TheRPGSite

With the exodus from the modern brand to other games, the sensibilities of D&D as a fantasy genre unto itself will never go away.

This is a great time to re-examine what it is we want from our "fantasy settings". Do people even want sprawling kitchensink settings? Or do you want small contained regional sandboxes? Or do you just want "adventure content" like modules or entire adventure paths?

Are you interested in old D&D settings? Do you want them reimagined where all the additional garbage post-2e is removed and the settings are re-established.

Or do you want entirely new settings? Do you want these settings to be idiosyncratic like Talislanta, or do you want a more traditional kitchen-sink quasi-analog world with the usual D&Disms present as expected or with some extra fiddly-bits (Mystara)?

Or do you just want some basic rules and handholds to do homebrew as you see fit?

Oh, boy, you know how to cram a lot of question into a few words. :) Let me give my ideal for the rules/supplements, see if that answers indirectly:

1. I want some of the default setting embedded into the rules, i.e. not a generic rule set.  There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that I think it is the best way to get casual players to absorb the setting. That's because they don't really read background setting material for its own sake, and also because even when they do, some setting in the rules is constantly reinforcing the setting with every rules interaction. 

2. At the same time, the settings I like are neither bland nor extremely weird, but somewhere safely in the middle.  I don't mind elves that have a twist or even a rather major change that switches how they work (e.g. Runequest elves as plant creatures), but I want some of the usual suspects in there.  That's just an example, too.  I don't necessarily want all the D&D races--especially the more recent ones.  But I do want the author of the setting to curate the races and other setting elements to get things that work well together and make sense. Also, no monolithic races--elves as all tree-hugging xenophobes. Make the races a "people". 

3. Fantastical is deliberately and thoughtfully layered on top of the mundane, when the setting is put together.  Not "ancient Rome" with a couple of spell casters--too mundane for me (even when I can see how others would like it).  But not this garbage where everyone casts spells or does fantastical stuff.  A good example of how this can go bad to me is talking animals.  It tends to go to extremes.  Let's use a fox.  The GM wants talking foxes.  So he decides to make some elaborate spell or magic item or god power that is explained in the game to "awaken" foxes.  Conversely, the GM could decide the talking fox is another race that came into existence and then flourished naturally from there--while still remaining essentially a fox--that happens to talk.  Instead, I want foxes are normally mundane foxes.  The party ran into a fox that could talk.  Is there a reason?  Probably, but the fox doesn't know, and the party is unlikely to find out.  Don't even tell me in the GM notes.  Just leave it a mystery.  Don't do the Episode 1 stupid thing where you explain "The Force".

4. I prefer new settings.  Most of the old ones are played out, and even the ones that aren't have so much baggage that it is difficult to see it really breaking away from the past.  Even something like Spelljammer, where there is a lot of room to do something cool, would probably be best served by a new setting "inspired by the kind of thoughts and play that made SJ fun"!

Of course, the problem with all that, is that it is middle of the road.  It's not strange enough to stand out and not bland and/or kitchen sink enough to dominate.  So the last thing I want in the above is design as a setting, but release it as standalone module and/or small locations.  Don't give me a path.  Give me some tools in the sandbox.  Then if you want to spend 4 pages at the back saying how those could be arranged in a path for the readers that want that, cool.

I've mostly stopped buying all supplements because from my perspective is that everything is either too narrow to some niche taste, too bland to fit any good game, or too busy trying to railroad the GM into doing the easy stuff while ignoring getting better. 

Everyone wants something different. Been that way from the start.

Theres been settings that were very limited in race or class, and settings where everything goes. Low fantasy to practically no fantasy, al the way up to high fantasy and even higher.

Add some sci fi? Add some modern? Add some victorian? Add some historical? and so on.

D&D was doing gurps before gurps was even a thought in Steve's hollow head.

This is a loaded question.  I've got pretty much everything I want from 2e in my collection and tons of other games besides.  So for me I'm only really interested in novel new rule sets or settings.  It has to do something in a manner that's new to me.

For instance AiME's voyaging rules and the way it uses rests/inspiration/hit dice mechanics in ways that base 5e doesn't (plus bonus for being Middle Earth!).

Earthdawn has a ruleset that heavily feeds into the regional setting that it is trying to portray.

Yet at the same time I still buy adventures for 2e and earlier D&D because I can just drop them into my homebrew I've been running the last 3 years.

I now have AD&D 2e and D&D 3e/4e/5e, so I have very little appetite for any new editions of D&D.

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2024, 06:33:54 PMOr do you want small contained regional sandboxes? Or do you just want "adventure content" like modules or entire adventure paths?

I like small contained regional sandboxes for roughly levels 1-10. I have no interest in entire campaign worlds I'll never explore or levels 11-20. I think tier 1 should be sandbox and tier 2+ can be adventure paths once we know what the characters are interested in.

I like big settings with interesting history, cultures, and politics, or in other words, depth.  A bit of variety is is good but kitchensink is too much.  The D&D setting works as a gaming environment but for me is just kind of silly in any other context.  I'd prefer to start with a realistic world, add a few fantasy "what if?"s and work out the impacts on the setting.  More than this and I have trouble connecting with the setting because it's too divorced from my real life experience.  Give me a setting with depth and a few adventures and I'm good to go.

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2024, 06:33:54 PMWith the exodus from the modern brand to other games, the sensibilities of D&D as a fantasy genre unto itself will never go away.

This is a great time to re-examine what it is we want from our "fantasy settings". Do people even want sprawling kitchensink settings? Or do you want small contained regional sandboxes? Or do you just want "adventure content" like modules or entire adventure paths?

Are you interested in old D&D settings? Do you want them reimagined where all the additional garbage post-2e is removed and the settings are re-established.

Or do you want entirely new settings? Do you want these settings to be idiosyncratic like Talislanta, or do you want a more traditional kitchen-sink quasi-analog world with the usual D&Disms present as expected or with some extra fiddly-bits (Mystara)?

Or do you just want some basic rules and handholds to do homebrew as you see fit?

I want meaningful choices that I can make between products.

Sometimes the fantasy itch I want to scratch requires a Tolkienesque setting filled with lore, sometimes I just want something generic where I don't have to worry about the setting itself being another character, sometimes I want the Sword & Sorcery flavor of a Conan story, sometimes I want something unique from someone else like Dark Sun or The Iron Kingdoms or Freeport, sometimes I want something oriental even though Japan-like Edo period is different from Japan-like in the Warring States period is different from China-like which is different from Korea-like which is different from Philippines-like (although for the historical period I'm most interested in, Traveller would work better because of firearms), and sometimes I want to throw all of the above in a blender, and sometimes I want to go through the buffet and grab a little of this and a little of that.

What I definitely don't want is a bunch of settings that are the same as each other but with the serial numbers filed off. If I pay for it, I want it to be able to stand on its own and be original.

I've been spending the past few years collecting old fanzines and magazine articles from the 80's because they capture the unbridled mutant originality of a new form of entertainment coming into its own. A lot of stuff from the early years of d20/D&D 3.0 has that same ingenuity. All of the above is very inspirational to me because, for lack of a better way to put it, when you don't know what you are doing because everything is so new then you become willing to be truly experimental and try different things. Some of the originality is magnificent to read.

That is something that I think a lot of modern gaming has lost. Yeah, settings are vital to the game, but how many of them can easily be swapped out with each other? So I've been looking elsewhere a lot.

Tough question.

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2024, 06:33:54 PMthe sensibilities of D&D as a fantasy genre unto itself will never go away.

This right here is the crux of the issue for me. I want new settings, but I want them precisely to the extent that they can get away from the sensibilities of D&D as a genre of fiction. I've been getting more and more disaffected with the genre-conventions of D&D lately, with dungeon delving, fighter/thief/wizard/cleric, advancement through level+loot, D&D-style gods and magic, and so on. Those conventions are basically mechanical in nature, but the vast majority of settings will justifiably aim to synergize with them. I want new settings if they're geared to facilitate a different gaming experience. The problem is that achieving that goal probably requires new rules. The original question seems to have new settings for the D&D rules in mind. I've said before many times that I have a lot of respect for the old TSR approach of setting specific rules, but I think they probably didn't go far enough with it. Dark Sun, as I said in another thread, would benefit hugely from being spun off as an independent game, with its own classes, magic system and progression.

Whingeing aside, I'd also like to address the more general question of what I want out of new fantasy settings. The answer is basically "lots of things, and lots of variety", but let me isolate two:

1. What I guess I can only call "cohesiveness". The most interesting fantasy settings to me are ones which are different from the real world at some fundamental level, whether that's physical, metaphysical or cosmological, and where the fantasy elements of the setting flow out from that. This is a difficult idea to explain, but I don't think tabletop gaming has engaged with it much. To bring it down to ground level, I'm tired of settings where the world just operates like the real world except that there's also magic, and the nature of magic is "it's just magic". I want "magic" (or the local equivalent) to be an expression of the way in which the setting is fundamentally different than the real world.

