What makes a setting distinctive?

[tkdco2]

That's a question I struggle with a lot. Names of countries and gods aside, there has to be enough detail to make cultures distinct, so it the game actually feels like a (say) Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance game instead of some generic fantasy.

You can make a case about having specific creatures like Draconians or organizations such as the Harpers making the game unique, but not every game will include these elements.

You have a bit of wiggle room if you use one of the official game settings, but what if you want to set your game in Lankhmar or Middle-earth? What can you do to make sure your players feel like they're adventuring in those places?

[waysoftheearth]

A setting is the sum of everything in it; its cosmology right down to its ants and fleas. "Distinctive" is a player perception that comes about thru the player experience of the setting. So: how do players experience the setting? Probably, it's going to be the bottom-up detail (or otherwise) they are exposed to that informs their experience/perception. I wonder if it's a of case of: pay attention to the small things, and the big things will sort themselves out?

It's not just a sword, it's a Kamari backsword. Those are not just silver pieces, they are silver Twenties. Each fief or barony has a name; the Lord of each is a personality who is loved, hated, feared, or whatever by the locals. That kind of detail helps make a setting specific and real, rather than just generic. But most important, I think, is that NPCs and NPC factions have their own relationships, and actively work toward their own agendas in the campaign. It's their campaign too! If this is happening... the setting comes alive.

[Deleted]

Agreed. Further, if building a campaign based on an actual set of books whether fantasy, horror, or swords & sorcery, then take the hit and re-read those books with an eye toward pulling out detail, description, and setting. I did this regards Robert E Howard's work for my current campaign. We thus have blue bearded traders and raiders. They're depraved wanderers from decadent Shemite cities, for example. But what are they wearing? Breeks, soft boots, and tunic, I'd say whether canonical or not, and there is information online of all kinds regards this matter. Add curved blades, and so it begins!

[rredmond]

In line with the other posts, a setting is distinctive when it's living. The PCs should have some impact on the setting, IMNSHO. The game I'm running now, I started the PCs in The Illhiedrin book and built things up from there. Lassering the HP and Alcastra the wizardess were their benefactors and giver of their missions. Tassin's Wood became their home base. They were a small cog in the war between good and evil. It always made me smile when they'd ask "how's the war going" at times. But I didn't put too much effort into building the world beforehand honestly. As stuff came up, I wrote it down and made it part of the world. So DMs should be more planful than me, but definitely the PCs should be able to have some sort of impact on the setting - even if just a small one.

[tkdco2]

What I'm trying to do is to make sure different cities/countries are indeed distinct from one another. I've played in too many campaigns where every town is exactly the same, no matter which kingdom the players are in. Even worse is importing monsters unique to a setting into another game world, like draconians in Greyhawk. Maybe I'm just too uptight about it, but stuff like this just makes the world so generic and therefore boring to me.

[tombowings]

As for monsters, I find that those monsters the DM chooses to leave out are just as important as those the DM chooses to populate the game world with.

I, for example, almost never use humanoids (orcs, kobolds, etc.), but I keep Giants.

[rredmond]

I think it's a scale thing too. I kept my "world" deliberately small, the good humans and demihumans were beset from all sides. So the adventures didn't have far to go to enter enemy territory to look Charrelsfane's Tower, or the dungeons of Arachnophobia! or the Sinister Shroom. I'm always impressed, and somewhat horrified, by grand scale worlds that folks put so much effort into. Impressed by the effort and creativity, horrified that it's something I couldn't do if I wanted to. Stuff that grodog can do with Greyhawk. Or that sirclarence can remember about Arden Vul's world around the megadungeon. The knowledge they have, about those settings, is so amazing and really does add to the experience when you are DMed by them. It is certainly not a skill I have, and doesn't fit into my anti-crunch DMing style anyways - fewer rules for the system and the setting :lol:

I'd love to see what you are doing though!

[tkdco2]

Sept 6, 2022 12:05:47 GMT -6 tombowings said:

As for monsters, I find that those monsters the DM chooses to leave out are just as important as those the DM chooses to populate the game world with.

I, for example, almost never use humanoids (orcs, kobolds, etc.), but I keep Giants.

Definitely. I remember a post on another forum where the author said he didn't like Middle-earth campaigns because only a few of the monsters in the Monster Manual would actually appear. But I personally don't care much for the "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to monsters. People seem to think that just because something appears in the books, it must be used. No, those are options that you can use if you wish, but you're not under any obligation to use them. If I were running a game based on Ancient Greece, I'd have centaurs and medusas, but they'd be very rare, and mainly for higher-level characters. Gnolls and kobolds wouldn't fit in the game, so they won't make an appearance.

[tkdco2]

The folks from Chaosium discuss the difference between generic fantasy and genre fantasy:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN1EQmRPFBs

[tetramorph]

tkdco2, what about the JG material for technology level?

They link tech with leadership/constitution, but I have unhooked them.

I can have leadership of one type, a constitution of another, and a different tech level.

Combined, each settlement becomes pretty unique.

So, I might have a neutral amazon "leader," over an orc "village" that is an oligarchy. Then I interpret what this means. The Amazon is a kind of mogul over a kind of corporation of an amazon sisterhood making use of the orc hive for extremely cheap labor.

