Elements of a realistic campaign

[Hairfoot]

In a game which focusses on magic, monsters, and high heroics, realism* is only a relative notion. But what elements do you believe a campaign should contain or omit to become [deep breath] verisimilitudinous, and how much trouble should a GM put into maintaining it?

For instance, why do monsters in the wilderness have cash? If a tribe of wild gnolls is reviled by the local civilised communities, who are they trading with? And if the GM substitutes trade goods for money, does it spoil the fun to have the PCs haul away a cartload of prime grain instead of 100gp?



* If, for you, "realistic" is one of those trigger-terms (like "anime" or "spiked chain") which makes your blood boil and inspires you to write lengthy posts telling the OP that he has no imagination, is playing the game wrong, and is probably ugly, you may be better off not reading further.

 

[Dross]

In a game which focusses on magic, monsters, and high heroics, realism* is only a relative notion. But what elements do you believe a campaign should contain or omit to become [deep breath] verisimilitudinous, and how much trouble should a GM put into maintaining it?

As much as needed for the players to play in it? (yes, that answers the Q but provides no useful info )

For instance, why do monsters in the wilderness have cash? If a tribe of wild gnolls is reviled by the local civilised communities, who are they trading with? And if the GM substitutes trade goods for money, does it spoil the fun to have the PCs haul away a cartload of prime grain instead of 100gp?

For me there are a few things I like to do as DM (or player) for a beleivable campaign. Mind you not all my group agrees with everything here (go figure )

Your actions (or lack of) have consequences. Sometimes people remember.
The universe does not exist for the sole purpose of the party. Just because you are a PC does not entitle you to biased treatment from a NPC. Doing favours for them can. A group may not sell you a magic item even though you can afford it (think items with paladin specific spells in them for instance).
There is a reason someone behaves the way they do (you may just not know the why).
You are not the biggest fish in the pond (until mid to high levels anyway).
Sometimes a plot demands something that might not make sense, it'll happen just roll with it.

Monsters in a wilderness can have cash because they took it from victims or there are always uncruperlous people that will deal with anyone/anything if the $$ is right.
I find that a mixture of $$ and items (useful to them) is usually the way to go, or nothing at all depending on the monster.

It can be fun for PCs to drag large objects back to town but that is more group preference. Every now and then is good, all the time is bad.
Plot items might be better for this. just have a way for them to sell it if they do decide to crag it back to town (within reason of course).

I think the best things for verisimilitude are consistancy, things do happen of camera, PCs do not have a sign saying" I am a PC, do as I say" and there is a reason why this happened.

just as long as the players can play in the campaign.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

(Apologies, this has turned out longer than planned)

Long time fan of verisimiltude.

Things I like to see:

Social realism. By which I mean the towns, kingdoms, etc actually feel like real places. There should be reasons why a big city is in such and such a place: trade, defense, food supply. And there should be the means to sustain it when it is there. ie: there should be enough food, trade, defense. If there are particular social conventons they should effect game play in a believable way. Slavery, serfdom, trade guilds, monarchies, oligarchies all effect the world in different ways. React in different ways. They're not just labels slapped on the background. These are things for the players to interact with.

Hairfoot you mentioned trade between the Gnoll tribe and local represntatives of civilisation: absolutely. Some enterprising folk would find a profit in it. IMC this sort of thing goes on all the time. It makes sense that people living next to one another will have relations that go further than hitting one another.

Economic Realism: OK so just how much money is there in your average DnD kingdom? ENough so that dumping a few hundred thousand GP in one locale is just a drop in the bucket? If it's the fortune it's implied to be then massive inflation will follow hard on its heels.
This impacts on the real economic limits built into the rules, ie: magic item cost. The game as played needs to take this into account. Either say yeah, loads of magic items or limit the resources in some way. ANd there are many ways to do this, including putting up the price of magic items.

The folk of the city/kingdom/celestial empire of the orchid throne should live believable lives. Have the means to support themselves in ways other than waiting for heroes to return from dungeons laden with gold. This latter is of course the official reason given for Greyhawk City's recent prominence in the Flanaess. This sort of thing would lead to mass inflation and hardship for most with a few clever people making a fortune. Not to mention a population explosion, skill shortages leading to wage rises, blah blah blah. Look at any 19th C gold rush to get an idea. Greyhawk is a boom town. It'll be gone in a generation. Or should be. Sustainable populations need more reliable means of support like farming, trade and manufacture.

Trade goods instead of Piles'o'Gold (tm): definitely. Historically, precious metal has rarely made up a large amount of trade goods. Yes, the Spanish convoys from America and the Silver for Tea trade between Britain & China in the 18th C. But you'll see a lot more silk and spices. And of course mundane stuff, by definition, makes up most of it. England in the middle ages was a major European wool exporter. A pirate capturing an English ship from this period had better be able to move a few tonnes of woolly jumpers.