2. I want settings that facilitate what I guess I'll call more "human" conflicts. The Hero's Journey is a fine thing, but playing it out every week in its simplest form (enter the underworld; slay the monster; get the treasure) gets monotonous. I find that my best sessions come out of scenarios where the players are put up against rational actors (whether or not they are technically human is irrelevant) with intelligible motives, and then forced to play some kind of chess game of move and countermove before they come to blows. I want settings that facilitate that. In fairness, this has always been possible in D&D. I do it all the time.  But I find that in a lot of settings, you can clearly see that the design priority was on facilitating the more traditional mode of fantasy adventure.

Greetings!

Hmmm. What kind of setting do I want? I am happy with my world of Thandor setting. It is an enormous world, mostly embracing an Ancient World/Dark Ages milieu, with an overlay of Sword & Sorcery and a dash of "Gonzo". Fantasy, with large doses of real-world Historical flavour, with lots of inspiration from mythology, as well as some elements of historical conspiracy theories, marginal historical analysis, and dark METAL.

Thandor features a simple, core group of humanoid races that dominate the main continent, with more distant lands and separate continents being the playground for additional animal races, as well as more bizarre races. All the different races are thus not all encountered in the same area, like some kind of street faire in modern Seattle. Technology, economics, governments, and laws all tend to embrace a similar Dark Ages to Medieval framework, with some unusual attributes featured amongst the largest and most advanced and sophisticated empires.

Thandor easily accommodates traditional dungeon exploration, wilderness adventures, as well as urban and politically based campaigns and adventures. There is always something going on, everywhere. Warfare is very common, and can be very devastating. Genocide, mass slavery, plagues, famine, and chaos are common threads encountered everywhere, to various degrees.

Thandor has sophisticated religions, with many different kinds of Pagan religions, as well as several kinds of monotheism, and traditions of mystical spirituality.

So, yeah. I have everything I could want or need with Thandor.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jeff37923 on November 13, 2024, 02:57:45 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2024, 06:33:54 PMWith the exodus from the modern brand to other games, the sensibilities of D&D as a fantasy genre unto itself will never go away.

This is a great time to re-examine what it is we want from our "fantasy settings". Do people even want sprawling kitchensink settings? Or do you want small contained regional sandboxes? Or do you just want "adventure content" like modules or entire adventure paths?

Are you interested in old D&D settings? Do you want them reimagined where all the additional garbage post-2e is removed and the settings are re-established.

Or do you want entirely new settings? Do you want these settings to be idiosyncratic like Talislanta, or do you want a more traditional kitchen-sink quasi-analog world with the usual D&Disms present as expected or with some extra fiddly-bits (Mystara)?

Or do you just want some basic rules and handholds to do homebrew as you see fit?

I want meaningful choices that I can make between products.

Sometimes the fantasy itch I want to scratch requires a Tolkienesque setting filled with lore, sometimes I just want something generic where I don't have to worry about the setting itself being another character, sometimes I want the Sword & Sorcery flavor of a Conan story, sometimes I want something unique from someone else like Dark Sun or The Iron Kingdoms or Freeport, sometimes I want something oriental even though Japan-like Edo period is different from Japan-like in the Warring States period is different from China-like which is different from Korea-like which is different from Philippines-like (although for the historical period I'm most interested in, Traveller would work better because of firearms), and sometimes I want to throw all of the above in a blender, and sometimes I want to go through the buffet and grab a little of this and a little of that.

What I definitely don't want is a bunch of settings that are the same as each other but with the serial numbers filed off. If I pay for it, I want it to be able to stand on its own and be original.

I've been spending the past few years collecting old fanzines and magazine articles from the 80's because they capture the unbridled mutant originality of a new form of entertainment coming into its own. A lot of stuff from the early years of d20/D&D 3.0 has that same ingenuity. All of the above is very inspirational to me because, for lack of a better way to put it, when you don't know what you are doing because everything is so new then you become willing to be truly experimental and try different things. Some of the originality is magnificent to read.

That is something that I think a lot of modern gaming has lost. Yeah, settings are vital to the game, but how many of them can easily be swapped out with each other? So I've been looking elsewhere a lot.

I definitely agree with this.

My favorite fantasy articles are ones like these that reinvent the cliches: https://web.archive.org/web/20210427051630/http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/tag/reinventing-fantasy-races/

I saw the exact same problem happen with World/Chronicles of Darkness in the latter half of the 2000s. The writers were more than happy to just make stuff up in toolkit books like the Chronicler's Guides, Mirrors, Mythologies, Blasphemies, Changeling: The Lost, Hunter: The Vigil, etc. After 2009 they abruptly started fossilizing, for lack of a better word. This reached its nadir with the release of V5 in 2018, which has this huge af canon that you're supposed to memorize and obey if you want to be part of the tribe.

It's so fucking stupid. These are elfgames. You're supposed to use and share your imagination, not be an uncreative zombie slave. Canons are the death of imagination.

I like a bit of each. A fully fleshed out setting like FR just feels like too much, too vast. But barely anything and "DIY" feels like you get nothing. Honestly, i felt the 4e approach was perfect. You had a default pantheon, a basic overview of a land (not a whole world that I recall) with some history that you could expand on, and a location (Nentir Vale, i can't remember if they expanded out of that area) to start with but do things with. Say what you want about 4e as far as the rules but IMHO the way they handled the implied setting was the best I've ever seen (hell the pantheon was so good Critical Role stole it for Exandria or w/e Mercer's homebrew world is)

I've always homebrewed my settings. I do read about other settings, even occasionally purchase one if the price isn't too steep and it looks original, just for inspiration and imagination fuel. In that situation the weirder the better. I don't need to know any more about Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or the latest Tolkien-inspired fantasy world as that is old news.

For example, the latest setting I picked up was the free quick start on DriveThru for Rad World - a Shadowdark setting. Despite being chock full of AI art (yuck) it was something I hadn't seen before - post-apocalyptic neon punk setting where everyone plays a goblin. Am I going to play it? Nah. But it was fun and free to flip through.

Another setting I liked was implicit in a short OSR adventure module I picked up - Tomb Robbers of the Crystal Frontier. Cool fantasy-western setting with an SF Barrier Peaks vibe. Thoroughly enjoyed it. But again very inexpensive and part of a rules agnostic adventure - not an official setting baked into or sold for a specific game.

i think one of the things that old D&D did right was to have a set of rules and then a set of optional settings a DM cold choose from.

Quote from: BadApple on November 14, 2024, 09:34:19 PMi think one of the things that old D&D did right was to have a set of rules and then a set of optional settings a DM cold choose from.

I wish other rpgs did this. Unfortunately, it seems every genre outside medieval fantasy is only allowed to have one setting.

Quote from: Nobleshield on November 14, 2024, 09:01:12 AMI like a bit of each. A fully fleshed out setting like FR just feels like too much, too vast. But barely anything and "DIY" feels like you get nothing. Honestly, i felt the 4e approach was perfect. You had a default pantheon, a basic overview of a land (not a whole world that I recall) with some history that you could expand on, and a location (Nentir Vale, i can't remember if they expanded out of that area) to start with but do things with. Say what you want about 4e as far as the rules but IMHO the way they handled the implied setting was the best I've ever seen (hell the pantheon was so good Critical Role stole it for Exandria or w/e Mercer's homebrew world is)

I'm pretty much in this camp. For my own game system I included a well-detailed region while leaving the rest of the world to vague descriptions of immediate neighbors and the complete unknown after that. Its enough for a GM who doesn't want to create a setting from whole cloth to work with, but leaves an entire world beyond those boundaries for them to fill in if they wish... either via the prompts for the neighboring regions, using my region-building system* in the GM's Guide, or whatever other method they wish.

My personal preference for setting is what I call a guided sandbox. The world is open, but the campaign starts with some kind of inciting incident(s) for the PCs to engage with if they choose.

* it has tables you can roll on, but it's really meant to be a list of things to brainstorm off and reminders of things a new GM might overlook when doing their first world build. Most important for me is the events section to ensure its not a static locale, but one with things going on that the PCs might be interested in becoming involved in.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 07:49:55 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 14, 2024, 09:34:19 PMi think one of the things that old D&D did right was to have a set of rules and then a set of optional settings a DM cold choose from.

I wish other rpgs did this. Unfortunately, it seems every genre outside medieval fantasy is only allowed to have one setting.

That's simply not true. There are at least a half-dozen cyberpunk settings, several superhero settings, and numerous sci-fi/space opera settings. There is a difference that each of these tends to have its own ruleset whereas D&D uses one ruleset for a variety of settings (including some where it is likely not the best ruleset to fit the setting).

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 10:50:45 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 07:49:55 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 14, 2024, 09:34:19 PMi think one of the things that old D&D did right was to have a set of rules and then a set of optional settings a DM cold choose from.

I wish other rpgs did this. Unfortunately, it seems every genre outside medieval fantasy is only allowed to have one setting.

That's simply not true. There are at least a half-dozen cyberpunk settings, several superhero settings, and numerous sci-fi/space opera settings. There is a difference that each of these tends to have its own ruleset whereas D&D uses one ruleset for a variety of settings (including some where it is likely not the best ruleset to fit the setting).