I've made my own table for constitution of government based upon rows: one, few, many, and columns, power, wealth, honor. So you could have a town ruled by a few in power, like a military junta. You could have a village ruled by the honor of one, so you have a monarch. Etc.

I don't worry too much about cultural differences. My play style is more "game-style," so I have not found details in cultural difference really to contribute much to the game much more than just "flavor."

[tkdco2]

That works. On the local scale, I don't need major differences between cultures, just a few details for the characters to notice. On a setting-wide scale, I want to make the players feel like they are playing in that particular game world. So if I'm running a Hyborian campaign, I want the characters to feel like their PCs are actually part of that world, not some generic D&D game with the map of Hyboria and certain NPCs.

[Deleted]

The art makes a much bigger and more profound difference than one might assume. For instance, Dark Sun is not Dark Sun without Brom, and what is Planescape without Tony DiTerlizz?

[DungeonDevil]

I have no clue if any of these ramblings are relevant, but here goes...

The campaign BG -- its "history".
Is Alignment and Morality a hard-wired part of the rules of the campaign?
Pure Fantasy, Sword-n-Sorcery, or a blend of those with Science Fiction/Sword-n-Planet, etc.?
Heroic vs. RL grittiness?
The campaign ethos (e.g. social mobility via extermination of the inhuman and accrual of material wealth).
The deadliness of the combats. Is hit-location a significant mechanic? What about healing rules and availability of effective "leech arts"?
Whether it is hi-magic or lo-magic, in general. Whether "good" magic exists, or is it just (evil) sorcery.
The assortment, and frequency, of monsters.
The playable classes and races.
Is slavery in the campaign at all, and, if so, to what extent. As horrific as it is, it was a part of many cultures. Human sacrifice (and whether this is connected with sorcery...)?
Gender roles and to what extent they may deviate from the DM's/Players' own worldview.
Are the standard laws of RL physics suspended, revoked, banned, prohibited in the campaign?

[howandwhy99]

To speak to the game aspect, the rules are the world. The world is derived from the rules of the game. It has to follow them so the players can guess at what is going on. But there is an enormous amount of potential variety even within the same rule set. The unique rules for your campaign or the lack of common ones are going to speak to the setting's identity every bit as much as all of the narrative elements.

[waysoftheearth]

Sept 8, 2022 20:29:07 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

To speak to the game aspect, the rules are the world. The world is derived from the rules of the game.

That's an interesting perspective howandwhy99.
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but I think I see it the other way around: a narrative, fictional world exists independently of any rules construct. The latter are merely a necessary element to put structure around play, but they in no way limit the fiction.

For example, Tolkien's Middle Earth is a setting, but it's not defined by game rules. I can play a game set in Middle Earth using any number of game rules, or I could even invent my own rules. But none of these rules would define the setting. In theory, I could even switch rules during a game; the rules could change, while the narrative setting would remain unaffected.

Is this different to what you meant?

[tkdco2]

Sept 6, 2022 12:05:47 GMT -6 tombowings said:

As for monsters, I find that those monsters the DM chooses to leave out are just as important as those the DM chooses to populate the game world with.

I, for example, almost never use humanoids (orcs, kobolds, etc.), but I keep Giants.

I saw a video about Monster Manual 2 and decided to reread my copy. I was looking at the more bizarre monsters in particular. If I run another Carcosa game, I will use some of the weirder monsters there, along with some of those found in Fiend Folio and the original MM, but I wouldn't put in orcs or trolls in my Carcosa game.

[Deleted]

No trolls... is that legal?

[rredmond]

Not on D&D forums.

[jeffb]

I've thought about this for a couple days now, and amazingly am having a hard time putting my thoughts to the keyboard as to what makes a setting distinctive...

I guess I'll borrow the old bit about porn.... "I know it when I see it".

But the part about immersing the players in the setting? That's the easier part. A fairly constant but subtle description of people, places, things that make X world , X world. Small things on a personal level- accents, clothing, coins, a hairstyle, mannerisms etc. And large overview level things- news, society, politics, religion geography. Presenting scenes with these elements is the best way to immerse players/characters, however if you're game is mostly just sessions of Dungeon crawling/gold grabbing/levelling up it's kind of hard to introduce much and may be not even worth your effort/time.

As much as many OS/OSR/TSR gamers seem to despise him, we could all take lessons from Ed Greenwood here. He was masterful at presenting The Forgotten Realms to his players, and he gives good advice in several publications/products about just how he did it. Of course, most of us don't have the time or inclination to go those levels of detail and world building (but to be fair, there was a big difference between Ed's setting, and the published version's influx of various other writers)

[Deleted]

Tracked time is also important to immersion. Everyone has read that, “YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT.” – Gary Gygax, AD&D DMG 1e, p.37. With this assertion in mind, it's not so hard to map out a past, present views, rumors, and topics, and a future on an interesting timeline, so that the players encounter milieu material through the grape vine, passerbys, and their contacts in the surrounding world whether they are directly involved or not. Anyway, the adventurers can't talk to NPCs about the weather, if the DM doesn't track and present it too!

