How do you like your published settings? Static or evolving? And through what medium?

[Umbran]

I am not, in general, looking to follow a campaign setting with its changes over extended periods of time.

Traditionally, campaign-world changes come with game edition changes. I haven't changed edition ruleset mid-campaign in... decades, I think? And I don't generally follow one campaign with another using the same ruleset, much less the same setting. So, this is really a non-issue for me.

But, once I have picked a setting, I am unlikely to accept published changes into my game unless they:
1) Come from published adventure materials I choose to use, or
2) Are notably more interesting than what I had planned already.

 

[MNblockhead]

Don't really care. All settings become my group's setting at our table and evolves based on what we do. Additional "official" material for that setting will be incorporated--or not--in whatever way makes sense our game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Mostly static. I don't mind some changes, but detest heavy metaplot. If I am running a group and the Metaplot diverges severely (or the setting has a "big secret" that aren't published until years later that changes the tone (Brave new World, looking at you here)) then either the game must be changed or the usefulness of later books is lessened.

What happened with Brave New World? I am only tangentially familiar with the setting.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

What happened with Brave New World? I am only tangentially familiar with the setting.

The initial idea was a dystopian superhero setting. Kennedy survived the assassination, and the appearance of super powered individuals made all sorta of issues that caused a fascist state in the US. Some High powered supers also disappeared in the mid 70s.
Later it was revealed (to GMs) that Kennedy died, and that he was replaced by a shapeshifter, who liked the power of the position. (this one works as a good plot twist... )

Later is was revealed that superpowers came from being descendants of supernatural entities (including ancient gods and angels and devils.. which were actually chased off earth by other powers). And that the existence of the high powered supers was destroying the earth - this came from interdimensional police.

Some of this actually was never published, the line died, but the author posted where it was going.

So a few major tonal shifts.

 

[Mercule]

Mostly static. I don't mind some changes, but detest heavy metaplot.

I would say this is where I stand, as well. I'd rather have Eberron-level stasis than the original WoD metaplot. After 15 years, I could see advancing the Eberron timeline a bit, but then I think of how Greyhawk Wars and From the Ashes split that fan base and think it's probably best left alone.

I've used Eberron a bit, but most of my gaming has been in custom settings. With the Wayfarer's Guide, I'm thinking that it might be time to finally settle into Eberron for a while. My plan is to start in 998 YK and let the PCs advance the timeline by their actions. I may run the early levels of later campaigns with some temporal overlap, but I'm eventually going to have to have age claim some notable folks, etc. (assuming the PCs don't break things, first). That should be interesting.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Static, 98% with about 2% Non-Static.

I want to be able to look at a campaign setting, pick some location/area that interests me, and say "All right. All five of you awaken to the sounds of the morning kitchen staff and early-risers downstairs having what smells like a wonderful breakfast...". That is when the "timeline" starts. If we play in that same campaign "timeline" for two or three years (real time), and in that time 20 years campaign-time has passed...I don't want my games events to have to over-ride what is in official books any more than I have to. I also don't want players, and others I'm talking with online for example, to make assumptions that I'm using the "latest meta-plot events" and then start trying to point out why X would never happen or that I did Y wrong or that Z would have completely messed up the "official meta-plot".

IMNSHO, that last point... about talking to others... is the *biggest* grief I get and one that sucks the fun out of talking to other DM's who do follow the 'official meta-plot/timeline'. It breaks apart the community. It divides the DM's and the players into different camps, so to speak. This is a BAD thing. It's bad because, well, it's divisive, and it's bad because I've often felt that I was being talked down to or otherwise ignored or brushed off as "Oh, don't bother with him...his campaign is stupid" simply because my game doesn't follow what is "official". And, because my name isn't on the book they are reading, the assumption that my decisions and game is inferior simply because of that.

*WARNING! Old-Grognard Rambling Below!!!*

Back in ye olden days of yore (pre-90's...well, maybe pre-mid-90's), DM's each had their own "Campaigns". This was a game setting and bunch of rules (house or otherwise) that gave each and every DM's game a different feel. It was easy to find the "munchkins", as they were called in those days. When someone says "I have a Half-Demon Paladin/Magic-User/Assassin who's level 45/42/30!"...munchkin. But when you were talking with a non-munchkinized group...there was never, to my recollection, any sense of "your campaign is doing it wrong". Rules differences? Sure! Play preferences? Sure! But there was never "Oh, you're not using the official updated timeline of X, Y or Z. Your opinions don't matter anymore".

Yeah yeah, I'm old. I get that. I like what I like and am not likely to change anytime soon. I'm cool with that. But one of the things I'm not cool with, and haven't been cool with, is having me and my groups campaign "looked down on" because we do our own thing and have our own timeline. This sort of "othering" has only become a noticeable thing (since about the mid 2k's). It's a problem for those who DON'T use official "stuff" because of the aforementioned "division" between what is out, published, officially...and home-campaigns. Someone asking "What's the best way to X?" will get answers that just assume certain OPTIONAL rules, or assume certain campaign happenings (for the non-static game world). Then someone replies without referencing those and suddenly we have "You can't do that because..." or "That wouldn't work do to..." referencing said OPTIONS or world-timeline-advancement. The end result...confusion at best, name-calling at worst.

Ahem. I'm done now.

IMHO, Static is the best way to go. If a company/person wants to officially advance their campaign world and publish an update (ex: World of Greyhawk // From the Ashes), that's fine. Because, at least with Greyhawkers, it's easy to say "That wouldn't work because of X, if you are using FtA; if you are using GH base, then you're fine"). Two DIFFERENT timelines. But with FR, you have to distinguish how many world-changing events? There was that Spellplague thing, the AO god-war thingamajig, wasn't there something else to do with that "Azure Bonds" adventure? The list goes on and on for FR. One of the reasons we don't like it, overall, and if/when we do play in FR it's core Grey-Box Set only.

