D&D General D&D, magic, and the mundane medieval

[jasper]

There’s also the other side of things that no one ever seems to take into account - the monsters.

So many monsters would radically change the world. Fire beetles are a renewable light source that cannot burn your house down.

Never minding flying mounts.

......

Dear Mr. Hussar,
On OCt 16, 2022 You did not have your Pegasus properly diapered when you over flew the fair grounds. You caused my Client Mr. Cotton Candy much distress due to your pet's illegal waste dump. Please pay 1,000 GP for pain, suffering, and clean up cost.
Also the local traffic court has been notified of your lapse in judgement.

 

[jasper]

And more of the "mundane" beasts should have changed to make use of the magical nature of the world. In a world where there are 9+ ways for humanoids to learn magic, why don't more animals find ways to use magic? Magical animals are going to outcompete mundane animals because of how useful magic is, so why haven't magical beasts become the dominant animals of the world? Where are the mutated beasts that have sorcerous magic? Why haven't Awakened Beasts used their superior intelligence to outcompete mundane beasts? Or used their sapience to become spellcasters (Clerics, Druids, Rangers, Warlocks, and even Wizards)? Can songbirds get bardic magic from singing? ....

And in 2033 the evil druid mage Levistus was finally hunted down by the few remaining humans.
Levistus, " I only wanted Mr. Muder Fluff to read and use the can opener with his thumbs. I didn't mean to change the whole race." His sentence was to sewn into a huge cat nip bag.

***
Okay in Icewind Dale with the Awaken Mammoth I did do the Mammoth mafia which would occasionally shake the adventurers down. But you bring up good pionts.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you don't mind going into it, how do you develop your settings?

It's my experience that the players aren't particularly interested in settings*. Worldbuilding is largely something DMs do to amuse themselves; it has little effect on the point of contact between players and the DM.


*My players do like spectacle. For that reason, they like Eberron: flying ships! Floating cities! They aren't particularly interested in politics, how society functions, or ancient lore. You start talking about that stuff and they zone out and then say something like "okay, where do we have to go, and who do we have to kill?" I guess if you have players with a particular interest is politics, sociology, or history it might be different. The point where I have had players quizzing me for more background than I have prepared is with regards to criminal investigation: "can I ascertain the time of death? Have there been any similar murders? What were their dates and locations?"

To what extent do you tailor your world-building to the interests of your players?

 

[Hussar]

It's my experience that the players aren't particularly interested in settings*. Worldbuilding is largely something DMs do to amuse themselves; it has little effect on the point of contact between players and the DM.


*My players do like spectacle. For that reason, they like Eberron: flying ships! Floating cities! They aren't particularly interested in politics, how society functions, or ancient lore. You start talking about that stuff and they zone out and then say something like "okay, where do we have to go, and who do we have to kill?" I guess if you have players with a particular interest is politics, sociology, or history it might be different. The point where I have had players quizzing me for more background than I have prepared is with regards to criminal investigation: "can I ascertain the time of death? Have there been any similar murders? What were their dates and locations?"

To what extent do you tailor your world-building to the interests of your players?

Yeah, I've largely come to that realization too. I tried to run Ghosts of Saltmarsh, so, I had a nice little primer for Keoland, only a few pages of history, plus a primer for the town of Saltmarsh itself. The players could not give the slightest foetid dingo's kidneys about it. They made characters that in no way touched on Greyhawk as a setting, had zero connection whatsoever to the town of Saltmarsh and didn't even bother to read the primer material.

After that point, I've just given up. Why bother? Why bother doing all this setting stuff and worry about it when the players could not possibly care less. Now, I just tell my players to tell me the setting details and I'll work those into the campaign. Outside of a couple of limitations due to the campaign I'm running, I am never going to do any world building again if I can possibly avoid it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Glad it's not just me! I think world building is something you do for your own amusement, not for the players. And I feel I've done that and am happy to pull something off the peg these days.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I've largely come to that realization too. I tried to run Ghosts of Saltmarsh, so, I had a nice little primer for Keoland, only a few pages of history, plus a primer for the town of Saltmarsh itself. The players could not give the slightest foetid dingo's kidneys about it. They made characters that in no way touched on Greyhawk as a setting, had zero connection whatsoever to the town of Saltmarsh and didn't even bother to read the primer material.

After that point, I've just given up. Why bother? Why bother doing all this setting stuff and worry about it when the players could not possibly care less. Now, I just tell my players to tell me the setting details and I'll work those into the campaign. Outside of a couple of limitations due to the campaign I'm running, I am never going to do any world building again if I can possibly avoid it.

I do it because worldbuilding is the most fun part for me, and because my players want everyone to have fun, not just themselves, they indulge me and even appreciate the effort I put in.

 

[MGibster]

It's my experience that the players aren't particularly interested in settings*. Worldbuilding is largely something DMs do to amuse themselves; it has little effect on the point of contact between players and the DM.

That's largely been my experience as well. A few of my players are an execption, I have one that will devour setting material like crazy if it interests her, but for the most part, my players aren't going to dig too deeply into a setting they aren't already interested in. Whenever I get nostalgic about all the splat books available for various games during the 1990s, I realize how little a lot of that material made it into my games. They were fun to read though.

 

[MGibster]

I do it because worldbuilding is the most fun part for me, and because my players want everyone to have fun, not just themselves, they indulge me and even appreciate the effort I put in.

There are many positives to having a detailed setting. As a DM, a little detail can be good fodder for adventure ideas or help me add a touch of atmosphere to the game. While I favor a more utilitarian approach to world design, I certainly see the appeal of world building for the sake of world building.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It's my experience that the players aren't particularly interested in settings*. Worldbuilding is largely something DMs do to amuse themselves; it has little effect on the point of contact between players and the DM.

To what extent do you tailor your world-building to the interests of your players?

Completely- why else have a world? I strive to make the setting coherent, you're not going to find an arctic culture in the tropics. You might find culturally arctic merchants in a tropical port, however. Aspects are determined ahead of time; who lives where, Ophir has the gold, the Equon penninsula is reminescent of India, &c. But if someone has a real interest in Ioun stones and wants to find some, I know where they are. If someone is a third child of a noble, here's a list of possible parentage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Completely- why else have a world? I strive to make the setting coherent, you're not going to find an arctic culture in the tropics.

i agree there is some amount of coherent sense that must be made, but just a flat 'no orcs' that has no why doesn't pass that to me