How much information on a homebrew campaign setting is too much? I'm trying to put together a document of all the things about the campaign world for my players, but I don't want to force them to read reams of fanfiction about a made up world.
What are the essentials for players to know about a campaign setting?
>>43535984
Have a one page summary of each culture PCs can come from. That's all that it's needed. They don't need to know how Father Sky knocked up Mother Earth, but they might appreciate, for example, half a paragraph describing common styles of clothing or a handful of popular sayings.
>>43536923
>They don't need to know how Father Sky knocked up Mother Earth
Eh i'd probably include basic religion and cosmology as each culture understands it so that'd be on the list for me. Basically I'd do an abridged version of the "what the <culture's form of elder> told me" series for glorantha.
Really got some great things you might not think to include on your own, like "what makes a man great?"
>>43535984
Don't make a document with all the things. Be vague about a lot of stuff, leave it as something to be uncovered during the course of play.
Write to the tastes of your players. If they're greedy murderhobo shitbags, offer them greedy murderhobo shitbagging opportunities. Maybe a distant volcanic island with dangerous jungle highlands populated by feral halflings that steal human skulls, hollow them out and leave them in a giant abalone until they develop a nacreous coating, and then wear them as full face helmets. You could probably make money selling those. If they're greedy, tell them things greedy adventurers would want to know. If they like exploring ancient ruins, tell them about a mysterious network of ancient ruins along a range of mountaintops with strange magical machines in them. Make them eager to explore your world by offering them things they like.
Never write creation myths. So many people do this with their settings, and creation myths are just dull as fuck. Myths in general are a really bad idea. Do not write any myths, at all. If a player wants to explore myths, work that into your game.
When you're writing your world book, you want to focus on the present and on things that your players might want to interact with. Hook them and pull them in with opportunities for them to exploit.
>>43537026
Yeah, but that's a cultural thing.
What I'm saying is 'describe, briefly, PC-capable cultures, as opposed to the entire fucking universe since the beginning of time'.
>>43536923
I'm kind of the opinion you never want to complete a campaign setting prior to the campaign starting. It should evolve and be finished through play.
I think a page is too much. I think maybe even a paragraph is too much.
>>43537411
>make your doods
>ok, so what's race X like
>I HAVE NO IDEA
Tell them only what they need to know. If someone wants to play an elf, tell them the basics of where elves come from and what they do. The PCs should be learning everything else about the world as they explore it.
>>43537259
>Never write creation myths. So many people do this with their settings, and creation myths are just dull as fuck. Myths in general are a really bad idea. Do not write any myths, at all.
I strongly disagree
>>43539114
This. Creation myths are great, especially when they aren't true. It really flavors a culture.
>>43535984
I would say that almost any is too much. Introduce it in play, don't shove it down their throats beforehand. Hopefully "he/she's a traveler from a distant land" is justification enough for the PCs being ignorant and fits into your setting.
Of course, if the players are asking you questions about the lore, then go ahead and talk about it. I just think loredumps are the worst thing you can do when introducing a setting.
>>43537653
That's not really what I'm saying, but you probably want to involve character creation in the first session and you want to be able to spin out something as a one/two sentence summary and address any questions without having your player read tons of shit.
Campaign intro is better done as a face to face discussion, basically, I think.
>>43540257
A one page summary is not 'a ton of shit', it takes less than a minute to read. Also no one even said anything about forcing them to read it.
What this does is get the questions that everyone will probably ask anyway out of the way, as well as enabling players to create characters and get a feel for the setting before the first game session.
>>43540918
It does set a bit of a tone of "I take my OC world very seriously," though. If you know the players and they trust you to make something interesting it's a non-issue, and they'd probably appreciate the information, but for new players it can easily come across as self-absorbed or even arrogant.
>>43540971
That depends entirely on how it's written and what you communicate to your players. Yes, if I come to a game and someone gives me the 'setting document' without saying a word, I'll laugh them out of the town. On the other hand, if I come to a game, ask about a race, and get handed a neat summary that answers most of my questions, it shows a) they care about being prepared and b) have actually thought that shit out. On the other hand, a game where the GM goes uhhhh before obviously making shit up on the spot is not that appealing to me.
>>43540918
>Also no one even said anything about forcing them to read it.
If you write that for your players and they don't read it, how is it not completely pointless?
>>43541041
>On the other hand, a game where the GM goes uhhhh before obviously making shit up on the spot is not that appealing to me.
Yeah because no way the DM can talk through stuff without being like this!
>>43541067
>Yeah because no way the DM can talk through stuff without being like this!
Some can, some can't. It's the same level of strawman as saying someone who writes even a shred of setting info is a self-absorbed, arrogant prick.
>If you write that for your players and they don't read it, how is it not completely pointless?
It's about the same level of pointless as establishing things no one is going to ask for information about. And again, and it might come as a surprise, forcing players to read shit is not the only way to get them to do it.
>>43541109
You seem super defensive about this. I don't really get this attitude to the opinion that talking things out is better than writing them out. I appreciate >>43540971 (not me) kinda made some personal assumptions with regards to that though.
I feel like you should personalise a "setting document" to each player. It can have a lot of the same information in it, but don't make everyone trawl through information only one person will be interested in.
