Destroy my campaign world

[Lord of Wyrmsholt]

The recent posts about preferences for different published campaign worlds (I've always been a bit of a homebrew guy) has me pondering an idea that I've been kicking around for a long time now.

Much of the best fantasy has the main characters fundamentally altering the worlds they live in (Lord of the Rings probably being the most well known). So why not the same for D&D?

For me, the most successful 'disposable' campaign worlds will have a very distinctive characteristic with the pinnacle of the campaign being the defeat of whatever is responsible for this characteristic (whether or not it directly involves a final battle with an overall evil). I actually think of the War of the Burning Sky as one of these types of campaign worlds (or at least that's how I'd use it) and were I to use Dark Sun or Ravenloft, it would be with the goal of the PCs to 'fix' those worlds (or at least one of the demi-planes in Ravenloft) as well.

A few examples:

1. A world ruled by the undead whose entire existence is dependent upon an opened portal. The PC's role is to simply close the portal. [My notes on this world suggest that the portal was opened by an empire that worshipped the dead, much like the ancient Egyptians, and that the effect of the open portal was that all of the dead came back to unlife. The long dead, such as venerated kings, wizards, and the like, were intelligent; the recently and newly deceased always come back as unintelligent undead.]

2. A world of comprised entirely of a sea of magma over which great flying vessels and fortresses war. The PC's role is to locate and use the fabled artifact version of the decanter of endless water to cool and solidify the ground.

3. A world of isolated mountain tops separated by a toxic fog from which come monsters that can survive in both normal air and the fog. The PC's role is to eliminate both the fog and the monsters by sealing off the planar gate through which both come. [My notes involve both griffon-riding cavalry, capitol cities in the clouds, and great dwarven mines that have been lost when earthquakes opened up shafts that reached deep into the mountains below the fog-line.]


These sorts of worlds only need to be as detailed as necessary for the progression to the final encounter and then you move on to another one. Given the length of time that single campaigns take to run (especially now that many of us have real jobs), I don't think there is such a need for any permanence to the campaign world.

 

[Starfox]

I love this theme. Many, many of my campaign worlds have been fundamentally changed by the games played in them. But it has to be a reasonably long game, and the players have to have a reasonable amount of warning and ability to lead the change, or it can backfire and lead to alienation instead of a sense of wonder.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Cool campaign ideas there. I'd enjoy any of them. In fact, have an XP.

One point I'd like to bring up is that some times (most of the time really) I like to play games where there are no 'one big evil thing' to deal with, defeat, etc. Some times I just want to be a caravan guard stomping along behind the wagons looking forward to reaching the next town getting a cold beer and not having to look out for bandits. And for this sort of game campaign changing events are not welcome. Erm, perhaps I should say 'campaign-world changing events' are not welcome. I'd like the world to stay roughly the same. A monarch may fall or tribe rise up but the fundamentals (let's call it the campaign's premise) stay much the same.

Now please note: I said what I like. Different strokes for different folks and all that. I reckon most of the gamers I've met over the years love a good save the world moment. The thing is once the world is saved it's time for a new camapign. This is a good thing or a bad thing depending on personal preference.

One thing I do hate though is when, after the world is saved and the original premise is met, along comes a new, bigger, badder menace. "If you thought X was a BBEG, meet Y." It smacks of jumping the shark, if you'll pardon my internet meme.

I think this is one of the problemsI have with big changes to published campaigns. They jump the shark. Some of them jump many sharks.

cheers.

 

[Lord of Wyrmsholt]

Cool campaign ideas there. I'd enjoy any of them. In fact, have an XP.

One point I'd like to bring up is that some times (most of the time really) I like to play games where there are no 'one big evil thing' to deal with, defeat, etc. Some times I just want to be a caravan guard stomping along behind the wagons looking forward to reaching the next town getting a cold beer and not having to look out for bandits. And for this sort of game campaign changing events are not welcome. Erm, perhaps I should say 'campaign-world changing events' are not welcome. I'd like the world to stay roughly the same. A monarch may fall or tribe rise up but the fundamentals (let's call it the campaign's premise) stay much the same.

Thanks! And I don't think that we disagree so much. I personally find that I have warm fuzzy feeling about playing PCs between levels 3 and 12. It's just that when I do world-shaking things, I want my worlds to shake.

One thing I do hate though is when, after the world is saved and the original premise is met, along comes a new, bigger, badder menace. "If you thought X was a BBEG, meet Y." It smacks of jumping the shark, if you'll pardon my internet meme.

I think this is one of the problemsI have with big changes to published campaigns. They jump the shark. Some of them jump many sharks.

This is a great way of putting it (the X and Y bit). Frequently, when PCs deal with X, they prevent X from doing anything world changing (to keep the campaign world stable and ready for Y), they end up doing a lot of work to maintain the status quo. This is, to me at least, just as frustrating as many episodic TV series that you know must restore the 'setting' to the way it was at the beginning of the episode (Star Trek, I'm looking at you). I don't want the BBEGs to be the only agents of change in the world. I want to feel like my PCs operate in a living breathing world and that their efforts make a difference.

