So Why Restrict Yourself To Only One Game Setting?

[fba827]

This topic reminds me of (the original 80's) He-Man cartoon.
You had the world, but as part of that, Castle Greyskull (which was a prominent feature location in itself) had portals within it that led to many other worlds.

The adventures of the series mainly focused on "the He-man" world. But it did allow for single-episode side trek adventures off world. But, bottom line, they needed the main setting to be the focus to allow the baseline flavor... that way when they went to the other worlds and saw "wierd things" there was a sense of wierdness each time it happened, rather than just "oh, this new thing...again..."

But, yes, it can work. Just a matter of what your group is looking for.

 

[BenBrown]

My group doesn't restrict itself to a single setting. However, when we switch settings, we usually switch GMs and often game systems. Characters remain attached to their worlds, GMs get to plan in depth, and we don't get system burnout. Everybody wins!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why should a group restrict themselves to one world setting?

I don't think a group necessarily should. When you get together with your buddies to play D&D, you probably should play in a diverse assortment of settings. FR this week, Dark Sun next week, Eberron in Joe's game until the end of the year, when he'll run a homebrew steampunk setting, whatever. Maye you come back to FR with the same group you've been running for years, maybe you run Dark Sun in a more "episodic" format with a flexible group. Whatever. Multiple games!

I do think characters, or the party interact with the concept in a different way. I don't always think that a cross-planar campaign is a good idea. Sometimes, you want focus, and isolation, and local events. In that case, it depends on what your particular game is looking for.

But I do think gaming groups are only improved by seeing both types of games.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Except that in chess, you can decide on a move with no more information than the current state of the board. How can you roleplay when you're not there for the DM's description and the interactions of the other PCs?

I don't know how he does it; I'm not that brilliant.

But I do think gaming groups are only improved by seeing both types of games.

Good point. If the new system is better, you should become a better gamer by experiencing it. If the new system is worse, you appreciate just how good you had it--and didn't necessarily realize it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Why should a group restrict themselves to one world setting?

I generally prefer that a character party be "restricted" to one game setting (or fictional setting, or "real++" setting, etc.) A group, though? Yes or no; it doesn't worry me. Although, too much flipping around between however many settings could be rather irritating, I imagine. Luckily, that hasn't been an issue anyway.

 

[the Jester]

Nothing wrong with that approach. However, it's not for me.

Why?

Well- I like developing a campaign world. And the more time pcs spend in one area, the better they know it and the better developed it becomes.

A party that wanders from world to world seems likely to see a lot of different surface but not much real depth.

 

[fanboy2000]

In 3.x the "default" was that the Plane of Shadow had portal to alternate prime material planes.

I used this once to send my players to Faerûn because one of my players wanted the a familiar from the Monsters of Faerûn book. (I told him if he wanted it, he'd have to go there and get it himself.)

 

[N0Man]

Why not? There's several reasons. I think the most basic...

Well, I'll use an analogy - the color wheel. You can have a color. You can mix a couple of colors together, and make new colors. But if you mix too many together, what do you get? And even, uninteresting brown.

Or, a culinary analogy - if you go to your spice cabinet, and toss every single spice or herb you have into a dish, it isn't likely to come out tasting very good.

Each game world has its own themes and styles. If you toss them all together, though, you don't get the full benefit of any of them, and you can't really explore any of them very deeply. The whole tend to lose coherence, and can end up more than a little silly.

I am going to have to disagree with this being universal. Now, I certainly am in favor of deeply exploring a rich setting, however there's room for different approaches as well.

The problem with your color and culinary analogies is that it's not really being suggested that someone mix everything up all at once, but rather enjoying samplings. A closer culinary analogy might be a buffet or a giant sampler platter.

This kind of story structure certainly worked for shows like Star Trek, Sliders, Stargate SG-1, and others. Each of these often explored the idea of adventures and stories based in very different worlds (cultures, environments, problems, etc). Also, my understanding is the game Rifts employed similar ideas.

Now, this may not be for everyone, and certainly not all the time, but I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with it. It's not even my style of game, I just don't think it's universally "wrong".

 

[TheNovaLord]

cos you'd then be playing Rifts

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Why should a group restrict themselves to one world setting?

Because I don't need to change the entire SETTING in order to provide a wide variety of environments, cultures, societies, and NPC's for the characters to interact with.

Why not design something that allows the characters to be able to access different game worlds?

You mean like Planescape, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft which were mentioned - all designed specifically to enable PC's to hop from setting to setting, world to world? And what about specific instances of this sort of thing that have been introduced since the very dawn of the game? The Comeback Inn of the Blackmoor setting? The doors to other worlds in the web of module Q1? The Portals adventures from Judges Guild?

And why would I even need any of those? The basic construction of the cosmology of D&D gives me the ability to send the PC's tripping across the Astral Plane, the Ethereal, any flavor of hells or paradises that I care to dream up, flying to the moon, the stars, the sun, alternate realities and mucking through the conduits of time travel itself - and I can send them there by spell, magic item, ancient curse or artifact, or falling down a rabbit hole!

I can access different game worlds, I have done so in the past, and will be able to do so in the future at the drop of a hat. All ANYONE needs to do so is the desire. But you know what? I don't desire it all that strongly or frequently. A standard generic fantasy world has worked just fine for myself and those I game with for over 30 years, whether it be Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Wilderlands, or any of a dozen home-brewed generic settings I've created. All that time gaming and I STILL have ideas for characters I want to run that do not need or want more than a generic fantasy environment - and NONE of them require rules more modern or complex than 1st Edition AD&D.

Might as well ask why people still make and watch ordinary westerns when there are so many other ficitonal settings and genres they could immerse themselves in.