Last night I found myself sitting at Starbucks, eating a cheese danish and working on my Pathfinder game.

I spent about twenty minutes trying to find decent photos of black men with long unstyled hair (because I'm not sure what that looks like) and ancient Mongolian dress (for the rangers the party is going to encounter in my next session), after which I asked myself, "do my players really care about this at all?"

They say they like my Pseudo-historical settings and unanimously voted to play it instead of Dragon Lance or Forgotten Realms, so I must be doing something right, but the question remains - how much detail on things like that do you really need and how much can you let the players imaginations fill in?

It seems like a waste of time (other than that I enjoy it a little) but they say I picture is worth a thousand words.

I didnt know much about ancient hair styles. I guess, with the exception of chemical and heat treatments a lot of ancient cultures had pretty elaborate styling techniques. That's kind of nice in a way because it gives me the freedom to have some strange looking people but stay pseudo historical.

I say if you enjoy creating the detail and it makes the game that much more rich for you as a GM, do it.  Refer to those details in play, use them to create conflicts, motivations for NPCs, etc.

But don't expect your players to appreciate the work explicitly, gushing about how impressive your language relations table is or how well you've illustrated the differences among social classes in the kingdom with hair styles and color of clothing or whatever.  If they're good players, they'll appreciate the detail even if it's unconscious; it's the little things that add to verisimilitude, which aids in immersion and all that other goodness.

That's what I've come away with after years of being frustrated that my group didn't seem to give a rat's ass about all those little details like hair styles or fashion or the like.  Every one of my players still seems to enjoy the worlds in which I run, though, even if they don't consciously pick up on all that detail.

If your players like the settings you run in which you add these details, then they must be adding something to your game!

I have had one DM where as a player I sometimes felt bludgeoned over the head by the immense wealth of detail in her pseudo-historical setting.  I would have preferred something sketchier; more riffing off fantasy tropes and cliches, less National Geographic.

It could be in the presentation, too.  Saying, "The dark-skinned men have long, unruly hair" and going on is okay.

Saying, "The dark-skinned men, Huntsis by name, which in their language means 'the People," for they believe they are the children of Etzal their supreme feathered god, have long, unruly hair, which marks them as warriors of the highest caste, a fact you know from the songs of Llayan the Wanderer, a bard of some repute from the Golden Age...." is not.

Quote from: KenHR;449673It could be in the presentation, too.  Saying, "The dark-skinned men have long, unruly hair" and going on is okay.

Saying, "The dark-skinned men, Huntsis by name, which in their language means 'the People," for they believe they are the children of Etzal their supreme feathered god, have long, unruly hair, which marks them as warriors of the highest caste, a fact you know from the songs of Llayan the Wanderer, a bard of some repute from the Golden Age...." is not.

Sure, the info dump is not cool. But it is great when the GM has worked up a background like that and introduces it appropriately.

"That evening around the campfire, the Huntsi hetman tells you of Etzal, the Feathered God, and some of the stories ring a bell, because even in the land of Amareth, you had heard some bardic songs about his exploits. Intriguingly, Etzal originally dwelled on a mountain shaped like a pillar, atop which was a golden cauldron. Just like the tales of the mountain found by your own god Deshne in his wanderings."

Provided the mountain and cauldron are some kind of adventure clues, I think that's a good level of detail.

Quote from: The_Shadow;449728Sure, the info dump is not cool. But it is great when the GM has worked up a background like that and introduces it appropriately.

"That evening around the campfire, the Huntsi hetman tells you of Etzal, the Feathered God, and some of the stories ring a bell, because even in the land of Amareth, you had heard some bardic songs about his exploits. Intriguingly, Etzal originally dwelled on a mountain shaped like a pillar, atop which was a golden cauldron. Just like the tales of the mountain found by your own god Deshne in his wanderings."

Provided the mountain and cauldron are some kind of adventure clues, I think that's a good level of detail.

Exactly.  I was exaggerating a bit for effect in my post replying to S'mon (and my first example was far too brief to be of any use, I realized some time after posting).  Introducing the information the way you've described is one of the right ways of doing it.

Quote from: S'mon;449654I have had one DM where as a player I sometimes felt bludgeoned over the head by the immense wealth of detail in her pseudo-historical setting.  I would have preferred something sketchier; more riffing off fantasy tropes and cliches, less National Geographic.

For sure -

Maybe that doesn't work for the same reason that some people don't enjoy modules; no one really likes being read to.

My mama read to me when it was my turn - I heard The Hobbit and The Book of the Dun Cow that way, formative experiences for my imaginative soul.

I'd make two points here: first, that pictures and other kinds of audio-visual aides are certainly useful, and I've used them to good effect in several of my campaigns.

Second, that as far as how much info about setting tidbits to give the players: whatever their characters OUGHT to know, that they NEED to know to manage whatever situation they're at, in the moment. Don't dump it all on them outright, tell them what they need to know in the situation they're in, and don't skimp on that, but save the tangents to add on when those tangents stop being tangential and become relevant in some way (either directly, as far as "how do I solve this problem" or indirectly in the sense of "how am I supposed to act in this situation")..

RPGPundit

I actually think photographys 'spoil' immersion. Its just a personal thing. When my cousin was playing I would get him to draw stuff (he typically did a drawing as a result of each session) but since he withdrew to concentrate on being ever so pretentious (words can not describe now so) words I find are sufficient.

I do use some character drawings for major NPCs but typically steal these from various fantasy art/sci fi sites.

I don't know why but photos just don't do it even really cool ones.

Quote from: jibbajibba;449988I don't know why but photos just don't do it even really cool ones.

I sort-of agree about handing out photos spoiling immersion, but what works VERY well IMO is the GM referencing a photo, having it in mind when he verbally describes the NPC to the players, but not actually showing them the photo.  All the immersion-destroying stuff is stripped out and instead you have a valuable tool.

It completely depends.  In a wild-west game, actually showing them a photo of Wild Bill would, IMO, do nothing but ADD to the immersion.

RPGPundit