely seems like from an art-student-like creative brain, where the meandering and circuitousness is crucial to get to the campaign juicy morsels.

.

I'm not sure how to take that... I've always thought of myself having more of an engineering sort of mind, wanting to know how everything works, what are the underpinnings, how does x create/connect with y.

Presentation? Sure... I'm damned loose in my presentation, but... wow.

Self conception = Mind, Blown!

Quote from: Spike;946783I'm not sure how to take that... I've always thought of myself having more of an engineering sort of mind, wanting to know how everything works, what are the underpinnings, how does x create/connect with y.

Presentation? Sure... I'm damned loose in my presentation, but... wow.

Self conception = Mind, Blown!

Well, impressions are based on presentations and all that. I most likely am wrong in my assessment -- your design behind the scenes is probably highly analytical -- but I can only work with what I can openly see. So you're an engineer that expresses like an art student!

Yeh. Its probably just as well I gave up on trying to earn that degree. I'd make some awesome bridges, but no one would let me get past the blueprint stage!

Quote from: Opaopajr;946550There's something to be said for mystery, isn't there? Well, it's what inspired humans for generations to go, "what's over there?", "how does that work?", "why does it do that?", & "where did it come from?" There is a reason for that grey pablum distaste -- it has no appliable reference in reality.

Even in world building, I think Logical Unifying Theory Uber Alles is the wrong approach. Nothing's that "logical" and devoid of mystery, especially our only reference point Planet Earth & Sol System. Abstract models presuming omniscience is the proper tone, but rarely the proper structure. The world's too big for comprehension, let alone "perfectly logical & objective consistency."

I like to think of such world-divorced pursuits as a sterile pipe dream. Things need to be messier, like life.

I like using multiple explanations. Every living thing is essentially a form and multiple paths lead to the same forms: spontaneous generation, deliberate engineering, magical thinking, etc. (I use Stormbringer and Runequest's Chaos as one of the foundations of reality. It makes anything possible, even the contradictory.)

Orcs could arise from a multitude of sources: corrupted elves, uplifted vermin, conflict incarnate, plants, mutation, etc. Regardless of their origin they would all be orky. Humans could have evolved from elves or dwarves independently and multiple times, or vice versa, and all these humans would be the same.

This allows more diverse world building and keeps players on their toes. If they are accustomed to orcs being conflict incarnate coming down from the mountains, having a band of orcs show up born from plants is a great way to keep things fresh without needing to add whole new monsters.

Quote from: Opaopajr;946722I don't think their argument is so stark. It's not a binary on/off issue of playability. It's more an issue of degree, of distance & pertinence. Again, back to my "last century's 'belle of the ball' ball gown," it's only as pertinent as it relates to the PCs' everyday today. Otherwise it might as well be extraneous.

The volumes devoted to setting details for Forgotten Realms, Earthdawn, Tekumel, Harn, Golorantha, all boil down to two basic things for a tabletop RPG campaign.

What do locales look like?
How do NPCs act as individuals and as a group?

If isn't clear how a particular set of setting detail relates to either one of those two then it is cruft in regards to a tabletop roleplaying campaign. My experience the problem with cruft isn't that totally useless that it needs to be reorganized to make more useful as an aid to tabletop roleplaying and less of a story that tries to be entertaining.

In that respect it is binary. What isn't binary is whether the players will actually find it interesting or not. What I found is that if I focus more using the stuff I write as a basis for defining how NPCs act then the players who don't give two shits about it work out just fine. For the players who do find the detail interesting they wind up seeing the interconnections and get a kick from figuring something out about the Majestic Wilderlands.

I agree that most settings material should focus on locales, NPCs and their relationship to each other and the PCs (intrigue, associations and secret societies, plots and counterplots, etc).

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;946570This wine list is actually a bad example as Keoland, Veluna, and Urnst are countries that are detailed in the World of Greyhawk Folio, published 1980, one year after The Village of Hommlet.

While Spike never ran The Village of Hommlet, I never owned the Greyhawk folio, so to me the wine list was a whole and complete piece of setting material.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;946570Give me playable info, no backstory that doesn't help me bringing the setting to life or that players will never be able to learn.

Quote from: estar;946604Where i strongly disagree with Black Vulmea and others is that setting detail is always bad..

One of these two posters has a fucking clue.

