As a game master, I’ve used that same technique for decades. I won’t start a campaign in an established setting without throwing in the caveat that anything they already “know” could be dead wrong. Whatever happens at the table is entirely between the GM and his players, and every campaign should be viewed as its own alternate reality.

Whether you’re talking about Cinderella or Batman, King Arthur or Captain Kirk, the stories and characters that endure for generations do so by constantly re-inventing themselves to meet the changing needs of their audience. Keep the essence, lose the canon.

What is needed is a talk about expectations. Do you want an ultra-detailed setting that everyone’s very familiar with? Do you want to retell a story that’s already been told (a la Dragonlance)? Do you want to simply use some familiar elements to tell your own story? Or something entirely different? The group should talk about these things before gaming, or they might just end up writing articles about how a certain gaming franchise should die in a fire…

When I first started reading your article, I got this image of people looking at books all the time to confirm this or that RULE in a game, not really SETTING details. But it is basically the same. My recommendation: When the game starts to bog down, make it up and move on before cracking a book — for rules AND setting material.

As for the comment about the ‘bad DM’ above, I would provide a sideways viewpoint — the better the GM knows about the details, the better he can guide the group to make choices that stay in the realm. Now, this doesn’t mean the GM has to know it all, it just means that instead of running to a book, you can ask for a group consensis or ask the person in the group that does know the material best. All in all, the GM is expected to study and have a enough detail figured out at least for that game session.

I learned quickly when first playing D&D 3.0 that I had to stop looking for the rule that I knew existed somewhere and just make up an agreeable option with the caveat that the rule would be researched and possibly changed going forward.

Stay flexible, keep the pace of the game going, that’s what I say.

‘course, if everyone things grinding throw books is cool, well, who am I to stop them?

When I started with this campaign setting, I had no idea how long it was going to go on for. I hated most of the rule systems of the time, and the game I wanted to play required rules with more social interaction needed. Long story short, I found that the more I opened up the rules to player involvement, the players enjoyed it more. And by channeling my creative juices into the areas and details of the game the players were gravitating towards, they get more excited.
More and more of them join the Bardic Guilds? I do more work on instruments and mentalist magic. They latch onto the renegade ‘Alternative School of Magic?’?. Fine, I work up the history of that more and accentuate the conflicts.
The development of details should be based on the directions the players want to go into. The negates railroading and excites the players, making it into ‘Our Game’. Even in a canned setting, if the Players start to latch onto something, it should be fleshed out and accentuated.
I think all of us have had that experience of having their PC’s latch onto a ‘throwaway’ NPC and have to flesh out that NPC, and then the PC’s sometimes make the former ‘throwaway’ a staple of the setting. That’s the approach I like to take with everything.

This city below started as a port a group of PC’s passed through while escaping the mainland. It was never supposed to be anything important. It just happenned to become the main playing area for my most rabid group.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/Igbar,+Capital+of+Trabler

I hope that is a worthy answer.

@Scott Martin – Foreign settings are hard. My recent experience with a different culture worked well because it was a one on one game. I don’t think the game would have gone as well with more players. The more players there are, the harder it is to keep everyone on the same page.

@LordVreeg – Matthew’s incredible article is here. It is teh awesome, as they say. It is also quite an animated discussion.

Starvosk is right that “mediocre-minded players will find metagame methods to get what they want, communicate with them to get them on the same page or get rid of them.”, but that definitely isn’t the way my group is, so far. It’s more a sin of omission, a failure to realize that what is fun for some is not fun for all. It is still a fun game, just fun in different ways. It also provides fun for the more chaotic of us two non-ultra W.O.D.ers (the other guy) to break the molds whenever possible.

I’m curious. In the 25 years of playing, how much input goes from the players back into the setting? This is the key problem with ultra-detail settings, I think. The ultra-detail controls the players, not the other way around.

and as you said, it is not the detail itself that is really the problem, it is matching the style of play desired and the players.

1st off, in your particular WoD situation, I would take the non-canonically inclined and hook their backstory up with some obscure, possibly GM created side guild/group/story to match your play style in an effort to bring your involvement up to a more equal level. Anytime players are surfing the web or reading splatbooks regularly while playing something is wrong.

Detail is merely a tool and a motivator. It creates verisimilitude and often defines the maximum immersion level. It sets parameters and threat levels, it gives the PC’s something to push back against.

I think I could claim a detail-heavy setting, and it has run for over 25 years. http://celtricia.pbworks.com/FrontPage

(I’m going to find the topic Matthew is referencing…’Star Wars Should Die in a Fire’ sounds too good to miss!)

That all worked out fine– and is the model I’d use as much as possible. Extra information is great for mining backstory ideas and providing the GM with extra sinister groups– but players rarely “do the homework” to really master the setting.

Speaking of which, that’s one of the real impediments to playing in a truly foreign setting– like anything based on historical Japan for my group. There’s too much to learn for it to feel right– and the three people who did the homework would be annoyed at the three who’d just kick down the door.

@Starvosk – Yup. It isn’t about how defined the setting is, It’s about how the group interprets it and plays it out. While I purposefully took the line of picking at the ultra-detail of settings, the game that is played at the table can be whatever the players and Game Master want. However, everyone sits down and starts to play within the framework of the game. If you’ve already got stats and descriptions for every member of a particular organization, then its hard to play the character who doesn’t quite fit in, or plays against type. I.e. The gangrel businessman who buys land and prevents it from being developed. If the game is seen as a hammer, then everything looks like nails.

I like Alton brown’s approach to using tools. Nothing should be a uni-tasker, even the fire extinguisher. The detail of a setting can be something to build off of, or it can fence people into non-deviation.

@Troy E. Taylor – “In any gaming environment, it’s really up to everyone — players and DMs — to obsess over the fun, rather than the details. ” I love that quote.

@Matthew J. Neagley – After I read this today I realized how similar it was to The Concept of A Star War’s RPG should die in a fire. Star wars is one of those settings that has ultra detail that can limit players, but also ultra detail that can help people out. I’ve only had experience with the old West End Star Wars, and I’d have to say that I think that Star Wars game does the ultra detail right in a lot of ways. Attention to things the players can use, as opposed to types the players should play. As far as the new D20, I’ve only glanced through it and never played it, so I can’t say.

-It can happen anywhere: Every setting that someone has a high level of interest in, someone knows more details than someone else and doesn’t want their vision of it invalidated.

-If it works for your group, it’s not a problem: If everyone is a buff and wants the cannon upheld, go for it. OTOH, if you’ve got guys inspecting their navel cause they just couldn’t give a crap about the minute detail, it might behoove your GM to ask questions on details they’re not sure of before the game via e-mail etc… and your group to debate cannon after the game instead of holding it up.

@Starvosk -
Play nice man. Even if a GM makes a mistake in an area or two (and lord knows, we ALL do), that doesn’t mean they suck as a GM. Heck, the GM in question is very likely a good friend of John’s. Of course, that doesn’t mean criticsm isn’t appreciated, but try to cite specific issues like “Your GM could handle this situation better by …” rather than blanket hurtful statements. After all, the rest of your comment was actually pretty good advice, but as you can see, the part that really caught my eye was three particular words, and it stole the focus off your otherwise excellent advice.

In any gaming environment, it’s really up to everyone — players and DMs — to obsess over the fun, rather than the details.

But it sure is easy to fall into that particular 10foot pit trap.