Writing settings, when do you stop?

[Rob Lang]

A had a message on FB from an author who wanted to know when to stop to avoid bloating your setting to the point of it not being reasonable. I like detailed settings (Emmett's Artefact, I'm looking at you) but I don't like bloaty ones.

I think I need to write a blog post on it but would love feedback from the Monkeys.

What do you consider to be a bloat in a setting?

(P.S. we're not talking systems here, bloat is pretty easy to detect in a system)

[Onix]

That's a tough one and it's likely a personal opinion thing. There are a lot of people that say aren't interested in setting at all. They just want something to set them in the direction they want and then get out of the way. They want to develop it for themselves.

There are a couple of possibilities there. Maybe I'm hearing that from people who are strongly opinionated about setting. Maybe they feel that by having less setting there's less to get wrong if they haven't read the whole thing yet.

From that perspective, anything beyond a basic concept and genre is too much but is that really the opinion of most GMs? I could see why it makes picking up a game easier. Is it borne out in the games people play though? If they play D&D and Pathfinder I'd have to say no. If they play games like Fate, well then maybe.

Star Wars is a popular franchise, maybe it's not the quantity of setting but the delivery?

[Evil Scientist]

I think it should be pointed out that fandom-based RPGs are more likely to bloat. E.g. Star Wars, as mentioned by Onix.

Enormous settings only annoy me when somebody you play with tries to enforce each little detail. The worst case, of course, is a player interrupting the GM with a complaint about how the moon elf's left eyebrow should be green, according to supplementary volume number 45. Luckily, this rarely happens.

Also, I guess the setting's range is a factor is a factor the designer(s) should decide on quite early.

[Rob Lang]

I understand the argument about settingless systems and that's fair. In this case, I am talking about PHAT settings (like PHUNK) that have a lot of detail.

How do you know when your setting is too large to be useful and just bloat? How do you know when to stop?

I've just written a big email to the chap explaining the process I went through with Icar of stripping down and building up, organising and streamlining.

I am beginning to think my long-awaited series on "How to turn your lifelong campaign into a shareable game" might have to see the light of day because there are technique you can use to trim and organise yourself and they might help others.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[GSLamb]

I would have to agree with Chainsaw Aardvark - "bloat" is best defined by the type of game.
A good view of "setting" vs "bloat" are the games Hunter: The Vigil and the Laundry.

H:tV sets the theme (mortals dealing with supernatural) and outlines several groups for the players to join, as well as how many supernatural foes behave in the setting. The groups affect character creation and the foes also have an effect on how the game is played, so I categorize these as "not Bloat". It helps that H:tV is a setting book that, like all the "New World of Darkness" titles, were designed to use a central book for rules and overall theme.

The Laundry, hearkening back to Evil Scientist's point, is based on a series of novels. Due to this, the game designers felt the need to squeeze in every possible reference to the book series. This is problematic, as large parts of the setting material has little-to-no effect upon the players once character creation is done.

[catty_big]

Yes, that's a tough one all right. I agree with GS Lamb that it's a lot to do with the type of game. If we're talking combat-heavy then the fluff (which I presume Rob you mean when you say 'setting') should be minimal, whereas with a game like RQ, or other game set in Glorantha or similar, the scope for flavour text is potentially limitless, as many people will buy the books almost for that alone.

However, I agree that it becomes a problem when porting a concept directly from a property that's based on a series of novels, or a movie franchise, as GS Lamb notes with regard to The Laundry. Btw, although The Laundry is a good fun game, reading the book will never be as pleasurable as reading the novels, and inevitably people reading the game book will make comparisons in their mind with the novels- if they've read them- so the authors may have goofed there.

Another point is that IMO the feeling of a text being bloated is often the result of a lack of editing on the part of the writer, who is probably someone who loves the sound of his own words.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[Rob Lang]

[GSLamb]

I would agree that Bloat does not always equate with "too much setting".

A poster child for Bloat would be Scion: Hero from White Wolf:
Book was written by three different groups, each from three different versions of the game concept.
Rules set was poorly cadged from Exalted and not all the new rules work within its bound.
Rules are duplicated in different sections, contradictory, or missing altogether.
Far too much of the book (and the later Demigod and God books) was dedicated to stories\adventures\adversaries custom built for the pregenerated characters - none of which alters well to normal PCs.

As has been said earlier in the thread, the game & theme dictate what is "too much setting". Basic hack & slash, homicidal kleptomania games need the briefest of settings - one that explains the equipment\magic\races available and what you are after. Since you are exploring the unknown, more setting = less leeway granted to the GM and Players. If everything is mapped out, where does the dragon's cave go?