The following is slightly off-topic, but in my mind is directly related to my enthusiasm about 'disposable' settings:

In one of my long-term campaigns with high level PCs (run by Marius Delphus), my character (a baron) was responding to the collapse of the empire along with wars of succession and invasion of the 'elven undead' (which may not sound so scary until you realize that an entire party of 25+ level PCs was forced to retreat within a cube of force at one point--I still have chills about the resulting discussion 'well we're safe now, but we can't stay here'). In this situation, my PC had many options about what he could have chosen: establish his own empire, join the rebellion, or stay loyal. He did, in fact, stay loyal to the collapsing empire, but that had more to do with who this PC was (any other act would run counter to many, many real-life years of precedent) than with a lack of options.

I, as a player, had a choice, and my choice was very important in shaping the campaign and the campaign world that came next. This is both a tribute to Marius Delphus's skill (he knew what I like in my campaign) and was one of my favorite D&D moments (even better than beating a tarrasque in single combat).

 

[jbear]

I actively try and set up situations for my PCs whereby their decisions, often leading to a quick easy reward, have far reaching consequences on the world they live in. I like for them to see with their own eyes that the world is dynamic, cities can rise and fall, empires can crumble into dust, shady rogues that they have aided them on adventurers can replace the tyrant they have overthrown and wreak far worse injustice upon those they had thought they had freed. Sure, their efforts make a difference, but hell, so do their selfish blunders.

So far the PCs have made a pact with Zehir after forcing his rebellious son out the temple he was attempting to manifest in. They even helped him raise back to life a portion of the dead goddess Mystra, who blindly believes everything her 'Father' Zehir tells or asks of her. She has the mind of a newly born child.

They did agree to help because he convinced them he was going to fight an evil far greater than himself that the gods of good were blind to, as only those who live in the darkness see what moves in the darkness. He did confess his motivations were selfish, as this evil was also a threat to him. What he did not confess was that he would use every action they are to make at his bidding to his own advantage, and certainly not for 'the greater good'.

Soon they will meet with the man they have long searched for and probably join him in the battle he is involved in against an evil he personally unleashed upon the world. While they search for him that very same evil is corrupting the town from which they left to go and find him. When they get back its going to be quite a different place. Also this man will constantly complain about his head splitting migraines. If the PCs investigate the source of these migraines they will discover he has some kind of crystal lodged in his head. If they remove it, well then he will get his memory back and cease to fight against the evil he is responsable for, he will be Strahd Von Zarovich once again, returned to his full evil glory. Of course he'll be too smart to give that change away to the PCs, they will realise that later on, when they can see what that act truly caused.

I like big bad baddies, I like plots within plots within plots, with twists at every turn. I like for the heroes to be heroic, to be involved in extroadinary stories and do memorable things. I also like to mess with them! I'd find a story about caravan guards mind-numbingly boring, but hey that's just my preference.

And certainly if the campaign world is going to be destroyed, well I want my PCs to have a chance to stop that. If they fail, well I want them to suffer while they watch what their failure has resulted in.

 

[Rel]

3. A world of isolated mountain tops separated by a toxic fog from which come monsters that can survive in both normal air and the fog. The PC's role is to eliminate both the fog and the monsters by sealing off the planar gate through which both come. [My notes involve both griffon-riding cavalry, capitol cities in the clouds, and great dwarven mines that have been lost when earthquakes opened up shafts that reached deep into the mountains below the fog-line.]

This WAS my last campaign world!

I had decided that I wanted a "points of light" game for my first 4e campaign and opted to be rather literal about it. I liked the idea of a post-apocalyptic fantasy world. But I didn't want to do a game about the immediate aftermath of the apocalypse. Instead I went for how the world had stabilized after such an event.

Interestingly, the one decision I made at the outset was that the only thing I didn't want the campaign to be about was getting rid of the "Mist". I told the players up front that I could see using this campaign setting again later (which is rare for me) so that's the one thing that was going to stay "as is". As it turned out, the campaign ended with the PC's preventing the Mist from being removed from the world because the alternative was actually worse.

 

[fireinthedust]

One point I'd like to bring up is that some times (most of the time really) I like to play games where there are no 'one big evil thing' to deal with, defeat, etc. Some times I just want to be a caravan guard stomping along behind the wagons looking forward to reaching the next town getting a cold beer and not having to look out for bandits. And for this sort of game campaign changing events are not welcome. Erm, perhaps I should say 'campaign-world changing events' are not welcome. I'd like the world to stay roughly the same. A monarch may fall or tribe rise up but the fundamentals (let's call it the campaign's premise) stay much the same.

