Good or Bad - Settings Change when Rules Change

I want your thoughts on this... do we need cataclysmic events (e.g., Time of Troubles) or a "sudden jump into the future" (e.g., Death of Azoun and 5-year jump in FR) incorporated into campaign worlds every time we change rules systems?

I say, "heck no." Changes in the rules should be transparent to denizens of a world. Events mentioned above are not only unnecessary but in fact undesirable.

What do you all think?

<Excerpt of my thoughts from another thread>

A campaign world itself (the history, people, cultures, and events) never "needs fixing" to accomodate a new rule. TSR/WotC has violated this principle with the Realms and even more egregiously with the Known World. Note that they seem to have done Greyhawk correctly - as far as I can tell, the people, places, and cultures of Greyhawk have NOT been revised every time a new ruleset came out - Greyhawk itself has remained mostly static.

Remember the funny threads about Realms citizens telling us "sales of spikes in the Realms are down, but those who put their money into Boots of Striding and Springing are seeing major returns"?

Changes in the rules should be *completely transparent* to the denizens of a campaign world. Sadly, they have not been. THAT is why I can't stand "Mystara" - or the Realms, for that matter. They violate this simple idea - and they didn't have to.

--The Sigil

changes

I agree with the previous post. I have noticed that DMs seem to fall into two camps when it comes to the rules relation to the worlds.

1) The rules are a simulation of the world. Under this system, a rules change has no effect on the world, you are just choosing to use a different system to simulate the world in question. You may need to make some minor tweaks in the world or rules to get everything to fit, but this is done from a rules aspect, not as a big event.

2) The rules are exactly how the world works. This means that when the rules change, the world changes as well. This can be done as a big event, a retcon (retroactive continuity), or some other device.

Both views have their advatages and disadvantages. As a DM who likes a more realistic world and likes to close up loopholes with an on the spot fiat, I vastly prefer the first view. I have played in games that were very combat oriented and not that concern with realism, and they worked quite well using the second view.

On a side note, I believe that TSR put out the Fate of Istus module to transition Greyhawk material from 1st ed to 2nd ed, but this came out when they really weren't selling well, and it does not seem to be considered cannon.

Danny

Sig, I like to think that the fun of 3rd is that there's a setting that uses some of the traits of 3rd, (like evil rangers and druids that are no longer JUST true neutral), to help make a world more interesting.

Course I don't think settings NEED to change to adjust to rule changes.

It really depends on the nature of the rule change. We went from 2nd to 3rd edition with out changing much except one small thing, everyone learned how to read. That was the only big change that happened for us. We didn't advance the timeline or have some big event happen.

I don't think it's at all nessary, but for some unfathomable reason i kinda like the idea. It's sort of an excuse to run a real large scale adventure with a built in way to explain changes in mechanics "in game".

For greyhawk, radferth is right, Fate of Istus had a campaign shift for each class to bring it into 2e. for changes, check out 1e populations from the boxed set to 2e or 3e populations.

I did a big Shiva, destroyer of worlds and recreator of the universe plot in my Sri Raji Ravenloft game to bring it from 1e/2e mix to 3e and it went very well.

When things work differently (magic items, spells, and abilities from the conversion) I like to have an ingame explanation of why they work differently now.

First of all, there wasn't a five year jump for FR. Supplements like Cloak and Dagger had already advanced the timeline to 70 or 71, so the timeline barely moved.

Second, FR had already been built around the rules of previous editions. High level wizards were a time a dozen in FR, especially in 2e. Why was that? At high levels, wizards were probably the most powerful class. Fighters mostly got crap after 10th level and did get crap after 13th. On the other hand, a 13th level level wizard still has 3 more levels of spells to learn. Since wizards were the best class at high levels, it stood to reason that most of high level people would be wizards. Most of the evil groups were run by wizards: the Red wizards, the Zhent battlemages, the twisted rune, etc. This situation makes perfect sense under 2e rules. Of course, now it makes a bit less sense - so the church of Bane dominates the Zhents, and the Red wizards have an overpowered prestige class.

I vastly prefer the second view on how the world works. I think it helps events to make more sense. If a world is built considering the effects of the rules, as opposed to being built with just an idea probably drawn from history, then it makes more sense, and most of the hard questions are already going to be answered. What happens in a world where that priest can raise the dead back to life? How does the town deal with the fact that the strangers that just walked in could cut apart their guards and blow their walls to splinters? What happens when a high level spellcaster goes to war - heck what happens when a guy with great cleave/whirlwind attack and magic armor goes to war? How does a storekeeper prevent theft in a magical world? Gameplay will often force some these questions to the forefront, and I think it's better to know answers ahead of time.

Well, I have to say I agree with both sides.

The rules changes to the people in the world should be transparent but it can't be.

If you look at the new FR setting, alot of things were just thrown in and it was said that's the way it was. Like evil rangers always existed but there were so few. Those Monks of various orders were always running around, it's just that now they are leaving the clositers in larger numbers ( I personally hate the way the Monks are everywhere now, but I also feel it fits better with 3e.)

As for the Wizards ruling things, Wizards are still the most powerful high level class (if prepared, and they have the most tools available to be prepared.) Clerics are not behind in power. But now fighters and rogues are deadly high ups too, but I don't feel they can dominate a whole nation as easily (Leadership Feat helps a bit here.)

As for shop keepers preventing magic theft, that always existed, no? And magic shops? well I like them, and have always had them. Though when my friend DMs he never uses magic shops and keeps things gritty in the Realms.

Just some disorganized thoughts.

Peace-
-dem