Motivation: NPC's must have believable reasons for their actions. Especially the villains. This is one of the biggies. The PCs are out to foil the villain (usually) and it is only fair that the villain acts in a way that is internally consistent. Otherwise the villain just becomes a wandering plot hook/pain in the @$$ that pops in to annoy the players from time to time. May as well just use the old wandering damage tables from one of the ancient dragon mags. (sorry, can't remember which one.)

Ecology: This should make sense. Yes I realise I'm saying this about worlds in which critters exist that eat rust, gems or the very occasional adventurer. But there should be enough food to support a given population. If not then there should be a die off or a monster rampage or migration.

OK yes, I realise most players don't give a <expletive> one way or another about things like the local environment being able to support a family of dragons. Just so long as the dragons can be slain and they have a huge hoard most players are happy. Nor do they care about where the hoard came from nor the economic ramifications that dumping a literal hill of gold and silver will have on the local economy.

I, on the other hand, do give a <expletive>. I strongly suspect that this has a lot to do with me being (mostly) a GM. Or perhaps it is a reason for WHY I am mostly a GM. As a GM I like my world to make sense. I guess it's a case of "If I'm going to the effort, I'll damn well do it properly."

As a player the reason I want some verisimiltude is so I, as a player, can make reasonable assumptions about what my character is going to do and what the likely outcomes will be. I must admit I'm unlikely to care about the local ecology being able to support that family of dragons in most cases. Because in most cases it wont come up. But if it does, I want the situation to make sense so I can act sensibly. And as a GM I feel I should prepare for that possibility should one of my players feel the need to know.

A reason to add some verisimiltude that has occurred to me while writing this is that realism can give you a lot of plot seeds.

And for some classes the background matters. Druids and Rangers should care more about the ecology. Clerics and Paladins should care about their churches. More plot seeds. It's what we all want.

 

[Treebore]

Pretty much ditto of what Dross and DrunkonDuty said.

I even went so far as to buy, read, and use XRP's Magical Medievel Societies: Western Europe, Silk Road, etc... When I finished those work sheets for a manor, a 100 square mile land holdings of a baron, and a city of 50,000, I was absolutley blown away how much gold such people generate in a "D&D economy". Millions of gold was generated. With 20% of it paying taxes.

Even the manor generated close to a 100,000 gold per year, in PROFIT! The 100 square mile lands of the Baron? Well, if he had the 30,000 workers to work the land, it would be millions of gold per year. Fortunately he only has 2,180 workers right now, but he is working hard to get more. Even so, he has no financial reason to adventure.

So extrapolating the kingdoms tax revenue based on just these three worksheets, the kingdom, conservatively, had over 10,000,000 gold in revenue per year. Yes, that meant the land owners and guilds of the kingdom generate 50,000,000 gold per year.

Absolutely blew my mind!

At first this really turned me off. Then as I started thinking about what the campaign would be like I started to like it. I run by the book anyways. So I have had campaigns go to 20th level and above in every edition of the game. Allowing for kingdoms and such to generate this kind of money actually makes higher level play make sense and much more workable.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

For me, a working world is essential. It always has been. I well remember my frustration in the early days of DnD with – open the door – kill the monster – steal the treasure, dungeons. I always found myself asking, what do they eat? Where did they get the treasure?

My campaigns soon moved from the underground, and rarely stray back there now. As for heroics, I prefer my player’s character to be ordinary people caught up in extraordinary events.

I (pretty much exclusively) game on HârnWorld these days because it has the depth of backgroung I need, and the lack of system information in the location modules means that it will fit for whatever rules set I decide to use.
I like Hârn because of it’s consistency. The trade routes are known, they are (reasonably) logical. Kingdoms are neither ‘good’ or ‘evil’ (in most cases). Major events (and often minor events) are outside the control of the PC’s. The monsters in the wilderness have little or no treasure, after all, they can’t eat it. Some of the kingdoms are moving towards war. There is plenty for the PC’s to do.

It very much depends on you and your players whether or not substituting goods for money spoil’s the fun. My players have, in the past, paid a bridge toll using a sheep rather than cash (they had little cash and a lot of sheep at the time – it’s a long story). Often if they get paid in trade goods, they’ll look to find the best market. It’s actually quite a subtle way to lead your players to somewhere you want them to go. They’re in sheep country and get paid in sacks of wool, they discover that by taking the wool to grain country they’ll get a better price, so off they go.

But we’re all different and I know that my style won’t suit everyone.