That's what I mean. Rather than multiple settings, each set of rules only supports one setting. This fractures the potential player base compared to using a universal ruleset for multiple settings. It kills creativity and diversity by forcing all the focus on that one setting.

Maybe the D&D rules aren't the best fit for every one of its settings, but it's sufficient for the majority of them and gives them exposure that they otherwise wouldn't get. The fact that they have to play together also pressures them to be more distinct. Altho several settings like Faerun and Oerth feel very similar, others like Ravenloft, Spelljammer and Planescape feel very distinct.

With scifi games I try to research, most feel homogeneous and generic and not particularly interesting. I'm more interested in the dead TSR/WotC scifi settings like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and d20 Future.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 12:20:55 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 10:50:45 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 07:49:55 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 14, 2024, 09:34:19 PMi think one of the things that old D&D did right was to have a set of rules and then a set of optional settings a DM cold choose from.

I wish other rpgs did this. Unfortunately, it seems every genre outside medieval fantasy is only allowed to have one setting.

That's simply not true. There are at least a half-dozen cyberpunk settings, several superhero settings, and numerous sci-fi/space opera settings. There is a difference that each of these tends to have its own ruleset whereas D&D uses one ruleset for a variety of settings (including some where it is likely not the best ruleset to fit the setting).

That's what I mean. Rather than multiple settings, each set of rules only supports one setting. This fractures the potential player base compared to using a universal ruleset for multiple settings. It kills creativity and diversity by forcing all the focus on that one setting.

Maybe the D&D rules aren't the best fit for every one of its settings, but it's sufficient for the majority of them and gives them exposure that they otherwise wouldn't get. The fact that they have to play together also pressures them to be more distinct. Altho several settings like Faerun and Oerth feel very similar, others like Ravenloft, Spelljammer and Planescape feel very distinct.

With scifi games I try to research, most feel homogeneous and generic and not particularly interesting. I'm more interested in the dead TSR/WotC scifi settings like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and d20 Future.

Are you deliberately ignoring several contemporary examples?

Genesys has setting books for both Android (cyberpunk/near-earth sci-fi) and Twilight Imperium (space opera sci-fi).

2d20 system has settings for Star Trek, Mutant Chronicles, Fallout, Dune, Corvus Belli Infinity.

Aliens, Coriolus, and Mutant Year Zero all use the same base system.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 12:33:28 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 12:20:55 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 10:50:45 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 07:49:55 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 14, 2024, 09:34:19 PMi think one of the things that old D&D did right was to have a set of rules and then a set of optional settings a DM cold choose from.

I wish other rpgs did this. Unfortunately, it seems every genre outside medieval fantasy is only allowed to have one setting.

That's simply not true. There are at least a half-dozen cyberpunk settings, several superhero settings, and numerous sci-fi/space opera settings. There is a difference that each of these tends to have its own ruleset whereas D&D uses one ruleset for a variety of settings (including some where it is likely not the best ruleset to fit the setting).

That's what I mean. Rather than multiple settings, each set of rules only supports one setting. This fractures the potential player base compared to using a universal ruleset for multiple settings. It kills creativity and diversity by forcing all the focus on that one setting.

Maybe the D&D rules aren't the best fit for every one of its settings, but it's sufficient for the majority of them and gives them exposure that they otherwise wouldn't get. The fact that they have to play together also pressures them to be more distinct. Altho several settings like Faerun and Oerth feel very similar, others like Ravenloft, Spelljammer and Planescape feel very distinct.

With scifi games I try to research, most feel homogeneous and generic and not particularly interesting. I'm more interested in the dead TSR/WotC scifi settings like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and d20 Future.

Are you deliberately ignoring several contemporary examples?

Genesys has setting books for both Android (cyberpunk/near-earth sci-fi) and Twilight Imperium (space opera sci-fi).

2d20 system has settings for Star Trek, Mutant Chronicles, Fallout, Dune, Corvus Belli Infinity.

Aliens, Coriolus, and Mutant Year Zero all use the same base system.

I am ignoring them. I don't find any of those interesting or inspiring.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 12:42:39 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 12:33:28 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 12:20:55 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 10:50:45 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 07:49:55 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 14, 2024, 09:34:19 PMi think one of the things that old D&D did right was to have a set of rules and then a set of optional settings a DM cold choose from.

I wish other rpgs did this. Unfortunately, it seems every genre outside medieval fantasy is only allowed to have one setting.

That's simply not true. There are at least a half-dozen cyberpunk settings, several superhero settings, and numerous sci-fi/space opera settings. There is a difference that each of these tends to have its own ruleset whereas D&D uses one ruleset for a variety of settings (including some where it is likely not the best ruleset to fit the setting).

That's what I mean. Rather than multiple settings, each set of rules only supports one setting. This fractures the potential player base compared to using a universal ruleset for multiple settings. It kills creativity and diversity by forcing all the focus on that one setting.

Maybe the D&D rules aren't the best fit for every one of its settings, but it's sufficient for the majority of them and gives them exposure that they otherwise wouldn't get. The fact that they have to play together also pressures them to be more distinct. Altho several settings like Faerun and Oerth feel very similar, others like Ravenloft, Spelljammer and Planescape feel very distinct.

With scifi games I try to research, most feel homogeneous and generic and not particularly interesting. I'm more interested in the dead TSR/WotC scifi settings like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and d20 Future.

Are you deliberately ignoring several contemporary examples?

Genesys has setting books for both Android (cyberpunk/near-earth sci-fi) and Twilight Imperium (space opera sci-fi).

2d20 system has settings for Star Trek, Mutant Chronicles, Fallout, Dune, Corvus Belli Infinity.

Aliens, Coriolus, and Mutant Year Zero all use the same base system.

I am ignoring them. I don't find any of those interesting or inspiring.

You asked for it. You were shown it. You reject it. The problem in this case is not with it, it is with you.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 02:11:24 PMYou asked for it. You were shown it. You reject it. The problem in this case is not with it, it is with you.

I'm sorry. They're just never what I'm looking for. I'm pretty jaded with media in general. Everything keeps falling into repetitive tropes.

What distinguishes any of those settings from the bazillion settings that exist? Why should I buy and play those over making my own?

Half of those I never heard of and the ones I am familiar with are boring and old hat or sabotaged by shitty writers.

Star Trek? I watched so many of those shows as a kid and I'm pretty bored of the whole thing. The franchise took a nose dive recently and I really have no interest in touching it anymore.

Fallout? Fuck Besthesda and their "Oblivion with guns" bullshit.

Dune? Fuck Brian Herbert and his shitty fanfic. The only good Dune games were the Westwood RTS games.

Aliens? Fuck Ridley Scott and his shitty History Channel Ancient Aliens fanfic.

I'd rather write my own settings than touch those dumpster fires.

I did some cursory research on those other settings, altho the Google results are shit tier so I don't think I'm getting good explanations of what they even are. But what I have read just doesn't inspire me the way that the 80s and 90s games do.

I don't know why, but it feels like games made after about 2000-2010 or so just aren't as good as the games made before then. If that's a "me" problem, then I haven't the foggiest clue how to fix it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 07:01:54 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 02:11:24 PMYou asked for it. You were shown it. You reject it. The problem in this case is not with it, it is with you.

I'm sorry. They're just never what I'm looking for. I'm pretty jaded with media in general. Everything keeps falling into repetitive tropes.

What distinguishes any of those settings from the bazillion settings that exist? Why should I buy and play those over making my own?

Half of those I never heard of and the ones I am familiar with are boring and old hat or sabotaged by shitty writers.

Star Trek? I watched so many of those shows as a kid and I'm pretty bored of the whole thing. The franchise took a nose dive recently and I really have no interest in touching it anymore.

Fallout? Fuck Besthesda and their "Oblivion with guns" bullshit.

Dune? Fuck Brian Herbert and his shitty fanfic. The only good Dune games were the Westwood RTS games.

Aliens? Fuck Ridley Scott and his shitty History Channel Ancient Aliens fanfic.

I'd rather write my own settings than touch those dumpster fires.

I did some cursory research on those other settings, altho the Google results are shit tier so I don't think I'm getting good explanations of what they even are. But what I have read just doesn't inspire me the way that the 80s and 90s games do.

I don't know why, but it feels like games made after about 2000-2010 or so just aren't as good as the games made before then. If that's a "me" problem, then I haven't the foggiest clue how to fix it.

You constantly ask "why isn't there any X" and when shown that X actually exists, you say it's never exactly how you want it to be. Your expectations are your own enemy here and you're damning yourself to being perpetully unhappy if you expect anyone else to make a perfect fit for what's in your head. If you need a perfect fit, then by all means do it yourself. As is, you sound like many a depressed person that says everything is failing to engage them when you're not willing to engage youself in anything.

