Campaign Setting - Pet Peeves

[Fallen Seraph]

Taken from the thread on WoTC D&D General Forum, I thought this could be a interesting thread. We all have likes and dislikes for settings, so what are some of the Pet Peeves that annoy you. Can be official settings, homebrew, whatever.

For myself:

1) Catch all Setting:

This is most apparent with magic. I personally dislike settings where everything and the kitchen-sink is thrown into it with no interconnection or relation to eachother. I prefer settings where in general there is some theme or pattern to it.

FR is the epitome of this Catch all Setting.

2) Elemental Magic is Most Abundant:

This has been a rant in my head for a very long time, but where magic (especially Arcane) is almost completely based around elemental magic, fireballs, frost, etc. Why don't we see more Spirit-magic, Sigil-magic, Blood-magic, etc, etc.

3) The Setting never Goes Beyond 14th Century:

I have always enjoyed settings that integrate technology into their settings or set in different time-periods. So I always disliked how no matter how long the setting lasts technology won't improve. I like my settings where knights charge firing revolvers.

4) Magic is the Be All End All:

Always disliked settings where basically everything powerful or important is magic based. I like it where simply normal martial abilities, technology, ingenuity, etc. is as important or more important then magic.

5) Black vs. White:

Nothing is ever black and white, so why should a setting be so? Hell even in my settings with alignment-based gods it is quite likely for a Lawful Good god to commit genocide if it sees it as fitting his pantheon.

6) Europe and Only Europe:

Only using the ideal Medieval Europe as a setting, you can have some of that. But why don't we see settings grounded instead in say Voodoo-Louisiana or Hindu-India.

 

[justanobody]

I think your #3 is the root to most of the other ones. It is definately connected directly to #6.

Settings are up to the group and the DM. The most people want to play something they are familiar with and can interact with. Most people have heard of the druid Merlin and King Arthur so know what to expect without having to learn EVERYTHING from scratch.

Also with technology and elemental magic they go hand in hand against each other as people have been taught.

The beliefs of magic and such went away as technology grew in real world history. This is what people know, and can easily accept.

There is nothing stopping anyone from creating something else, except that in order to market it requires there to be a massive interest in the style. those wanting something outside of #3 and #6 often look other places than D&D for them, as they are ready made for you.

Also with #6 you would be designing new systems for "majicks" outside of that depicted in #3.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Oh I know, lol, but that is why I homebrew my D&D settings If you have seen any of my posts about my settings they are far from traditional D&D, hehe.

I dunno if you would necessarly have to design completely new "systems" for magic outside of 3. As we have seen with 4e it can work quite well having one universal system, it be more the actual spells/effects (fair amount would be the initial fluff too (which obviously plays a more important role when your talking not about the system but about the setting)) that would be different. As well as Rituals (obviously works perfectly for things like Voodoo Rituals).

But... Don't want to delve into this too much, more want to see more of what Pet Peeves when it comes to Settings people have.

 

[justanobody]

-How about this one realted to #1. All races will be found for players to choose from.

That makes most settings just rip-offs of a generic setting where one world may not have a race. Say maybe a world/universe without dwarves. (I hated squats!)

-Another why are settings so advanced? Why not more primitive settings that come before human-centric times? Why even have humans yet at all? (see above)

-Why not a planet of only one race? All dwarves!

Why the need to conform to LotR racial integration and balance?

 

[Cryptos]

The Europe centric settings can sometimes seem repetitive, but really, I've tried Arabian-themed settings and dabbled with Far East elements, and found that working in a D&D-style fantasy genre inevitably leads to European flavor regardless of where you try to place it.

I think it's partially because if you want a full range of choices for characters, you need to introduce a certain cosmopolitan flavor that lends itself to European-style fantasy. Europe has seen so many cultures and so much history, affected so many other cultures, and is somewhat vaguely defined in terms of how far it extends geographically, that it's a natural fit when you have a bunch of playable races that have to live in the same land together.

