Whenever I write a setting guide, whether for private use of to publish it as in Falenburg or Heirs of Argax, I have some simple guidelines I follow. I think about the information that I as the person running the campaign need and what I do not need. The biggest trap to fall into when writing a setting guide is to give too much information and thus create a type of cognitive overload for a GM. The Forgotten Realms as of the mid-1990s (and especially in the 3e era) is a great example of too much information. Other settings have fallen into this same trap, like my beloved Glorantha. A more recent setting that I truly enjoy, Dolmenwood, also falls into this category. It's a breathtaking product, with every key locale and every hex detailed and described. That's amazing worldbuilding, but does seem daunting to any GM wishing to run a campaign in Dolmenwood (or Glorantha or the Forgotten Realms). Many people love that approach and appreciate not having to come up with all of the information that was meticulously crafted and written down for them. I'm not necessarily one of those people. Whilst I really, honestly love those settings, I much prefer a different approach. All I need is a solid framework. Something where I can take what was given and then run with it to define the setting myself. Here I have two shining examples that I use as guiding principles in setting guide design: the 1983 "gold box" set for the World of Greyhawk and the gazetteer for the Known World of Mystara, both published by TSR.
The 1983 Greyhawk books are my "gold standard" for books describing a TTRPG setting at the continent "macro" scale. Gary Gygax gave DMs detailed frameworks to build from and make the setting their own. All major "nations", factions, gods, settlements (towns & cities), languages, geographic features, leaders, etc. are named and given enough details to build a campaign from. You get a lot of information, but none of it is overwhelming (except maybe the weather generation mechanics). There's no need to give the detailed information on every town and city. That's all left to the DM, which i find liberating. When running campaigns in Greyhawk, I feel like I am in a setting built for gaming and not like I am visiting someone else's setting that I'm afraid to mess with. My PCs are participants in Greyhawk and not visitors.
There are named NPCs, but these are at the leader level and most of them are not at exceedingly high levels. Most leaders are at or below 15th level. No other personages or heroes are defined. The PCs and NPCs of a DM's campaign fill in those slots.
Another aspect of 1983 Greyhawk that I am emulating in Heirs of Argax are the amazing random encounter tables defined by region and geography. Something sadly missing for the Forgotten Realms in many cases.
Now when looking at the "micro" level of setting guides, the GAZ series of books written for BECMI are truly fantastic and inspirational.
These books give more detail on each region of Mystara, instead of the larger "macro" overview we got from Greyhawk in 1983. the theory here being of course that most campaigns will center around a specific region and not the entire world. Therefore, the GAZ series is a bit more granular. However, it's not so dense as to overload the DM.
GAZ 1: The Grand Duchy of Karameikos clocks in at only 64 pages and it covers a very large swath of land. The Dolmenwood campaign book only covers a relatively small region and is 400 pages longer. In GAZ 1 I get all the info I need to run a long-term campaign there. It gives me details on history, human cultures, different religions, the factions and conflicts, key NPCs, named settlement overviews, adventure hooks, and steps for creating region specific PCs.
For Heirs of Argax I am merging the two types of setting guides presented in 1983 Greyhawk and the GAZ series. I want an imminently gameable setting with a framework of information that sets certain "truths" of the setting for a GM to run, whilst still leaving it open to have a long-running emergent sandbox campaign. I expect every table's version of the setting to be entirely unique and the random generators will make sure of that, whilst still adhering to the "truths" of the framework.
My goal is to address both the GMs that function like me (give me a framework and I'll create the rest) and those who want a little more help on the information front. The latter will be aided by the random generators (including names!) that will help spark their creativity to make the campaign world their own.
Of course this approach to setting design won't be for every GM, but that's totally fine by me. I wanted to design a setting that I wanted to run campaigns in for many, many years to come and hopefully some other GMs will enjoy it too.
Comments
Post a Comment