Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stormtower" data-source="post: 3024467" data-attributes="member: 43631">Hussar, you said: &quot;Make the setting reactive to them and they will start to care.&quot;&nbsp; I loved your specific examples prior to that statement, but these 12 words really sum up one of the two primary challenges of grounding PCs in a setting. However, it's not the whole story IMO.&nbsp; For me, the ideal campaign setting balances its reactive elements against the fact that no group of adventurers can be everywhere at once.&nbsp; There is essentially a localized field of influence which they carry around with them, and within that (possibly expanding due to ripple effects of their actions) field the campaign is reactive.&nbsp; Elsewhere, the world still moves, wars start and stop, farmers haul their crops to town, villians still hatch evil plots, and life proceeds without any input from the PCs.&nbsp; As the PCs increase in power, fame/infamy and influence, their localized field of influence can also increase in size and potency... but it will never be so complete as to create a sense that the entire world revolves around their choices.The effect this has is to create even more of those &quot;interesting choices&quot; that bring one's players back for more every week.&nbsp; Once a group realizes they can only focus their attention on a few geographic regions, and that their choice of geographical and plot focus affects their field of influence, the grounding action you described seems to occur on its own... players begin to see the world as simultaneously reactive to and independent of their characters' choices.&nbsp; Striking that balance is the key.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stormtower, post: 3024467, member: 43631"] Hussar, you said: "Make the setting reactive to them and they will start to care." I loved your specific examples prior to that statement, but these 12 words really sum up one of the two primary challenges of grounding PCs in a setting. However, it's not the whole story IMO. For me, the ideal campaign setting balances its reactive elements against the fact that no group of adventurers can be everywhere at once. There is essentially a localized field of influence which they carry around with them, and within that (possibly expanding due to ripple effects of their actions) field the campaign is reactive. Elsewhere, the world still moves, wars start and stop, farmers haul their crops to town, villians still hatch evil plots, and life proceeds without any input from the PCs. As the PCs increase in power, fame/infamy and influence, their localized field of influence can also increase in size and potency... but it will never be so complete as to create a sense that the entire world revolves around their choices. The effect this has is to create even more of those "interesting choices" that bring one's players back for more every week. Once a group realizes they can only focus their attention on a few geographic regions, and that their choice of geographical and plot focus affects their field of influence, the grounding action you described seems to occur on its own... players begin to see the world as simultaneously reactive to and independent of their characters' choices. Striking that balance is the key. [/QUOTE]

Verification