I can sympathize a bit with BoxCrayonTales' position on this. For the last few years I've been reading lots of fantasy settings in the (probably vain) hope of finding one that I love enough to run it over multiple campaigns for years to come. I've read plenty of perfectly serviceable settings, but nothing has clicked for me in the way I'd hoped. I pick away at my own setting from time to time, but it's a project I do more for my own amusement than out of a serious intent to bring it to completion. Mostly I've resigned myself to switching settings based on what fits a particular campaign I want to run.

I have a similar problem with fantasy game systems themselves. I've read plenty of good ones, but have yet to hit one I'm entirely satisfied with. So it's entirely possible this is just a function of how my brain works.

I constantly think about making my own stuff, but I feel my intent is poisoned by all my resentment towards corpos

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 15, 2024, 08:29:28 PMMostly I've resigned myself to switching settings based on what fits a particular campaign I want to run.

I don't see solution as a problem.

I've come to believe that multiple, typically shorter, campaigns can be more enjoyable than a single long campaign that just keeps on going.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2024, 09:17:22 PMI constantly think about making my own stuff, but I feel my intent is poisoned by all my resentment towards corpos

Again, what you need to work on first is you. Let yourself enjoy things like a kid again, at least for a bit. These are games--don't let all the bullshit of the world poison your fun time.

Anyway, going back to my original point, there aren't actually any universal games for other genres like D&D tries to be universal pseudo-medieval fantasy. Using the same system isn't the same thing. D&D has a set of core rules and then setting books which refer to those rules. Aside from GURPS, I don't recall any other surviving games do that. There's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 15, 2024, 10:00:36 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 15, 2024, 08:29:28 PMMostly I've resigned myself to switching settings based on what fits a particular campaign I want to run.

I don't see solution as a problem.

I've come to believe that multiple, typically shorter, campaigns can be more enjoyable than a single long campaign that just keeps on going.

I agree with that, especially about shorter campaigns. Even if I found "the one" in terms of a setting, I'd run it for multiple campaigns rather than one extra-long one, I'd never expect it to be the only thing I run. But I think most GMs have one or two settings they sort of "specialize" in, and there's some benefit to that. Certain settings definitely run much better when the GM has a lot of understanding of them.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 16, 2024, 08:13:25 AMAnyway, going back to my original point, there aren't actually any universal games for other genres like D&D tries to be universal pseudo-medieval fantasy. Using the same system isn't the same thing. D&D has a set of core rules and then setting books which refer to those rules. Aside from GURPS, I don't recall any other surviving games do that. There's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

When you say "Using the same isn't the same thing" I'm assuming you're refer to something like what Modiphius does with 2d20, publishing multiple non-compatible games under the same basic "game engine"? That would be as opposed to something a true "universal" system, where you have a core rulebook, and then a set of setting books with rules modifications. If so, that's how Savage Worlds works, and that's still alive. I don't really know what the active state of BRP is; it seems like Chaosium has kind of lost interest in it being a universal system. In the past I'd say they've flirted with both approaches.

Come to think of it, Call of Cthulhu is actually kind of close to what D&D does, with all of its sub-settings (Down Darker Trails, Cthulhu by Gaslight, Cthulhu Invictus and so on). You could say they're setting out to be the universal Cosmic Horror RPG the same way D&D is setting out to be the universal Dungeon Fantasy RPG, but of course most of them aren't sci fi. I think there are multiple sci fi settings out for the Cepheus system, but I'm not up on my Cepheus lore. Others might know.

There was also Fuzion, I guess. Had some pretty crazy settings, like Aliens vs Transformers.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 16, 2024, 08:13:25 AMAnyway, going back to my original point, there aren't actually any universal games for other genres like D&D tries to be universal pseudo-medieval fantasy. Using the same system isn't the same thing. D&D has a set of core rules and then setting books which refer to those rules. Aside from GURPS, I don't recall any other surviving games do that. There's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Savage Worlds - about 25 settings currently
ICRPG - the Master Edition includes 5 settings

Quote from: Festus on November 19, 2024, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 16, 2024, 08:13:25 AMAnyway, going back to my original point, there aren't actually any universal games for other genres like D&D tries to be universal pseudo-medieval fantasy. Using the same system isn't the same thing. D&D has a set of core rules and then setting books which refer to those rules. Aside from GURPS, I don't recall any other surviving games do that. There's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Savage Worlds - about 25 settings currently
ICRPG - the Master Edition includes 5 settings

What genre are those?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTalesThere's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Traveller?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 19, 2024, 07:18:58 PM

Quote from: Festus on November 19, 2024, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 16, 2024, 08:13:25 AMAnyway, going back to my original point, there aren't actually any universal games for other genres like D&D tries to be universal pseudo-medieval fantasy. Using the same system isn't the same thing. D&D has a set of core rules and then setting books which refer to those rules. Aside from GURPS, I don't recall any other surviving games do that. There's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Savage Worlds - about 25 settings currently
ICRPG - the Master Edition includes 5 settings

What genre are those?

Literally everything from various flavors of sci-fi, Wild West, urban fantasy, superheroes, fantasy, etc.

It's not my favorite because I feel the system relies too much on metacurrency being handed out like candy to capture the feel of certain genres (or a GM who really knows the odds of the system math and when NOT to require a roll), but a GM who isn't stingy with the Bennies or really understands those odds can make the system sing.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 20, 2024, 06:44:22 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 19, 2024, 07:18:58 PM

Quote from: Festus on November 19, 2024, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 16, 2024, 08:13:25 AMAnyway, going back to my original point, there aren't actually any universal games for other genres like D&D tries to be universal pseudo-medieval fantasy. Using the same system isn't the same thing. D&D has a set of core rules and then setting books which refer to those rules. Aside from GURPS, I don't recall any other surviving games do that. There's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Savage Worlds - about 25 settings currently
ICRPG - the Master Edition includes 5 settings

What genre are those?

Literally everything from various flavors of sci-fi, Wild West, urban fantasy, superheroes, fantasy, etc.

It's not my favorite because I feel the system relies too much on metacurrency being handed out like candy to capture the feel of certain genres (or a GM who really knows the odds of the system math and when NOT to require a roll), but a GM who isn't stingy with the Bennies or really understands those odds can make the system sing.

So it's another universal system like GURPS or Risus?

I definitely think that's useful criticism. Thank you.

I was asking about systems that are slightly less universal, that emulate specific genres. Not all genres, just one or a handful of related genres.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 20, 2024, 06:44:22 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 19, 2024, 07:18:58 PM

Quote from: Festus on November 19, 2024, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 16, 2024, 08:13:25 AMAnyway, going back to my original point, there aren't actually any universal games for other genres like D&D tries to be universal pseudo-medieval fantasy. Using the same system isn't the same thing. D&D has a set of core rules and then setting books which refer to those rules. Aside from GURPS, I don't recall any other surviving games do that. There's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Savage Worlds - about 25 settings currently
ICRPG - the Master Edition includes 5 settings

What genre are those?

Literally everything from various flavors of sci-fi, Wild West, urban fantasy, superheroes, fantasy, etc.

It's not my favorite because I feel the system relies too much on metacurrency being handed out like candy to capture the feel of certain genres (or a GM who really knows the odds of the system math and when NOT to require a roll), but a GM who isn't stingy with the Bennies or really understands those odds can make the system sing.

There are a *lot* more than 25 settings for Savage Worlds. https://savagepedia.miraheze.org/wiki/List_of_Savage_Worlds_Settings

That said, Chris does have a point. The meta-currency of Bennies is probably the biggest hurdle for GM's to get right. My contention is that once you figure out how to manage the Benny-economy, the game really flies.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 20, 2024, 10:04:08 AMSo it's another universal system like GURPS or Risus?

I definitely think that's useful criticism. Thank you.

I was asking about systems that are slightly less universal, that emulate specific genres. Not all genres, just one or a handful of related genres.

The settings in Savage Worlds modify the core rules to emulate the specific "needs" of the setting. This is a feature not a problem. It's because of this function that Savage Worlds scales in power from "normies doing stuff" to Supers all on the same chassis without shifting gears.

Speaking of Savage Worlds, without dwelling on Savage Worlds...

One thing Savage Worlds does is Plot Point Campaigns. Which are self-contained adventures that give as much legroom as needed for the PC's to go "off-roading".

There is a set goal to the adventure, much like in any AP, but it's more loosey-goosey than any AP. Ironically, I find it a good way to expand a small sandbox into much larger affair if the PC's are nudged properly.

You could literally start with an "adventure premise" and build a whole world (slowly) with this method. I've wondered about taking this concept and using some OSR ideas (random tables etc.) to just play with no set starting setting, but letting the setting become more emergent over the course of play. Not sure how it would play out, but it would be interesting to try.

Obviously you could do this with any system.

The settings I liked from the AD&D second edition era were.: Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun.

Forgotten Realms I felt comfortable at the time with because it truly was a world of adventure where the PCs could do their own thing and not trip over a heavy handed Metaplot. You could ignore everything else if you had the base set and the Forgotten Realms Adventures book and still have fun with it.

I didn't follow the Realms in 3rd edition. Because I was looking at more interesting things that were produced by third parties. Which I still have in my collection.

Quote from: Aglondir on November 19, 2024, 08:25:35 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTalesThere's definitely no universal scifi rpg now like Alternity back in 1998.

