Campaign Setting - Pet Peeves

[SKyOdin]

I'm only saying that technology did not change hugely even in Europe between the dawn of the Iron Age and about AD 1400, ca 2500 years.

This is simply not true. Technological development was going on around the world all the time, even in Europe. For example, in the years leading up to 1000 AD, Europe experienced an agricultural revolution. Developments such as the iron plow and horse collar (imported from asia, actually) replaced technologically inferior Roman farming methods, leading to a massive increase in agricultural output across Europe.

An even bigger myth is that lands outside of Europe were unchanging. China was actually a land of constant change over its thousands of years of history. The Hand dynasty was very different from the Tang dynasty, and so on. Practically every Chinese dynasty has its own list of major inventions as well.

The problem is that people often overlook a whole host of categories of invention. People rarely talk about developments in engineering, agriculture, metallurgy, etc. as much as they like to fixate on sexier inventions like the compass or gunpowder. But these kinds of technological development are in many ways more important, and they were occurring throughout history, all around the world.

An excellent example of technological progress in Europe can be seen in architecture. Castles first began to dominate Europe in the 9th century, and changed radically as the Middle Ages progressed. Huge developments can also be seen in cathedrals, such as the development of Gothic architecture (which involved overcoming significant engineering challenges).

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Well, let me see how these apply to my own Urbis...

1) Catch all Setting:

Guilty. I have, indeed, taken my inspirations from pretty much everywhere - though I do hope that that the overall themes "March of Progress" and "Urban Civilization" do lessen the effect somewhat. And I've certainly tried to create interconnections between the different elements...

2) Elemental Magic is Most Abundant:

Well, I deliberately use the standard D&D 4E magic. On the other hand, spell magic, while most important for player characters, is less important for the setting as a whole - ritual magic (especially rituals for the creation of magic items) are much more important.

3) The Setting never Goes Beyond 14th Century:

Not guilty. I've based the setting on the 19th century, not the 14th - which has all sorts of interesting consequences.

4) Magic is the Be All End All:

Guilty. Possibly extremely so - I've got an industrial revolution based on magic...

5) Black vs. White:

Not guilty. I wanted to emphasize that overall social values are in a state of flux, with different people having different ideas of what constitutes a "good" society.

And the leader of the most war-mongering nation detailed is actually trying to avoid further wars for his nation - and if he got eliminated, he would probably be replaced by someone who is a lot worse...

6) Europe and Only Europe:

Guilty. I modeled the setting deliberately after 19th century Western Europe (together with some nearby areas) to make the stranger aspects of the world easier to deal with. There are analogs of other regions in the world, but they are not the main focus at the moment.

 

[S'mon]

I mention devolution above (and, yes, I'm aware that biological devolution is a fallacy). This is fine. It's still change.

Technically a species can't purely 'devolve', but in the case of a highly neotenous species (one that retains childlike characteristics into adulthood) like humans it can certainly evolve either increased or decreased neoteny, given the right environmental pressures, and this can happen in a relatively short period of time - probably in the tens of thousand of years range for a species with humans' generational length. So far-future 'ape men' are not scientifically impossible. It's likely that chimpanzees are less neotenous than the common chimp-human ancestor, since DNA evidence indicates a split around 4 million years ago, when fossil evidence indicates the presence of bipedal hominids. Qv 'The First Chimpanzee', John Gribbin co-author.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

OK, here are my pet peeves.

Lack of internal consistency

Others have mentioned this before, but it needs to be said again. If something strange exists in the world - a new source of magic, a new mundane resource, a new race or creature - then eventually people will get used to it, deal with it somehow, and possibly make a profit from it. If not, there needs to be an actual, logical reason for that.

Novelty for novelty's sake

Yes, elves and dwarves (and halflings and orcs and...) have become cliches. But they are cliches for a reason - they work, and the players will have at least some idea of their role in the world and how to interact with them or even play them.

So if you decide to discard the common tropes of fantasy and replace them with something else, make sure it will be worth it. Each new race will require a lot of new information and explanations that the players will need to hear before they can play them. The same goes for every other major change from the standard assumptions of fantasy. I'm not telling you not to make any such changes - but be sure to think in advance what these changes are supposed to achieve, and consider the limited amount of time any

Done right, they will make the setting more interesting. Done wrong, and you will have a setting with even less originality than you started with.

 

[Ktulu]

I have a few pet-peeves that have appeared over the years of gaming:

1. Magical Terrain for no reason - I'm all for waterfalls that flow upward, or mystical forrests of cool. However, when something (Double-plateau in Thay) exists and then is handwaved with magic as the explanation, that irritates me. Pick one or the other. Don't just make a clear mistake with geography and explain it as magic. Give a reason for the magical terrain.

