Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6175475" data-attributes="member: 1879">Well, this looks to me like a badwrongfun rant. [paraphrase]I homebrew, what's wrong with you lazy people who play in different ways? You're all playing the same way, which is not the way I play and therefore wrong. You're supposed to be different just like I am![/paraphrase]I'm under the impression you haven't branched out far in your gaming choices. Adherance to the game world depends on the system and what it's designed for. Shadowrun for example is played within Shadowruns own world, because the system is tied very heavily into a particular social, magical, and technological framework. No one uses Shadowrun to play low-tech, high-fantasy Sengoku era feudal Japanse clan wars, there are several games actually designed to do that like Bushido, Sengoku or Legend of the 5 Rings. Conversely it would be ridiculous to try to adapt Lot5r to a game of high-tech spacefaring corporate espionage.GURPS or HERO on the otherhand are toolkit systems designed to allow you to model what ever you want to play and I've been in GURPs games that ranged from magicless Matrix-tech to the bronze-age mysticism of Glorantha. D&D has never been a monolithic setting with an assumed world although pseudo-feudal social structures are a strong default and murder-hobos are kind of baked into it. But even the very early D&D writings included advice on building your own worlds, and that is the default mode of play. D&D has never had a meta-plot the way Shadowrun does. There have always been modules however, and they have always been used. They included suggestion for how to fit them into your campaign world, or modify them to fit. Some of them are classics still discussed and played today. Campaign worlds have also been perennial sellers. Ravenloft, Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Council of Wyrms, Spelljammer, Birthright, Al-Qadim and DragonLance were all distinct campaign setting (Or meta-settings for Spelljammer and Planescape) that pre-date 3e. In fact the 3e and 4e between them had far fewer settings released than AD&D and 2e. Eberron is the only new major setting that springs to mind for 3e. Before 3e there was no right or wrong campaign length. Modules had a range of levels they were intended to serve and if your group was 9th level and was at loose ends then you might pick up "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" and watch them wonder what a spaceship was doing in their fantasy world. What was new in 3e was the explicit assumption of a "Full campaign" meaning character growth from level 1 to 20 followed by retirement. (Ignoring the ELH which came later.) With that explicit goal laid out, there came a demand for what are essentially super modules whose purpose was to give a single over-arching plot to that intended, "correct" campign length of 20 levels. The fact that it's new doesn't make it right or wrong, just different. That it doesn't suit your style of play or fufill a need you have in your game is also not right or wrong.[edit]Another factor, which does stretch back to 2e as well, is the shared world "Living Campaigns." These were the life blood of a lot of people who had trouble finding groups and only played at cons. The living campaigns meant that they got to keep and build a character and experience long term growth and plot. But it also (obviously) demanded a standardized style of play and introduced plots that a lot of people shared. I suspect that the Living Campaigns may have shifted a lot of peoples default assumption from the "Every table is homebrewed and homeruled" that held in the early days of D&D to an assumed standard mode of play. It also helps that we got better rulesets that required less homebrewing.</blockquote>

Verification