Traveller?

Traveller is really good, but mainly for science fiction that is grounded in science. Traveller doesn't do science fantasy (Star Trek, Star Wars, giant robot anime, etc) very well.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on November 20, 2024, 04:44:49 PMThe settings I liked from the AD&D second edition era were.: Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun.

Forgotten Realms I felt comfortable at the time with because it truly was a world of adventure where the PCs could do their own thing and not trip over a heavy handed Metaplot. You could ignore everything else if you had the base set and the Forgotten Realms Adventures book and still have fun with it.

I didn't follow the Realms in 3rd edition. Because I was looking at more interesting things that were produced by third parties. Which I still have in my collection.

Your taste in D&D settings is impeccable.

I'd addendum the following:

1) Greybox Realms and the subsequent regional gazetteers which spanned into 2e were peak Realms (and I'd argue kitchen-sink design). They were wide open enough to feed any GM of any skill-level forever. I'm *still* running Forgotten Realms and i don't even run D&D. I pretty much ignore all metaplot in my Realms games. I also roll Kara-Tur and Al-Qadim into this as they're very much part of the Realms for my games.

2) Spelljammer only magnifies #1. It is by design to include anything you could imagine into whatever D&D game you're running. AND it was completely unique. I'd also add the ship combat was awesome. I'm trying to make my own Savage Realms version of it.

3) Darksun - again completely original and you simply can't find *anything* this cool in D&D anymore. I prefer the original boxset before all the lore took things beyond the original map. But it was wide open enough for a GM to really get their own spin on things and go hogwild.

The takeaway is are such expansive settings possible today with equal levels of support?

Quote from: tenbones on November 20, 2024, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on November 20, 2024, 04:44:49 PMThe settings I liked from the AD&D second edition era were.: Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun.

Forgotten Realms I felt comfortable at the time with because it truly was a world of adventure where the PCs could do their own thing and not trip over a heavy handed Metaplot. You could ignore everything else if you had the base set and the Forgotten Realms Adventures book and still have fun with it.

I didn't follow the Realms in 3rd edition. Because I was looking at more interesting things that were produced by third parties. Which I still have in my collection.

Your taste in D&D settings is impeccable.

I'd addendum the following:

1) Greybox Realms and the subsequent regional gazetteers which spanned into 2e were peak Realms (and I'd argue kitchen-sink design). They were wide open enough to feed any GM of any skill-level forever. I'm *still* running Forgotten Realms and i don't even run D&D. I pretty much ignore all metaplot in my Realms games. I also roll Kara-Tur and Al-Qadim into this as they're very much part of the Realms for my games.

2) Spelljammer only magnifies #1. It is by design to include anything you could imagine into whatever D&D game you're running. AND it was completely unique. I'd also add the ship combat was awesome. I'm trying to make my own Savage Realms version of it.

3) Darksun - again completely original and you simply can't find *anything* this cool in D&D anymore. I prefer the original boxset before all the lore took things beyond the original map. But it was wide open enough for a GM to really get their own spin on things and go hogwild.

The takeaway is are such expansive settings possible today with equal levels of support?

Supported to the extent the early Realms and Spelljammer were back in the day? I'd say probably not. But that's less to do about interest and skill and more about the fact that there are more GMs with experience who like to homebrew now. The industry is also, I'd argue, less centralized. There are lots of small publishers making their own settings and systems which means less need for a broad, kitchen sink approach so it is less likely a singular system will grow in the same way as the Realms.

Quote from: jeff37923 on November 20, 2024, 05:03:34 PMTraveller is really good, but mainly for science fiction that is grounded in science. Traveller doesn't do science fantasy (Star Trek, Star Wars, giant robot anime, etc) very well.

No, Traveller is just science fantasy with thin veneer of hard science. Once you have FTL drives, reactionless drives, artificial gravity, Psi powers, etc., you are leaving the realm of hard sci-fi far, far behind. Star Wars is super easy to do with Traveller it's almost all the way there. Psi powers are now the Force. You might need to add a few powers, but don't worry about balancing them as most Psi powers aren't. Add in lightsabers a 3d6 or 4d6 melee weapon where non-Psi I mean non-Force users have say a -4 to use them and you're done.

Quote from: zend0g on November 20, 2024, 10:07:22 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on November 20, 2024, 05:03:34 PMTraveller is really good, but mainly for science fiction that is grounded in science. Traveller doesn't do science fantasy (Star Trek, Star Wars, giant robot anime, etc) very well.

No, Traveller is just science fantasy with thin veneer of hard science. Once you have FTL drives, reactionless drives, artificial gravity, Psi powers, etc., you are leaving the realm of hard sci-fi far, far behind. Star Wars is super easy to do with Traveller it's almost all the way there. Psi powers are now the Force. You might need to add a few powers, but don't worry about balancing them as most Psi powers aren't. Add in lightsabers a 3d6 or 4d6 melee weapon where non-Psi I mean non-Force users have say a -4 to use them and you're done.

I keep hearing this from people and I keep wondering if they have actually played the game. I never have seen or read of ships accelerating to midpoint, flipping ass over teakettle, and then decelerating in Star Wars. The psionics in Traveller are only superficially like what you see in Star Wars. Traveller, when played RAW feels more like the Expanse and Babylon 5 and the CoDominion stories of Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle than Star Wars.

Quote from: zend0g on November 20, 2024, 10:07:22 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on November 20, 2024, 05:03:34 PMTraveller is really good, but mainly for science fiction that is grounded in science. Traveller doesn't do science fantasy (Star Trek, Star Wars, giant robot anime, etc) very well.

No, Traveller is just science fantasy with thin veneer of hard science. Once you have FTL drives, reactionless drives, artificial gravity, Psi powers, etc., you are leaving the realm of hard sci-fi far, far behind. Star Wars is super easy to do with Traveller it's almost all the way there. Psi powers are now the Force. You might need to add a few powers, but don't worry about balancing them as most Psi powers aren't. Add in lightsabers a 3d6 or 4d6 melee weapon where non-Psi I mean non-Force users have say a -4 to use them and you're done.

Folks have varying ideas of what is hard vs soft SF.  It's very subjective.  If we went with truly hard SF using only the things we have proven will work then we get a story set on Earth in our current reality.  If things we think are probably true are included, there are more possibilities.  If we just exclude things that we know are impossible, we get still more.  And this ignores the fact that in every era of history the leading experts were sure of some facts that we now know are wrong.  There's no reason to assume that our current age is any different.

In general, if an SF story has a limited number of things we now think are impossible and handles the consequences reasonably, I feel like it's hard SF.  The CoDominium books are a good example:  the only thing that doesn't agree with current science is FTL.  For Traveller, the only thing that's not hard SF is psionics, so I would count it as hard-ish at least.  You may feel differently, but as I said, it's subjective.  It's not really something that can be argued.

Another thing. I prefer my setting to have a baseline year like Harn's 720 (I think it was 720 at least). Every adventure assumes that time and the GM can adjust per their adventures. I don't particularly like the way WotC's adventure paths mention other adventure paths as 'history' the way the Storm King's Thunder references some dragon adventure path I don't have to justify some of the factions positions regarding Giants.

Quote from: Hzilong on November 20, 2024, 08:08:26 PMSupported to the extent the early Realms and Spelljammer were back in the day? I'd say probably not. But that's less to do about interest and skill and more about the fact that there are more GMs with experience who like to homebrew now. The industry is also, I'd argue, less centralized. There are lots of small publishers making their own settings and systems which means less need for a broad, kitchen sink approach so it is less likely a singular system will grow in the same way as the Realms.

I have a strong suspicion (with a caveat) that you're correct. My caveat is that we're in the "indy-churn" where all the cast-offs from the WotC_D&D program are falling from the tree and the ones that stick in the hobby will eventually gravitate towards other systems. We're still "sorting" that out, and likely will be forever (as is healthy). There is no "one system to rule them all" but I'd be a fool to ever say that systems don't matter.

But once a person is settled - I'm talking about GM's here, how much content is optimal for you and the games you run? I'd honestly like to know how much GM's on this forum do homebrew and to what degree?

For example - I can homebrew a whole world from the ground up, but then I start thinking... why? when there are settings that have a lot of the bones I'd just recreate anyhow. So *usually* what I do is homebrew something within an established setting, and effectively create a large sandbox and steamroll/integrate anything outside of it as necessary as the campaign demands.

In retrospect, my longest running multi-year campaigns have always been based around homebrewed sandbox content nestled within an established campaign setting. It's definitely an interesting datapoint I didn't consider.

 I'd like to know what other GM's do for homebrew and how much? And do established settings in your system of choice have any impact on your purchasing of content for that system or your homebrewing activities?

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2024, 04:55:20 PM

Quote from: Hzilong on November 20, 2024, 08:08:26 PMSupported to the extent the early Realms and Spelljammer were back in the day? I'd say probably not. But that's less to do about interest and skill and more about the fact that there are more GMs with experience who like to homebrew now. The industry is also, I'd argue, less centralized. There are lots of small publishers making their own settings and systems which means less need for a broad, kitchen sink approach so it is less likely a singular system will grow in the same way as the Realms.