2. Monotheistic races in Polytheistic worlds - 4e definitely addressed this by moving the races only gods into a more active role, but it has long been an issue in most multi-race campaigns. Humans would have 4-5 gods and the races would each revere one god of their race. It was very...kludgy.

 

[Voadam]

Two peeves jump to mind

Crude Silliness: Pirate's Guide to Freeport has a religious group called The Maker's of Yellow. I was not amused.

Big events with lame causes: A barbarian horde army invaded their way to Ptolus' empire's capital city and then immediately left after conquering the city. When asked why they invaded the barbarian king was quoted as saying "Because I could". No indication that they came all that way to steal one specific artefact, or that the leader was enspelled after conquering the city and dominated into ordering the army out, or a Wheel of Time rip off of coming to kill a specific king with no desire to conquer, or anything cool like that. Just chaotic militant barbarians under a king wanting to show they are tough.

 

[The_Gneech]

Does "that it keeps getting blown up by its parent company" count?

Although it's kinda hard to think of a major setting that doesn't do this at least a little. Times change and "universe reboots" are probably inevitable. Some settings seem a lot more prone to them than others, tho.

-The Gneech

 

[JVisgaitis]

Done wrong, and you will have a setting with even less originality than you started with.

I agree with you up to this point. If you create something totally new and don't explain it right, how does it all of a sudden become less original then just using a standard race?

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Well, FWIW... this is more toward game systems than settings, but in some cases, system & setting go hand in hand.

• "Realistic" Games/Game Systems: This is a big pet peeve of mine, because more often than not, when I've encountered arguments for realism, it's primarily when adhering to realism would provide some sort of in-game benefit to the player. Also, conceived notions of what's "realistic" vs. what's genuinely realistic come into conflict here as well (drawing upon a mix of hard evidence, anecdotal evidence, faulty examples, etc.). IMO, trying to emphasize "realism" in a game with obviously fantastic/unreal elements in it is laughable at best, and highly irritating at worst. On a related note, this also includes "grim-n-gritty/grey morality" games as well—IME, quite a few players who've advocated this tended to play technically-not-evil Chaotic Neutral characters who want to cause havok/do whatever they want & not be penalized for it in game based on Alignment reasons. (And, IME, a fair number of these players liked to play the tough guy loner individualist sorts, as well. IME, this often = "have fun at the expense of others".)
• Very Offbeat Settings: Where I can see the appeal of these for a one-night game or something short-term, I really can't stand a lot of the more offbeat settings, IMO (ala Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Planescape). I think a multidimensional approach for a D&D setting would've been OK, but I didn't care for the use of the existing Great Wheel cosmology for it: it seemed like trying to shoehorn the D&D cosmology into a Myth Adventures-like game (the weird slang and other elements from it reeked of the `90's "trenchcoat & katana" style that permeated a lot of `90's gaming products). Didn't care for the psionic-heavy post-apocalyptic approach of Dark Sun, either. OTOH, I think that Eberron, which could fall into this category, works quite well.
• Pseudo-Earth Settings: Whether it's the Forgotten Realms (esp. pre-4e version) or Warhammer's core setting, the near-Earth-analogs are just as bothersome to me as the very offbeat settings. I'd rather just go with a Fantasy Earth (literally) setting rather than a Fantasy Earth analog.
• Canon-Heavy Settings (with a caveat): I dislike canon-heavy settings (like FR) only for one main reason—the overly-informed fan base, primarily for the potential of conflict/player knowledge that creeps in during the game (so & so wouldn't do that, because in novel X..., etc.). It's a real pain at times, and something that I've had negative experiences with before. It's been really problematic when said players want to play something featured in a novel or the like which, for a novel/plot element, works out as intended, but for a game element/mechanic, is ridiculously broken/imbalanced. Also due to the experience of some players wanting to play a specific character from said setting (or a near-copy of said character) and their inevitable disappointment because things don't pan out in the game as they did in the novel/video game/etc. (because of character level, dice rolls, etc.).

Those are the big pet peeves for me. FR fell into many of the above categories, IMO. Star Wars (a game I've played & run) is a big offender in relation to the last point, but I try to preface my games be saying "this is what I work with—take it or leave it". While drawing upon real-world elements can work in some instances, I prefer a more generic end product than an exacting replica (e.g., a pseudo-Asian style culture that's an amalgam of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, & other such cultures, rather than having a near-exact copy of each nation/culture for a campaign; same goes for Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Americas, or other general regions).

But, that's just my outlook/opinion on the matter.