You've got to provide the option of having the Elf coming from his culture to team up with the Dwarf coming from his culture, and so on... historically the best analog to this would be Europe. Whereas Europeans didn't (and don't) always get along, it's plausible that you might encounter a spaniard and a frenchman as you wander the Mediterranean, even if you're not in Spain or France. For Westerners it's harder to wrap your head around this in the context of the Africa, the Middle or Far East. True, there's been a lot of war in Europe, but in other parts of the world, the foreigner is almost always in an adversarial position... an outlander, an exploiter, an invader, etc. It may be stereotypical, but if you want the methodical, stoic, beer-loving "Germans" (dwarves) from the northlands to come down and hang out with the effette, nuanced French (elves), then Europe's your baseline. Other parts of the world... not so much. Unless, "You violate a social taboo, and local culture mandates that you are beheaded" is your idea of a good introductory adventure that creates party cohesion.

I've read literal translations of the Arabian Nights story ("A Thousand Nights and a Night" - how much more literal can you get?) and played in the Al-Qadim setting... honestly Al-Qadim (while cool) is like playing in an Arabian theme park somewhere in Europe in comparison.

Recently, I've been working off and on with a sort of 'compromise' setting that has turned out to be "quasi-Australian" (which I suppose becomes somewhat quasi-European for certain groups culturally) in that the current humans (and halflings) aren't native to the continent, and several generations ago they were dumped there by a European culture that decided to use an island near the continent as a prison colony, with some African and Near East elements in that there have been a lot of collapsed empires and failed civilizations there previously.

The best option, probably, is to throw off the historical and cultural contexts entirely, but the danger there is that the setting you create might seem totally alien and not be relatable, or that regardless of your efforts the players will seek to understand the setting in terms that they know, which brings back all the old historical and cultural analogies despite your best efforts. You also lose a lot of inspirational resources.

 

[Serendipity]

1. Lack of Origininality - granted it's hard to come up with a genuinely NEW idea, but that doesn't stop me from trying. One of the reasons 2e drove me off was FR. However, one of the reasons it took me so long to give up 2e was Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Planescape. YMMV. They are (or were at the time) DIFFERENT. I like different.

2. Celtic-ANYTHING (See previous. It's been done to bloody death already.) I get hives. Really. That whole "faerie europe" thing ....done to death. There are many other cultures on the planet. Kthx drive thru.

3. Faux-Europe in generally bores me to tears. Greyhawk gets grandfathered because it's where I started, but you know what? That was in 1981. I've seen vague fantasy europe done about two hundred million times since then. STOP IT.

4.. the Forgotten Realms. 'nuff said (Put me in that small category of folk who think the 4e realms books are golden.)

5. Unnecessary hand-holding. I understand that a modicum of family friendlyness is generally considered necessary in published gaming materials but it grates sometimes. I'm a thirty six year old woman - treat me like an adult just every now and then, mmkay? (One of the appeals of the stuff Paizo puts out is that, bluntly, it doesn't tone things down generally.)

6. Novel series. Just ugh. Finding out that a setting has an attached series of books is one of the fastest turnoffs there are to me.

7. The same five races, doing the same five things. Thrilling. Seriously, give me at the a thin patina of something that makes *your* elves, dwarves, etc. distinctive and different. Please.

Having said all of the above - things I like in a setting includes factoring the game rules into the world itself, renaisance, bronze age or o'erwise OTHER levels of cultural/technological development, gunpowder and settings based more on the author's imagination than some historical period on earth (to name a few).

 

[Imp]

Lots of canon.


Ooh let me edit that: Lots of canon is nice in settings I don't use, because I can muck around for material there for a different setting that can be bent more to my wishes.

 

[SKyOdin]

Asian settings that build the entire setting around specific concpets that are blown out of all proportion instead of basing the setting on actual historical asia.

In particular, I despise people taking concepts such as bushido and complex honor codes, as well as laws designed to enforce class differences, all of which were developed in eras of peace, and assuming that they applied in eras of chaos and warfare.

 

[El Mahdi]

Lots of canon.


Ooh let me edit that: Lots of canon is nice in settings I don't use, because I can muck around for material there for a different setting that can be bent more to my wishes.

Lots of cannon is also nice in Pirate games.

 

[yesnomu]

I agree with the Catch-all Setting thing. Eberron is the gold standard for me here, where everything is used in a way that supports the pulp action-movie theme.

My own pet peeves are the Always Chaotic Evil Races. The idea is just idiotic, and it's still the dominant D&D paradigm. It should never be acceptable to attack something on-sight, just because of its race. But you see a group of Orcs in a dungeon, and it's "$%^& parley! Roll initiative!" It really bothers me.