I have a strong suspicion (with a caveat) that you're correct. My caveat is that we're in the "indy-churn" where all the cast-offs from the WotC_D&D program are falling from the tree and the ones that stick in the hobby will eventually gravitate towards other systems. We're still "sorting" that out, and likely will be forever (as is healthy). There is no "one system to rule them all" but I'd be a fool to ever say that systems don't matter.

But once a person is settled - I'm talking about GM's here, how much content is optimal for you and the games you run? I'd honestly like to know how much GM's on this forum do homebrew and to what degree?

For example - I can homebrew a whole world from the ground up, but then I start thinking... why? when there are settings that have a lot of the bones I'd just recreate anyhow. So *usually* what I do is homebrew something within an established setting, and effectively create a large sandbox and steamroll/integrate anything outside of it as necessary as the campaign demands.

In retrospect, my longest running multi-year campaigns have always been based around homebrewed sandbox content nestled within an established campaign setting. It's definitely an interesting datapoint I didn't consider.

 I'd like to know what other GM's do for homebrew and how much? And do established settings in your system of choice have any impact on your purchasing of content for that system or your homebrewing activities?

I do a lot of homebrew stuff. Even with established settings, I end up going for the corner cases and untouched bits that need to be expanded on and fleshed out. I do also buy published settings that interest me just so that I can have a baseline to compare my homebrew stuff to.

(This has also been part of my recent 'zine fixation because the material in them is rough and unpolished but different and creatively original.)

In my opinion (and I stress that) a good setting has some well established material that a GM can run games in for a long time but includes some foundational material for a GM to do his own thing without breaking the core setting.  A good example of this is in The Third Imperium for Traveller has an entire sector that there is no official material for just GMs and independent creators can fill it up.

I reached the point where I now want to make my own games and settings. I'm not satisfied by what exists, especially outside of the oversaturated fantasy and cthulhu genres. There's a lot of turnover that I'm frustrated with, so most of my settings are pastiches of old settings that were killed or driven into the ground by apathetic corpos and Disney's bullshit copyright law. I'm making all my game material public domain in order to hopefully avoid that happening again. I'm also gonna be writing prose fiction to tie into my game work. Not microfiction, but actual stories with plots and conclusions.

My settings are all homebrew. I do occasionally steal or make allusions to established game worlds, but even then I try to change it up a little. I do appreciate stuff like Pundit's Silk Road stuff or the various Savage World settings since those can provide inspiration and/or guidance for what I want to do in my games. Funny ebough, the most useful aspect of setting books to me is actually the unique rules. If I buy a sci-fi setting I want to know the numbers because I usually don't have time to sit down and make spreadsheets to balance out an interstellar economy and determine the price of space-crack.

- Started almost all homebrew, because I had lots of time and little money.

- Went on a Forgotten Realms kick for awhile, with a few other things mixed in.

- Got a lot of ICE's Shadow World stuff, which I barely used straight, but did spin, mangle, and fold into my own settings.

- Somewhere in there, started a cycle of one campaign full homebrew, another campaign almost completely purchased. That happened a lot with WotC D&D, because of the prep time.

- Did a lot of system play testing where I used purchased settings for the skeleton, only adapting mechanics.

- Now I've circled back to almost entirely homebrew.  Don't have nearly as much time, and could afford to buy settings.  However, it is now almost always faster for me to write it myself than to adapt the setting to what I want. And I don't mean 5%, 10% faster, but sometimes pushing twice as fast.

That's true even with published systems. I can adapt a good TSR-era D&D module to my own system pretty darn fast.  Those aren't crammed full of fluff.  Some of the OSR shorter stuff works just as well.  The difficulty is finding new ones that I like.  For reference, I believe the most fun I ever had running or adapting a published adventure was Desert of Desolation.  I've run it both ways, straight for AD&D, then adapted and run for a non-D&D like system.

I really enjoy creating a lot of my own content, but these days I don't have the time to do that. Back in the 80's I created my own campaign world and adventures to run in it. If I still had that kind of free time then I would continue doing that. I would rather spend my limited hobby time running or playing than just creating material that I might never get a chance to share with friends.

Quote from: BadApple on November 21, 2024, 07:22:52 PMIn my opinion (and I stress that) a good setting has some well established material that a GM can run games in for a long time but includes some foundational material for a GM to do his own thing without breaking the core setting.  A good example of this is in The Third Imperium for Traveller has an entire sector that there is no official material for just GMs and independent creators can fill it up.

Do you buy into a system for those settings? Or is it the system itself that is the selling point? Or is it both? Would you buy D&D or Traveller, for instance, for just the rules?

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2024, 04:55:20 PMBut once a person is settled - I'm talking about GM's here, how much content is optimal for you and the games you run? I'd honestly like to know how much GM's on this forum do homebrew and to what degree?

I run exclusively homebrew settings and have since I started in 1978. This has always been a homebrew hobby for me regardless of what system I'm running (various editions of D&D, GURPS, Hero, Fantasy Trip, Savage Worlds, Shadowdark, ICRPG and others). To the extent I ever buy a game system for a setting it's because that setting resembles something I'm thinking of homebrewing and the system might therefore suit that style of play. If the setting also gives me ideas or tools for my homebrew game so much the better.

But I never buy a game with the express intent of playing that game's implied or explicit setting.

We need more unconventional settings, like TSR's old Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, Ravenloft, etc. I'm completely burnt out on Forgotten Realms clones.

Quote from: tenbones on December 03, 2024, 11:00:43 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 21, 2024, 07:22:52 PMIn my opinion (and I stress that) a good setting has some well established material that a GM can run games in for a long time but includes some foundational material for a GM to do his own thing without breaking the core setting.  A good example of this is in The Third Imperium for Traveller has an entire sector that there is no official material for just GMs and independent creators can fill it up.

Do you buy into a system for those settings? Or is it the system itself that is the selling point? Or is it both? Would you buy D&D or Traveller, for instance, for just the rules?

No, except for a couple of licensed settings like Star Wars and Star Trek. The system will determine whether or not I don't resell the setting books (Cases in point, I couldn't see myself ever playing Star Wars without using the d6 system after seeing how other systems fail to emulate the genre. Likewise, I prefer the Last Unicorn Games version of Star Trek because it is the best out of a bad bunch since I don't think that any of them really emulate Star Trek in roleplaying, there are two good wargames for Star Trek though). It can be both, but not usually. I did buy D&D and Traveller just based on the rules originally.

In my experience, systems are generally irrelevant. Most groups ignore rules anyway and just fiat everything. Sometimes you need the system built a certain way to support genre expectations, but most systems suck ass at that. It's the settings that convince me to buy something.

Unfortunately, settings either die off because the owner isn't interested in supporting them anymore, or they get bought by corpos and driven into the ground, or they're just constant reissues of the same setting from the 80s and have become boring since then.

There's no point to investing in anything.

Quote from: tenbones on December 03, 2024, 11:00:43 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 21, 2024, 07:22:52 PMIn my opinion (and I stress that) a good setting has some well established material that a GM can run games in for a long time but includes some foundational material for a GM to do his own thing without breaking the core setting.  A good example of this is in The Third Imperium for Traveller has an entire sector that there is no official material for just GMs and independent creators can fill it up.

Do you buy into a system for those settings? Or is it the system itself that is the selling point? Or is it both? Would you buy D&D or Traveller, for instance, for just the rules?

When I was younger and first running games, I absolutely needed a setting to get started.  I did buy setting material so that I could run it.  As I gained some experience, then I pushed into the uncharted areas but deeply rooted in the setting so that I felt comfortable branching out.

Now, I build my own settings but I like setting material for ideas and sometimes set pieces I can drop into the game in a hurry.  I'm certainly a system over settings guy now but didn't start out that way.

Quote from: BadApple on December 03, 2024, 04:47:32 PM

Quote from: tenbones on December 03, 2024, 11:00:43 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 21, 2024, 07:22:52 PMIn my opinion (and I stress that) a good setting has some well established material that a GM can run games in for a long time but includes some foundational material for a GM to do his own thing without breaking the core setting.  A good example of this is in The Third Imperium for Traveller has an entire sector that there is no official material for just GMs and independent creators can fill it up.

Do you buy into a system for those settings? Or is it the system itself that is the selling point? Or is it both? Would you buy D&D or Traveller, for instance, for just the rules?

When I was younger and first running games, I absolutely needed a setting to get started.  I did buy setting material so that I could run it.  As I gained some experience, then I pushed into the uncharted areas but deeply rooted in the setting so that I felt comfortable branching out.

Now, I build my own settings but I like setting material for ideas and sometimes set pieces I can drop into the game in a hurry.  I'm certainly a system over settings guy now but didn't start out that way.

Interesting. I had almost the exact opposite experience. I started playing D&D in around the 5th grade if memory serves. For the first couple of years we effectively played without a setting. We just had the core books and we played games in "D&D world", just going with whatever setting assumptions were in those three books.