Bottom Line: Static is the best practice for D&D campaign settings. IMNSHO.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Gradine]

As a huge fan of Eberron I'm going to have say that I prefer my published campaigns to be... non-static.

Well, kind of. It all depends on how you want to define "stasis" and "non-static". I think it would be more accurate to say that I enjoy settings with multiple static timelines (for example, most Star Wars RPGs). I'm not fundamentally opposed to meta-plots, but they're hard to pull off even marginally okay, let alone good or great, and they're never going to please anyone.

Basically, I'd like to see an update to some of my favorite campaign settings, but I'd prefer not to be told how the setting got there, because I think that's where setting updates tend to run into the biggest problems. I get that the overlap between "setting fan" and "setting canon lore nerd" is pretty huge, but realize that most lore nerds are almost always disappointed by the answers to mysteries. Let each DM and each table figure out how the Realms changed so drastically as to mark the transition towards (or away from) 5e; you don't need to spell out why because enough people are going to hate the answer you chose that it's basically a losing proposition from the start.

The main trick is to never promise, explicitly or implicitly, that you're going to reveal the answers. Make it very clear there will never be a canon answer. Things are just different now; let your own table explore the reasons why. Once you even hint that you might have a canon answer people will expect to hear it someday, and they will either hate the answer you give them, or they'll hate you if you give a non-answer. This is what I like to call Catch 4-8-15-16-23-42.

 

[gamerprinter]

How do I like "MY" published settings is how I read that, because (a) I published a setting for Pathfinder, and (b) I don't use any edition's published setting (never used Greyhawk, Mystara, Ravenloft, Cerelia, Forgotten Realms, Golarion, and now not using the Pact Worlds). How is it evolving? Well I'm currently updating the Kaidan setting from dark fantasy Japan analog, to dark science fantasy as an interstellar empire - it's changing in genre, location, and technology. Well initially this is being done as a conversion, rewrite with massive new content, though it is the same setting 2000 years later and moved on into the stars. Being that I only have the budget to write and publish main setting guides - I don't have the accumen nor resources to get novels, short stories, nor other mass media means of telling that story. I do so in bits n' pieces, as part of one-shots and modules I write and publish for my settings.

Generally speaking, however, I want my settings to evolve, nothing is ever static, even in a Japan-like world fighting to maintain the status quo, it just cannot be maintained. Change is inevitable.

 

[Shasarak]

IMNSHO, that last point... about talking to others... is the *biggest* grief I get and one that sucks the fun out of talking to other DM's who do follow the 'official meta-plot/timeline'. It breaks apart the community. It divides the DM's and the players into different camps, so to speak. This is a BAD thing. It's bad because, well, it's divisive, and it's bad because I've often felt that I was being talked down to or otherwise ignored or brushed off as "Oh, don't bother with him...his campaign is stupid" simply because my game doesn't follow what is "official". And, because my name isn't on the book they are reading, the assumption that my decisions and game is inferior simply because of that.

Of course two different DMs are going to have two different games. It does not even matter if they are using the same setting book.

My guess it that games just follow Sturgeon's law and people think that a campaign is stupid because it is a stupid campaign.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Of course two different DMs are going to have two different games. It does not even matter if they are using the same setting book.

My guess it that games just follow Sturgeon's law and people think that a campaign is stupid because it is a stupid campaign.

Entirely possible. But, IME, people who slavishly follow a published campaign world (ex: Forgotten Realms) that 'advances the timeline' as novels, adventures, supplements, etc get published are more likely to poo-poo anyone who has a FR campaign that doesn't follow that meta-story. This is true for many hobbies, so it's more of a human thing than specific to fantasy settings for D&D, which is why I touched on the whole "divided community" thing. Looking at Star Wars, for example, fans have to accept the movies. All of them. They don't have to like them, and arguments of epic proportions can be found all around the net and elsewhere. But nobody can really say "Well, in MY Star Wars movie..."...because that's not how movies work. With a RPG setting/world/campaign, however, that is not true. When a company tries to market/make their "FRPG Campaign Setting" follow the same business model as a book/movie franchise...well...just look at the hot mess that FR was in for YEARS. Just about ever major upheaval in FR has been met with savage clashes of raving nerd-armies. To this very day we STILL see heated battles about this, that, or the other thing in regards to "which FR age is best/worst". Why? Again, IMNSHO, this is because TSR decided that a "living campaign" (re: advancing story line) was a GREAT idea! Publish novels and have things in those novels affect the RPG line. Publish video games and have stuff in there affect the RPG line. It's BRILLIANT! Can't fail! People who want the "whole FR experience" will buy the RPG stuff, the novels, and anything else...because it's all tied together and ever-advancing! We'll be millionaires!

Well, that's what happens when you hire kids out of college who have nothing but business or marketing degrees under their belt and no actual experience with role-playing games. LOL! (OK, that's probably not what actually happened...but it sure as heckfire felt​ like it to me).

So that was my point. That an ever progressing "meta plot" in a movie, novel series, video game series, and stuff like that work wonders! Trying to add that into an RPG setting...asking for pain, suffering and tears. When watching a TV series, say, Game of Thrones or The Expanse...people enjoy it because they can see the story unfolding. They can see the sub-plots forming and resolving. And they can see how all the characters change and develop throughout these trials and tribulations. Business/Marketing folk don't understand that in an RPG, it's the PLAYERS that do all that...not the company. I don't think business/marketing folk like this. I'd bet they get the cold sweats at night just thinking about the fact that they don't have control over the actual direction or popularity of a game/setting. That, effectively, their careers are in the hands of geeky adults who like to sit around a table and play make believe with other adults.

^_^

Paul L. Ming