Frankly, this concept baffles me, as a GM and a Player. I've been in games where the group (other than me) were content with adventures involving fetching water for the blacksmith, or stopping goblins from stealing Mortimer Muffinmasher's left boot (!). So... not even bandits? What's the point of class abilities? Calling yourself a hero? It's great immersion, but it doesn't count as an RPG: you don't need dice because you're never attempting to do anything of note. This is the idyllic life of the Shire, for certain, but it's not D&D.


If nothing is at stake, there is no drama. I'm not saying "unleash the Spellplague on the Forgotten Realms" level stuff, but look at a simple D&D story: boy meets girl, boy discovers girl has been taken by evil cultists who will sacrifice her at midnight if they aren't stopped, boy slays cultists, boy gets girl back.

bam.

Now, if the girl dies the sun will still rise over Sembia. The point, however, is not the over-arching political realities. It is the premise of the character "boy". Who is boy? Well, boy likes girl. But what if there was no girl: would there still be a boy? If girl dies, who is boy? In theory, for that storyline, boy is nobody, boy ceases to exist.

The Campaign setting is a funny thing.

Forgotten Realms was *everyone*'s setting, and for that reason it was important to add to it. That's also why so many people were annoyed that it was destroyed without asking them: hundreds of thousands if not millions of fans were not consulted about their special space.

However, the reality is that a real campaign setting is simple the environment directly surrounding the player characters at the game table. The local tavern innkeeper can be more important than the ruler of the nation, simply because they're around more (ergo: make Innkeepers really interesting).
Whether I call it Faerun, or use my own precious "Orvelbocker" setting, it is the environment the players interact with. In a real campaign, every adventure "creates" the setting, adding to the players' world. They also systematically destroy the Setting, by killing off characters (monsters, NPC villains, etc.) one die roll at a time.

The functional setting, therefore, requires challenge every session. It's not necessary to re-orbit the moons, or re-name nations; but something about it must be introduced (that was not there before) and risked (that is precious to the heroes) Every. Single. Session.


Anyhoo: OP, I like your ideas for disposable settings. Might I suggest you have several planets that your heroes travel to magically each scenario (example: the Deathgate Cycle by Weis and Hickman), where it is important for an overall reason for them to change each of these worlds? Like "the multiverse is out of alignment: only you, using the magical Transportichron, have a hope of changing these unbalancing factors... before it is too late!"

If the premise is "destroy the central premise of each 'setting'", then it's part of the setting.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree, this is the exact reason I love creating my own worlds for campaigns, as I can mold them in whatever way I see fit, or whatever way the players happen to affect them. IMO you either have a world on rails and changes without regard to players, or you have a WoW-like "persistent" world that never changes, which IMO, is annoying, those bloody villagers need to either kill all the kobolds or move their stupid town.

But I digress. The necessity for "whole" worlds is really non-existent, the only use they have is for GMs to create isolated "incidents" within them, which becomes difficult the more the original creators flesh out the world. Yeah, I like small, I like original, and I like creative worlds, and if they need to be destroyed, great! It means more fun for me(as both a player and a GM)

 

[Gilladian]

I have a campaign world that I have used for 5 or more campaigns over the last 20+ years.

Now, not only has the campaign world changed a lot just beccause rules have changed, my tastes have changed, etc... but ALSO sections of the world have evolved because of the actions of PCs.

Greenvale has gone from being a single good-sized city and the villages and towns that hugged it, with a few hundred thousand total residents, clinging to existence on the edge of wilderness, to a 13-county kingdom with several million residents and several good-sized cities (plus dynastic inheritance issues, an ongoing political schism, and a social/religious confrontation brewing).

Other areas of the campaign world have had uprisings, inheritances, economic collapses, and other changes. Every one of these changes grew out of a campaign I ran. The PCs can look back and SEE that their defeat of the evil sorceress on the northern border of Harothar caused that kingdom to become more stable, more populous, and more likely to eventually be a political and economic threat to Greenvale...

I don't have any desire to "blow up" or end my world; I love it too much! But at the same time, I want it to grow and change. It's possible to have both options; change and stability!

 

[Herobizkit]

Here's a really crazy idea:

Soap bubbles.

Each area/region/island in the sky is essentially a 'point of light'. It could be one castle, a lake with a crazy hermit, a giant perfectly spherical rock that is a giant honeycomb full of bee people... they all exist on the same plane (and some on OTHER planes), but they do not 'connect'.

PC's are given the unique ability (via Stargates (TM), divine intervention, or "just because" like in Bubble Tanks | Armor Games) to travel from bubble to bubble, but their ultimate goal is to re-assemble the world by finding a way to 'fuse' the bubbles together.

This was also explored in Dragon Warrior VII, where the heroes have to literally reassemble the Known World by resolving issues in an area and recovering Map Fragments, adding more areas to unlock further issues which unlock more areas etc.