I drew my first homebrew world-map in 7th grade science class (I think I still have it somewhere), and ran that world up through somewhere in high school. But around the same time I met a friend who was really into Forgotten Realms, so most of the games I was a player in were set there. That guy and myself became the reliable DMs for our friend group. I ran almost all homebrew, and he ran a mix of FR and homebrew until the friend group finally died in our late 20s.

Since then, I've run almost exclusively published settings. Partially that's because I don't have the free time to homebrew, and partially it's because older players are less willing to accept "it's standard fantasy/cyberpunk/sci-fi world, and that's all you need to know".

That's only D&D-like games though. When we played other games (usually White Wolf games at that time), we always at least tried to play the canon setting. It's entirely possible that it would only have worked in D&D or a similar game. One of the great strengths and great witnesses of D&D is that the system can easily be the setting. Within the corebooks you have races, classes, magic, gods, flora and fauna; all the setting information except for place-names and history, which if you don't care about that, you don't need it to play the game.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 03, 2024, 07:13:01 PM

Quote from: BadApple on December 03, 2024, 04:47:32 PM

Quote from: tenbones on December 03, 2024, 11:00:43 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 21, 2024, 07:22:52 PMIn my opinion (and I stress that) a good setting has some well established material that a GM can run games in for a long time but includes some foundational material for a GM to do his own thing without breaking the core setting.  A good example of this is in The Third Imperium for Traveller has an entire sector that there is no official material for just GMs and independent creators can fill it up.

Do you buy into a system for those settings? Or is it the system itself that is the selling point? Or is it both? Would you buy D&D or Traveller, for instance, for just the rules?

When I was younger and first running games, I absolutely needed a setting to get started.  I did buy setting material so that I could run it.  As I gained some experience, then I pushed into the uncharted areas but deeply rooted in the setting so that I felt comfortable branching out.

Now, I build my own settings but I like setting material for ideas and sometimes set pieces I can drop into the game in a hurry.  I'm certainly a system over settings guy now but didn't start out that way.

Interesting. I had almost the exact opposite experience. I started playing D&D in around the 5th grade if memory serves. For the first couple of years we effectively played without a setting. We just had the core books and we played games in "D&D world", just going with whatever setting assumptions were in those three books.

I drew my first homebrew world-map in 7th grade science class (I think I still have it somewhere), and ran that world up through somewhere in high school. But around the same time I met a friend who was really into Forgotten Realms, so most of the games I was a player in were set there. That guy and myself became the reliable DMs for our friend group. I ran almost all homebrew, and he ran a mix of FR and homebrew until the friend group finally died in our late 20s.

Since then, I've run almost exclusively published settings. Partially that's because I don't have the free time to homebrew, and partially it's because older players are less willing to accept "it's standard fantasy/cyberpunk/sci-fi world, and that's all you need to know".

That's only D&D-like games though. When we played other games (usually White Wolf games at that time), we always at least tried to play the canon setting. It's entirely possible that it would only have worked in D&D or a similar game. One of the great strengths and great witnesses of D&D is that the system can easily be the setting. Within the corebooks you have races, classes, magic, gods, flora and fauna; all the setting information except for place-names and history, which if you don't care about that, you don't need it to play the game.

Prepackaged setting gave me two things when I started running, a blueprint and permission to be inflexible on core issues.

Being inflexible about how the world is structured, how society works in that world, etc. goes a long way to making a campaign work IMO.  It was a lot easier for 13yo me to say "it's in the book" than to say "I'm the GM" as to why I made a call or why an NPC did a thing.

Also, as a 13yo GM is was easy to world build but also messy as I would include stuff that would never be playable.  Published setting helped me learn what I needed and what I let die on the vine.

Quote from: BadApple on December 03, 2024, 07:25:44 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 03, 2024, 07:13:01 PM

Quote from: BadApple on December 03, 2024, 04:47:32 PM

Quote from: tenbones on December 03, 2024, 11:00:43 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 21, 2024, 07:22:52 PMIn my opinion (and I stress that) a good setting has some well established material that a GM can run games in for a long time but includes some foundational material for a GM to do his own thing without breaking the core setting.  A good example of this is in The Third Imperium for Traveller has an entire sector that there is no official material for just GMs and independent creators can fill it up.

Do you buy into a system for those settings? Or is it the system itself that is the selling point? Or is it both? Would you buy D&D or Traveller, for instance, for just the rules?

When I was younger and first running games, I absolutely needed a setting to get started.  I did buy setting material so that I could run it.  As I gained some experience, then I pushed into the uncharted areas but deeply rooted in the setting so that I felt comfortable branching out.

Now, I build my own settings but I like setting material for ideas and sometimes set pieces I can drop into the game in a hurry.  I'm certainly a system over settings guy now but didn't start out that way.

Interesting. I had almost the exact opposite experience. I started playing D&D in around the 5th grade if memory serves. For the first couple of years we effectively played without a setting. We just had the core books and we played games in "D&D world", just going with whatever setting assumptions were in those three books.

I drew my first homebrew world-map in 7th grade science class (I think I still have it somewhere), and ran that world up through somewhere in high school. But around the same time I met a friend who was really into Forgotten Realms, so most of the games I was a player in were set there. That guy and myself became the reliable DMs for our friend group. I ran almost all homebrew, and he ran a mix of FR and homebrew until the friend group finally died in our late 20s.

Since then, I've run almost exclusively published settings. Partially that's because I don't have the free time to homebrew, and partially it's because older players are less willing to accept "it's standard fantasy/cyberpunk/sci-fi world, and that's all you need to know".

That's only D&D-like games though. When we played other games (usually White Wolf games at that time), we always at least tried to play the canon setting. It's entirely possible that it would only have worked in D&D or a similar game. One of the great strengths and great witnesses of D&D is that the system can easily be the setting. Within the corebooks you have races, classes, magic, gods, flora and fauna; all the setting information except for place-names and history, which if you don't care about that, you don't need it to play the game.

Prepackaged setting gave me two things when I started running, a blueprint and permission to be inflexible on core issues.

Being inflexible about how the world is structured, how society works in that world, etc. goes a long way to making a campaign work IMO.  It was a lot easier for 13yo me to say "it's in the book" than to say "I'm the GM" as to why I made a call or why an NPC did a thing.

Also, as a 13yo GM is was easy to world build but also messy as I would include stuff that would never be playable.  Published setting helped me learn what I needed and what I let die on the vine.

I mean, I wouldn't argue that the way you came up isn't probably better than the way I did.

The level of fast-and-loose at which I ran games as a teenager would drive adult me insane if I had to play in them. I only learned like half the rules, made everything up on the fly, invented monster stats mid-combat, guessed at current HP levels, ripped off jokes and characters from movies, inserted my own video-game characters as NPCs and basically committed every DM-ing crime you can list except for railroading and running "DMPC"s. We were effectively playing "meme D&D", but hey, we were having fun.

WARNING: I am mostly a medium to medium-hard SF designer. It's not that I don't enjoy fantasy, but that my skillsets are intentionally trained into other directions, so you may need to take my opinions with a grain of salt.


I think the big thing I dislike about most RPG settings is that most RPG writers do not actually internalize the medium differences between an RPG and a novel and how that translates to the worldbuilding. I generally despise most pre-designed settings because they are written like they are supposed to be novels and the designer turned it into an RPG as a sort of plan B.

The big differences between RPGs and novels is that RPGs inherently require creative input from the GM and to a less extent the players. Most designers miss the fact that the more you use your creative muscles, the easier it becomes to use them, and at the same time, the less you use them, the harder it becomes to use them because it feels like you're breaking the social contract of the game. Writing encyclopedia setting splatbooks paradoxically makes the game harder to play, not easier.

As a result, the core question an RPG needs to ask is not what worldbuilding the designer can provide, but what worldbuilding the designer should leave out so the GM or players can fill them in and warm up those creative muscles. The most important part of RPG worldbuilding is actually what you don't include.


This means you have to ask an additional follow-up on what creative skills your target players have. Most RPG players these days are actually pretty darn genre savvy compared to things like movie watchers or video game players. You may want to give them a dose of education on things like flat vs round characters or Vonnegut's Rules for Writing a Short Story to make sure that players are all on the same page. But most of the time when you turn a table of RPG players onto a creative worldbuilding problem, the solution will not only be unique, but it will tend to be relatively high quality.

What remains then, is a bunch of stuff which you can be fairly done by anyone involved in the RPG...and a worldbuilding postage stamp. How do you guarantee that the world will produce certain campaign flavors and conflict lines?

I think this is one of the few things Call of C'thulu does perfectly; the Elder God will either get summoned or not, and the end of the campaign will either be you win, but most of your party is dead or going insane, or you lose and Everybody Dies (TM). The heart of the flavor of the setting and the conflict lines of the campaign come from the antagonist.

So what do fantasy settings need to be? They need to be more like Call of C'thulu. 


