geordie racer wrote:I'm a big believer of setting working at it's best when it develops through adventure modules rather than large gazetters. It leads to a greater sense of things being unknown and more anticipation in the consumer - rather than the 'I have the setting book, it's all there' attitude that keeps the setting static.
When you think about it, that's really the Appendix N way of doing things, which makes it prefect for the DCC RPG.
Conan, for example, seems like a coherent setting now but when it was written as a collection of short stories not told in chronological order. It wasn't made into a logical timeline setting until the 1960's when DeCamp and Carter did it (and added stories of their own in the middle to make the sequence follow correctly).
Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser were similar, with a bunch of short story adventures that may or may not have a "best" order. Elric, same thing. Go down the list and pretty much everything was written in this style, often without maps or anything like that to guide a reader from adventure to adventure.
Tolkien's elaborate detail in his setting was the exception and not the rule, and having fully-detailed settings really isn't "Appendix N" in style overall.
Marv / Finarvyn
DCC Minister of Propaganda; Deputized 6/8/11 (over 11 years of SPAM bustin'!)
DCC RPG playtester 2011, DCC Lankhmar trivia contest winner 2015;
OD&D player since 1975
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."
-- Gary Gygax
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
-- Dave Arneson
"Misinterpreting the rules is a shared memory for many of us"
-- Joseph Goodman