The other is estar.

Quote from: CRKrueger;946637Anything that can provide insight into someone's motivation matters.  If you don't know your enemy's WHY, you're just flailing in the dark.

Knowing your friend's WHY may be even more important, but in either case, developing the WHY in "Shootout at Dodge City" didn't require anything like three page of useless backstory to a feud that could be summed up in a sentence: rancher Charlie Reed wanted Shannon Washington but she married Marshal Tom MacSween instead and bad blood festered for years.

Quote from: Opaopajr;946722It's not a binary on/off issue of playability. It's more an issue of degree, of distance & pertinence. Again, back to my "last century's 'belle of the ball' ball gown," it's only as pertinent as it relates to the PCs' everyday today. Otherwise it might as well be extraneous.

The wine list or the UWP manages to introduce setting detail while being directly pertinent to actual play, so yeah, I do think playability should come first.

Quote from: Opaopajr;946550There's something to be said for mystery, isn't there?

Ambiguity is your friend, which goes back to my original example in this thread: humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, goblinoids, lizardfolk, dragons all have their creation stories. Which one is 'objectively' right? It doesn't matter one fucking whit the vast majority of the time unless it is forced in, usually by referees trying to show off how fucking 'clever' or 'edgy' they are. In my experience, shit like the OP is autofellation, and no one should have to sit through that spectacle just to play a game.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;946885Knowing your friend's WHY may be even more important, but in either case, developing the WHY in "Shootout at Dodge City" didn't require anything like three page of useless backstory to a feud that could be summed up in a sentence: rancher Charlie Reed wanted Shannon Washington but she married Marshal Tom MacSween instead and bad blood festered for years.

True, it didn't have to be 3 pages, but it should have been there, and depending on what happened in those years, peaceful resolution could be possible or not, "beat someone up" vs. "kill on sight" can be determined, etc.

I'm not saying they didn't over do it, they did, but "They overdid the backstory" becomes "there is no need for any backstory", which is as useless as too much.  Especially when not everyone's definition of "too much" is exactly the same.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;946885Ambiguity is your friend, which goes back to my original example in this thread: humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, goblinoids, lizardfolk, dragons all have their creation stories. Which one is 'objectively' right? It doesn't matter one fucking whit the vast majority of the time unless it is forced in, usually by referees trying to show off how fucking 'clever' or 'edgy' they are. In my experience, shit like the OP is autofellation, and no one should have to sit through that spectacle just to play a game.

An alternative approach to have an discoverable objective truth however just informs doesn't solve the current issues. In the Majestic Wilderlands the demons created the various non-human races except for elves which were co-created with man. That knowledge does little when it comes from the PCs dealing with the fallout of human bandits who raided an isolated dwarven mine. Or the PCs are lords of a border realm and trying to figure out how to handle a crisis between two much larger kingdom.

The effects of what the demons did is "baked in" into the description and mechanics of each race.

Where it could (and had) come up is to engineering a crisis of faith by a demon trying to tempt a mortal. Happened once back in the 90s where the player of dwarven character was rocked back on his heel for a moment when a demon told him that his race was created by demon. But ultimately amounted to nothing. It is a very specific weapon for a very specific set of circumstance which doesn't come up often.

The overall problem isn't that people write too much setting detail, is that they are not taught good ways of tying that detail to what they do at the table. The level of detail is purely a preference issue. Sure the average is more towards the less detail side but that doesn't do shit for predicting what your table likes. The best rule is to pay attention and learn your players preferences.

In Dark Albion, it's strongly suggested that humanity were originally genetically engineered by the Elves, as worker-slaves.  When the elves fell into a profoundly decadent period, some of them started using humans as sex-slaves. The offspring, having elvish blood, were able to use magic, and eventually became numerous and powerful enough to overthrow the Elves and kick them out of this reality.
Most humans alive today probably have some tiny amount of elvish blood, and that might be why humans are able to become Magisters and use magic at all; but the Cymri (and some other ethnic groups found on the Continent) have a stronger strain of Elvish blood, which is why they have a "sixth sense" and so many of them are able to easily learn magic with less formal training than Anglish magisters.

My upcoming Medieval Authentic OSR Rules (which will probably be called "Lion & Dragon", based on the recent title poll I held on my blog) will keep this as part of the implicit setting.