Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How do you like your published settings? Static or evolving? And through what medium?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7493855" data-attributes="member: 45197"><p>Hiya!</p><p></p><p>Static, 98% with about 2% Non-Static.</p><p></p><p>I want to be able to look at a campaign setting, pick some location/area that interests me, and say "All right. All five of you awaken to the sounds of the morning kitchen staff and early-risers downstairs having what smells like a wonderful breakfast...". That is when the "timeline" starts. If we play in that same campaign "timeline" for two or three years (real time), and in that time 20 years campaign-time has passed...I don't want my games events to have to over-ride what is in official books any more than I have to. I also don't want players, and others I'm talking with online for example, to make assumptions that I'm using the "latest meta-plot events" and then start trying to point out why X would never happen or that I did Y wrong or that Z would have completely messed up the "official meta-plot". </p><p></p><p>IMNSHO, that last point... about talking to others... is the *biggest* grief I get and one that sucks the fun out of talking to other DM's who do follow the 'official meta-plot/timeline'. It breaks apart the community. It divides the DM's and the players into different camps, so to speak. This is a BAD thing. It's bad because, well, it's divisive, and it's bad because I've often felt that I was being talked down to or otherwise ignored or brushed off as "Oh, don't bother with him...his campaign is stupid" simply because my game doesn't follow what is "official". And, because my name isn't on the book they are reading, the assumption that my decisions and game is inferior simply because of that.</p><p></p><p>*WARNING! Old-Grognard Rambling Below!!!*</p><p></p><p>Back in ye olden days of yore (pre-90's...well, maybe pre-mid-90's), DM's each had their own "Campaigns". This was a game setting and bunch of rules (house or otherwise) that gave each and every DM's game a different feel. It was easy to find the "munchkins", as they were called in those days. When someone says "I have a Half-Demon Paladin/Magic-User/Assassin who's level 45/42/30!"...munchkin. But when you were talking with a non-munchkinized group...there was never, to my recollection, any sense of "your campaign is doing it wrong". Rules differences? Sure! Play preferences? Sure! But there was never "Oh, you're not using the official updated timeline of X, Y or Z. Your opinions don't matter anymore".</p><p></p><p>Yeah yeah, I'm old. I get that. I like what I like and am not likely to change anytime soon. I'm cool with that. But one of the things I'm not cool with, and haven't been cool with, is having me and my groups campaign "looked down on" because we do our own thing and have our own timeline. This sort of "othering" has only become a noticeable thing (since about the mid 2k's). It's a problem for those who DON'T use official "stuff" because of the aforementioned "division" between what is out, published, officially...and home-campaigns. Someone asking "What's the best way to X?" will get answers that just assume certain OPTIONAL rules, or assume certain campaign happenings (for the non-static game world). Then someone replies without referencing those and suddenly we have "You can't do that because..." or "That wouldn't work do to..." referencing said OPTIONS or world-timeline-advancement. The end result...confusion at best, name-calling at worst.</p><p></p><p>Ahem. I'm done now. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>IMHO, Static is the best way to go. If a company/person wants to officially advance their campaign world and publish an update (ex: World of Greyhawk // From the Ashes), that's fine. Because, at least with Greyhawkers, it's easy to say "That wouldn't work because of X, if you are using FtA; if you are using GH base, then you're fine"). Two DIFFERENT timelines. But with FR, you have to distinguish how many world-changing events? There was that Spellplague thing, the AO god-war thingamajig, wasn't there something else to do with that "Azure Bonds" adventure? The list goes on and on for FR. One of the reasons we don't like it, overall, and if/when we do play in FR it's core Grey-Box Set only.</p><p></p><p>Bottom Line: Static is the best practice for D&D campaign settings. IMNSHO.</p><p></p><p>^_^</p><p></p><p>Paul L. Ming</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pming, post: 7493855, member: 45197"] Hiya! Static, 98% with about 2% Non-Static. I want to be able to look at a campaign setting, pick some location/area that interests me, and say "All right. All five of you awaken to the sounds of the morning kitchen staff and early-risers downstairs having what smells like a wonderful breakfast...". That is when the "timeline" starts. If we play in that same campaign "timeline" for two or three years (real time), and in that time 20 years campaign-time has passed...I don't want my games events to have to over-ride what is in official books any more than I have to. I also don't want players, and others I'm talking with online for example, to make assumptions that I'm using the "latest meta-plot events" and then start trying to point out why X would never happen or that I did Y wrong or that Z would have completely messed up the "official meta-plot". IMNSHO, that last point... about talking to others... is the *biggest* grief I get and one that sucks the fun out of talking to other DM's who do follow the 'official meta-plot/timeline'. It breaks apart the community. It divides the DM's and the players into different camps, so to speak. This is a BAD thing. It's bad because, well, it's divisive, and it's bad because I've often felt that I was being talked down to or otherwise ignored or brushed off as "Oh, don't bother with him...his campaign is stupid" simply because my game doesn't follow what is "official". And, because my name isn't on the book they are reading, the assumption that my decisions and game is inferior simply because of that. *WARNING! Old-Grognard Rambling Below!!!* Back in ye olden days of yore (pre-90's...well, maybe pre-mid-90's), DM's each had their own "Campaigns". This was a game setting and bunch of rules (house or otherwise) that gave each and every DM's game a different feel. It was easy to find the "munchkins", as they were called in those days. When someone says "I have a Half-Demon Paladin/Magic-User/Assassin who's level 45/42/30!"...munchkin. But when you were talking with a non-munchkinized group...there was never, to my recollection, any sense of "your campaign is doing it wrong". Rules differences? Sure! Play preferences? Sure! But there was never "Oh, you're not using the official updated timeline of X, Y or Z. Your opinions don't matter anymore". Yeah yeah, I'm old. I get that. I like what I like and am not likely to change anytime soon. I'm cool with that. But one of the things I'm not cool with, and haven't been cool with, is having me and my groups campaign "looked down on" because we do our own thing and have our own timeline. This sort of "othering" has only become a noticeable thing (since about the mid 2k's). It's a problem for those who DON'T use official "stuff" because of the aforementioned "division" between what is out, published, officially...and home-campaigns. Someone asking "What's the best way to X?" will get answers that just assume certain OPTIONAL rules, or assume certain campaign happenings (for the non-static game world). Then someone replies without referencing those and suddenly we have "You can't do that because..." or "That wouldn't work do to..." referencing said OPTIONS or world-timeline-advancement. The end result...confusion at best, name-calling at worst. Ahem. I'm done now. :) IMHO, Static is the best way to go. If a company/person wants to officially advance their campaign world and publish an update (ex: World of Greyhawk // From the Ashes), that's fine. Because, at least with Greyhawkers, it's easy to say "That wouldn't work because of X, if you are using FtA; if you are using GH base, then you're fine"). Two DIFFERENT timelines. But with FR, you have to distinguish how many world-changing events? There was that Spellplague thing, the AO god-war thingamajig, wasn't there something else to do with that "Azure Bonds" adventure? The list goes on and on for FR. One of the reasons we don't like it, overall, and if/when we do play in FR it's core Grey-Box Set only. Bottom Line: Static is the best practice for D&D campaign settings. IMNSHO. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How do you like your published settings? Static or evolving? And through what medium?
Top