Open Worlds vs. Closed Worlds

Psion

Adventurer

• Apr 26, 2004

• #1

Occasionally the topic comes up in my game of "exploding kender", i.e., that Kender, when they enter my world, explode violently for unexplained reasons. This is really just a long-running joke; the underlying rule is merely that my game worlds are fairly closed; I don't allow anything in from other game worlds unless I adopt it into my contiunity.

But in the old days, the prevailing attitude was that you could reach any world by plane travelling.

So how easy are you with your game. Would you allow kender or asherake or ratmen in your game?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Munin

First Post

• Apr 26, 2004

• #2

Short answer: depends on the campaign.
Right now I'm running a high fantasy, world-hopping game, so it's more 'come one, come all', but if I was running my home-brew, it'd be totally closed.

 

diaglo

Adventurer

• Apr 26, 2004

• #3

if you can imagine it... it is possible...

so Boot Hill, Gamma World, Metamorphosis Alpha, ....

 

Shemeska

Adventurer

• Apr 26, 2004

• #4

Ah... the power of Planescape...

Amazing your character from FR had just the right portal key in their pocket when they walked through that archway that led to the Hive Ward, all at about the same time those berks from Krynn did the same thing and ended up in the same place as you...

Though it would be a shame if they all got sucked into Ravenloft a year later.

All one big multiverse, and its better that way IMHO. I'm biased of course.

 

Psion

Adventurer

• Apr 26, 2004

• #5

Shemeska said:

All one big multiverse, and its better that way IMHO. I'm biased of course.

Click to expand...

Y'know, I love planescape.

But there are still worlds I wouldn't consider to be part of the PS universe. Frex, in 2e, someone trying to bring in a Dark Sun character was just begging to exploit the system.

 

F

Fester

First Post

• Apr 26, 2004

• #6

Mine is closed. I remember making a decision when I started the campaign to keep traces of all others out if it, so that it had a flavour all of its own.

 

Psion

Adventurer

• Apr 26, 2004

• #7

Munin said:

Short answer: depends on the campaign.

Click to expand...

Which is why I asked for "which general attitude is closest to yours" not "your campaign."

 

drnuncheon

Explorer

• Apr 26, 2004

• #8

Psion said:

Which is why I asked for "which general attitude is closest to yours" not "your campaign."

Click to expand...

...but if you don't have a general attitude?

Anyway, generally I'm pretty closed, unless I'm specifically running something like Planescape. I mean, if I wanted Dragonlance characters, I'd be running Dragonlance. I kind of view that sort of thing as being only a few steps better than saying "Oh, you're running D&D? Cool. I want to play Captain America."

I figure that if a DM is going to go to the trouble of making his own world, they players owe it to him to not say "Screw you, I wanna ignore all the work you've done in favor of a character from some cheesy prepackaged fantasy world that I thought looked kewl, even if it doesn't tie in with your setting or the campaign at all."

J

 

BiggusGeekus

That's Latin for "cool"

• Apr 26, 2004

• #9

The shame of it is that under 3e there's far less wrong with a kender and thri-kreen hanging out in waterdeep than there ever was in 2e. Dark Sun characters would have wacky templates and nasty ECLs while the kender would be more-or-less balanced. In 2e a kender theif was better at his job than a halfling and you just plain didn't move Dark Sun guys off of Athas.

I keep a tight leash on my game from a DMs standpoint but anarchy rules for the players. For example, I say that half-orcs and half-elves are very rare and gnomes don't exist. So I don't ever make half-orc, half-elf, or gnome NPCs. But I allow the players to make whatever they want. A gnome werewolf? Sure! Why not?

There are many examples in fantasy and sci-fi of a character being the "last of his race" or "only one of her kind". And if that's the character someone wants to play, why stop them?

 

taotad

Explorer

• Apr 26, 2004

• #10

I like inclusion, but also seclusion.

Since I run Planescape all the way I really like the potpurri aspect of the setting and would't take that away for anything.

But keeping settings isolated in Planescape adds to the flavor. My group would never be allowed into Athas, but I would definatly have something from Athas leaking into PS just to provoke curiosity in the PC's.

Athas plays a fairly important role in my campaign, but only through its lore. Hunting for information on an isolated world makes for great frustration, but also great fun.