 

[RFisher]

I try to create a world that simply makes sense to me.

For instance, I don't know or care to know much about economics. So, any economics behind a world I create will be simplistic at best.

If the players start poking at the weak parts of the world, then I do one of two things: (1) Improvise a rationalization--sometimes even enlisting the players' aid--or (2) explicitly let them now I'm handwaving that bit.

I've always liked the idea that fantasy worlds work more the way ancient & medieval people thought the world worked. The world might actually be flat. The world might actually be the center of the universe & the heavens crystalline spheres. Goblins might actually be the result of spontaneous generation rather than part of an ecology. So, while I want it to generally make sense, it may be playing by different rules than the real world.

 

[Hand of Evil]

In a game which focusses on magic, monsters, and high heroics, realism* is only a relative notion. But what elements do you believe a campaign should contain or omit to become [deep breath] verisimilitudinous, and how much trouble should a GM put into maintaining it?

Alignment (yep, I said it), I think it is important to define it and break it down for the players. This is why some races are evil and why they do what they do. It also touches on laws and how they can be applied in the game. Races are "evil" to your players because of what reasons? Mostly, because it is in the taboos of the culture you are presenting. They want what you have or you took it away from them. Conflicts need to be personal.

Physics, just how things work and how a character can do what they do without just saying it is 'magic'.

For instance, why do monsters in the wilderness have cash? If a tribe of wild gnolls is reviled by the local civilised communities, who are they trading with? And if the GM substitutes trade goods for money, does it spoil the fun to have the PCs haul away a cartload of prime grain instead of 100gp?

A simple answer I have used, parts are parts and worth money. Treasure equals bounties or value of parts. Real world examples of this, shark fins for soup, wolf pelts and Americian Indian scalps.

History is a good for this stuff.

 

[sckeener]

Most of the treasure I give out isn't coins. I assume barter is the norm.

My favorite treasure to give players...is stuff they'll hate. I've had more players destroy art...(example destroying art in evil temples)...they would make censors happy.

and the funny thing is...if I show them real world art...as an example of what is in the temple or evil stronghold....they still destroy it! It is like their characters believe there are demon/devil artists out there crafting the stuff instead of demon/devil customers who just appreciate the art...big difference

That doesn't bother me much since they are role playing characters....I just always find it interesting when people are willing to give up modern sensibilities...and censor or are ok with barbaric practices (such as slavery...etc...)

mentioning slavery...that is one piece of treasure that I have never given out as in fact treasure....I guess that is my modern perspective intruding....though I have given manor houses as treasure to players and those came with serfs....so maybe I have given slaves as treasure....

 

[SavageRobby]

There is a difference between verisimilitude and reality. Verisimilitude is only having the appearance of reality. This is an important distinction for me.

I tend to think of my game worlds as a play or movie. I want the set in the background to be realistic or evocative enough to pass a casual glance, and to add to the experience. But don't go poking too closely at it - because the background is just that: background. It isn't the focal point of the movie/play.

So for the games I run, I want them real enough. Real enough to cause enough suspension of disbelief to enable the fun to begin. That makes my job a lot easier, especially as I'm not an expert on politics, ecology, geology, geography, architecture, or any of a million other world building details. And with that thin veneer applied over most aspects of the setting, I then only have to understand major design decisions/ramifications of the setting. Things like:

* Who are the big players?
* What is the role of magic, both locally and globally?
* Is there a currency system, and how unified is it?

Note that on something like the currency system, I don't have to know the history of its development, and all the ramifications of economic systems that are based on currency vs trade, etc al. I just need to have an idea about the basics: who coins the money, what are the denominations, and how is counterfeiting discouraged?

I don't worry so much about things like, "how do the big players get fed" - thats the realistic view. But my players do encounter farmlands while they're traveling, especially in proximity to cities and villages - thats the appearance of reality. Crime and punishment is the same way. Having the players walk by the stocks and seeing a criminal getting pelted with rotten veggies, or passing by the crossroads and seeing skeletons in the hanging cages (a la Willow) is just as good, and maybe better, than having a full crime and punishment system detailed. This approach is again taking a cue from plays & movies: I just need to flash the occasional world-building clues to my players to make it feel immersive.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Ecology: This should make sense. Yes I realise I'm saying this about worlds in which critters exist that eat rust, gems or the very occasional adventurer. But there should be enough food to support a given population. If not then there should be a die off or a monster rampage or migration.

I like this too, quite a lot. It gives players a chance to come up with more creative solutions to a monster problem than walk up to a monster and hit it with your sword til it stops moving. Sure, the latter solution is th standard D&D answer to everything, but I find it gets dull fairly quickly.