[tombowings]

Sept 8, 2022 23:54:38 GMT -6 @doublejig2 said:

No trolls... is that legal?

I think of trolls more as giants than orcs. I use gianty things, but not orcy things.

[tkdco2]

Re: Trolls

In Geoffrey's Carcosa: I'd personally avoid them. I want to keep the setting as alien as possible, so I wouldn't use most monsters the players are familiar with. I'd use mind flayers and Githyanki, though.

In a sword & sorcery (Lankhmar, Hyboria) game: They'd be rare, but a couple may appear as a challenge for characters with some experience under their belts.

In Middle-earth: Trolls would use the ogre stats and would turn to stone in daylight. The most powerful versions, Olog-hai, would use hill giant stats.

[grodog]

Sept 6, 2022 12:09:19 GMT -6 rredmond said:

I'm always impressed, and somewhat horrified, by grand scale worlds that folks put so much effort into. Impressed by the effort and creativity, horrified that it's something I couldn't do if I wanted to. Stuff that grodog can do with Greyhawk. Or that sirclarence can remember about Arden Vul's world around the megadungeon. The knowledge they have, about those settings, is so amazing and really does add to the experience when you are DMed by them.

You are too kind, Ron. Thank you

Allan.

[howandwhy99]

Sept 8, 2022 21:29:07 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Is this different to what you meant?

No, but it is the opposite of the first 25 years of the hobby. Storytelling and fiction aren't part of RPGs until the 90s.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2022 7:00:26 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

Sept 8, 2022 21:29:07 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Is this different to what you meant?

No, but it is the opposite of the first 25 years of the hobby. Storytelling and fiction aren't part of RPGs until the 90s.

*justice league style wipeover, narrator voice* 

"Meanwhile, at Cal-Tech"

[waysoftheearth]

Mmm. Blackmoor, Greyhawk, EPT… settings, rules, or both rolled into one?

Without overthinking it, prolly a campaign is what combines setting and rules together as a single thing.

Back when, every campaign was its own variant (a unique setting with unique rules). These days, product people would love to see thousands of campaigns running in a common setting with common rules (each of which they’ll sell you, separately). So, from that perspective, i agree that distilling settings and rules out into separate parts is a relatively modern lens.

[Vile Traveller]

Some of my favourites have been mentioned already, such as clothing, armour, weapons, and equipment (because the players will be constantly aware of what their characters are wearing). NPCs, factions, architecture (especially useful in highlighting differences between cities and countries).

I like to change up the different species of creature, both by making some dominant in certain areas and a minority or non-existent in others, as well as changing their base assumptions. Orcs might not be tribal or chaotic, elves could all be primitive woodland hunter/gatherers, humans might not even exist.

All of this is probably different for every group - the key is to change the things the players interact with, so if you don't go much for description it's no use having unique environments. So I would say the first step is to analyse your play and pick out which elements will be most effective to detail.

[sirclarence]

Sept 9, 2022 20:33:01 GMT -6 grodog said:

Sept 6, 2022 12:09:19 GMT -6 rredmond said:

I'm always impressed, and somewhat horrified, by grand scale worlds that folks put so much effort into. Impressed by the effort and creativity, horrified that it's something I couldn't do if I wanted to. Stuff that grodog can do with Greyhawk. Or that sirclarence can remember about Arden Vul's world around the megadungeon. The knowledge they have, about those settings, is so amazing and really does add to the experience when you are DMed by them.

You are too kind, Ron. Thank you

Allan.

I second that.

[machfront]

I admit I’m not as erudite as most of you folk.
…and perhaps I’m more of a b-movie/comic book/Saturday Morning Cartoon-type of person…

So…
To my mind, it’s not the mid-range stuff (cities, cultures, seasons, that the elves of wherever have a strife with so-and-so, or that dwarves are subjugated minorities, or that ‘adventuring thieves are trusted/respected or no’….that one city is a million years old or another is a hundred….that this place has long tunics and fierce scimitars and another uses scale armor and axes…. Ugh. No.

Rather, to me, it’s the most broadest of strokes, and some closer details, instead.
Big stuff + flavorful small stuff.

General:
The extant and ancient kingdoms are in decay.
A new land, (name), emerges.
A rebellion forms against here and there, for…reasons, right or wrong.

Detail:
Trolls are (here) and, though no one exists nowadays that truly knows…some say (even claim ancient texts prove) there was a war thousands of years ago against them, and dwarves forged mighty weapons against them.

General:
Grimewater has always been a point of trade, no matter its name over the centuries.

Detail:
Wizards ply their trade here , in secret or otherwise.

Blah, blah, blah.

I hope this makes some sense.

B-movies I’m a huge fan of usually go this route of “the kingdom, etc, etc.” pseudo-iconic and also…”this weapon/spell/thing/place/event” to make things more specifically iconic.
Not a new or original thing to do, of course.
But it makes “The Beastmaster” as distinct a setting as it does “The Sword & The Sorcerer” and “Ladyhawke” and the “Red Sonja” film and “Dragonslayer”…..etc.

[Deleted]

The beast is fierce!