I am not saying that Call of C'thulu is a work of genius or anything--if anything I think Chaosium stumbled into this with more blind luck than true skill. The idea that you would pair a game about unintelligible cosmic mysteries and insanity with a perfectly transparent D100 baffles me beyond belief, and I think that in an ideal universe, Shadowrun would have been a D100 system and Call of C'thulu a dice pool. But I do want to emphasize that they got this part wildly right and that we should copy the core idea that the core worldbuilding and the defacto antagonists of a system are almost inseparable.

Quote from: Fheredin on December 03, 2024, 08:24:37 PMWARNING: I am mostly a medium to medium-hard SF designer. It's not that I don't enjoy fantasy, but that my skillsets are intentionally trained into other directions, so you may need to take my opinions with a grain of salt.


I think the big thing I dislike about most RPG settings is that most RPG writers do not actually internalize the medium differences between an RPG and a novel and how that translates to the worldbuilding. I generally despise most pre-designed settings because they are written like they are supposed to be novels and the designer turned it into an RPG as a sort of plan B.

The big differences between RPGs and novels is that RPGs inherently require creative input from the GM and to a less extent the players. Most designers miss the fact that the more you use your creative muscles, the easier it becomes to use them, and at the same time, the less you use them, the harder it becomes to use them because it feels like you're breaking the social contract of the game. Writing encyclopedia setting splatbooks paradoxically makes the game harder to play, not easier.

As a result, the core question an RPG needs to ask is not what worldbuilding the designer can provide, but what worldbuilding the designer should leave out so the GM or players can fill them in and warm up those creative muscles. The most important part of RPG worldbuilding is actually what you don't include.


This means you have to ask an additional follow-up on what creative skills your target players have. Most RPG players these days are actually pretty darn genre savvy compared to things like movie watchers or video game players. You may want to give them a dose of education on things like flat vs round characters or Vonnegut's Rules for Writing a Short Story to make sure that players are all on the same page. But most of the time when you turn a table of RPG players onto a creative worldbuilding problem, the solution will not only be unique, but it will tend to be relatively high quality.

What remains then, is a bunch of stuff which you can be fairly done by anyone involved in the RPG...and a worldbuilding postage stamp. How do you guarantee that the world will produce certain campaign flavors and conflict lines?

I think this is one of the few things Call of C'thulu does perfectly; the Elder God will either get summoned or not, and the end of the campaign will either be you win, but most of your party is dead or going insane, or you lose and Everybody Dies (TM). The heart of the flavor of the setting and the conflict lines of the campaign come from the antagonist.

So what do fantasy settings need to be? They need to be more like Call of C'thulu. 


I am not saying that Call of C'thulu is a work of genius or anything--if anything I think Chaosium stumbled into this with more blind luck than true skill. The idea that you would pair a game about unintelligible cosmic mysteries and insanity with a perfectly transparent D100 baffles me beyond belief, and I think that in an ideal universe, Shadowrun would have been a D100 system and Call of C'thulu a dice pool. But I do want to emphasize that they got this part wildly right and that we should copy the core idea that the core worldbuilding and the defacto antagonists of a system are almost inseparable.

It reads like you and I are of similar minds on the subject but expressing it differently.  Let me try to restate my views more clearly and see if you agree.

A good setting gives the GM the ability to hit the ground running and provide a rock solid "normal" condition while leaving enough open for GM to get creative. 

As a side note, I agree with you on CoC being excellent as a format for settings that deal with the fantastic.  I prefer to run a fantasy game where everyone is human and everyone has mundane abilities and gain supernatural powers by unraveling mysteries of the unknown. Sadly, this isn't an expected game play and really takes some mature players to get it going.

A good setting gives me some idea of how the game designers intended the game to be run.  That's useful information, even if I have no intention of using that setting or even running the game the way they intended.

Quote from: BadApple on December 04, 2024, 03:39:16 AMIt reads like you and I are of similar minds on the subject but expressing it differently.  Let me try to restate my views more clearly and see if you agree.

A good setting gives the GM the ability to hit the ground running and provide a rock solid "normal" condition while leaving enough open for GM to get creative. 

As a side note, I agree with you on CoC being excellent as a format for settings that deal with the fantastic.  I prefer to run a fantasy game where everyone is human and everyone has mundane abilities and gain supernatural powers by unraveling mysteries of the unknown. Sadly, this isn't an expected game play and really takes some mature players to get it going.

Mostly yes. The game designer should build parts of the world to get things started, but also leave specific parts unfinished, so I think you sum up the situation succinctly.

Teasing out a few nuances, I think that one of the problems is the exact nature of the game designer/ GM creative handshake. Traditionally, the idea is that the game designer makes a world and then the GM designs a campaign. I don't think this works particularly well because this means the campaign and the game world may or may not work well together.

Instead, I suspect the better view is for the game designer to partially build both the setting and the broader strokes for the campaigns. The GM then customizes and finishes both, creating a unique riff on the setting and the campaign. To use music theory terminology, the game designer's part of the process is to provide the Theme, and the GM's part is to provide Variation.

I personally dislike playing in traditional fantasy games. we know all the tropes, its all too familiar. I love to do high fantasy and keep things pretty unique, as unique as i can make it without it being overly strange, which is why i never run pre published settings. When i read Numenera it was like a breath of fresh air (i know its not D&D but it heavily inspired my setting)

Quote from: Fheredin on December 03, 2024, 08:24:37 PMWARNING: I am mostly a medium to medium-hard SF designer. It's not that I don't enjoy fantasy, but that my skillsets are intentionally trained into other directions, so you may need to take my opinions with a grain of salt.


I think the big thing I dislike about most RPG settings is that most RPG writers do not actually internalize the medium differences between an RPG and a novel and how that translates to the worldbuilding. I generally despise most pre-designed settings because they are written like they are supposed to be novels and the designer turned it into an RPG as a sort of plan B.

The big differences between RPGs and novels is that RPGs inherently require creative input from the GM and to a less extent the players. Most designers miss the fact that the more you use your creative muscles, the easier it becomes to use them, and at the same time, the less you use them, the harder it becomes to use them because it feels like you're breaking the social contract of the game. Writing encyclopedia setting splatbooks paradoxically makes the game harder to play, not easier.

As a result, the core question an RPG needs to ask is not what worldbuilding the designer can provide, but what worldbuilding the designer should leave out so the GM or players can fill them in and warm up those creative muscles. The most important part of RPG worldbuilding is actually what you don't include.


This means you have to ask an additional follow-up on what creative skills your target players have. Most RPG players these days are actually pretty darn genre savvy compared to things like movie watchers or video game players. You may want to give them a dose of education on things like flat vs round characters or Vonnegut's Rules for Writing a Short Story to make sure that players are all on the same page. But most of the time when you turn a table of RPG players onto a creative worldbuilding problem, the solution will not only be unique, but it will tend to be relatively high quality.

What remains then, is a bunch of stuff which you can be fairly done by anyone involved in the RPG...and a worldbuilding postage stamp. How do you guarantee that the world will produce certain campaign flavors and conflict lines?

I think this is one of the few things Call of C'thulu does perfectly; the Elder God will either get summoned or not, and the end of the campaign will either be you win, but most of your party is dead or going insane, or you lose and Everybody Dies (TM). The heart of the flavor of the setting and the conflict lines of the campaign come from the antagonist.

So what do fantasy settings need to be? They need to be more like Call of C'thulu. 


I am not saying that Call of C'thulu is a work of genius or anything--if anything I think Chaosium stumbled into this with more blind luck than true skill. The idea that you would pair a game about unintelligible cosmic mysteries and insanity with a perfectly transparent D100 baffles me beyond belief, and I think that in an ideal universe, Shadowrun would have been a D100 system and Call of C'thulu a dice pool. But I do want to emphasize that they got this part wildly right and that we should copy the core idea that the core worldbuilding and the defacto antagonists of a system are almost inseparable.

I feel exactly the same way. Game settings should be designed for games, not novels. In addition, these sorts of fake game settings attract a bunch of obnoxious fuckwits into their fandoms who worship the canon and attack you if you don't follow it like a religion. This even applies to video games, too. If it's a crpg, then the emphasis should be on player agency, not watching GMNPCs do stuff instead. I don't think I need to name any particular offenders. If you know, then you know.

This is why I prefer universal systems with a plethora of settings. It doesn't remove the behavior entirely, but encouraging individual group creativity tends to discourage such types. For example, I love Night's Black Agents for letting you invent different strains of vampirism for different campaigns, such as classic Draculas or weird aliens inspired by The Stress of Her Regard. Unfortunately, most games seem to be of the obnoxious failed novelist's microfiction pretending to be a game type.

Quote from: radio_thief on December 04, 2024, 01:29:44 PMI personally dislike playing in traditional fantasy games. we know all the tropes, its all too familiar. I love to do high fantasy and keep things pretty unique, as unique as i can make it without it being overly strange, which is why i never run pre published settings. When i read Numenera it was like a breath of fresh air (i know its not D&D but it heavily inspired my setting)

I am completely burned on fantasy. The genre is oversaturated. There's more diverse fantasy settings than any gamer can play in multiple lifetimes. Give me that level of creativity in other genres, please.