How do you use published settings?

[jdrakeh]

For those of you who use published roleplay settings, do you feel obligated to use the settings exactly as presented by the designers in official products (i.e., do you see such products as prescriptive texts), or do you take liberties with the setting as portrayed in such products, filling in undescribed or vaguely described areas with your own material (i.e, do you see official products as mere books of description designed to be used as you, the consumer, sees fit)?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

i always make a setting my own. im running eberron at the moment but have added and tweked things to make them my eberron as should we all

 

[Glyfair]

I think you'll find few voting for the first option, given the two extremes. Personally, I tend towards the first in my Ebberon & Glorantha campaigns, but I certainly modify what is appropriate and don't adhere "strictly."

IMO, one of the main reasons to use a published setting is so that you can save time with world description and have everyone on the same page. Modifying things too much interferes with that ability. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but players should be forewarned about how much change has been made to the setting.

Another reason to use a setting is so that you can save yourself design work and use existing material. The more you change things, the more work you are adding to yourself. At some point you might as well create your own setting with the amount of work you are putting on yourself.

 

[wedgeski]

Yeah I'm forced to vote for the second option, but even while I'm modding the campaign to fit my own needs, I maintain due respect for the setting. I mean, there's a reason I'm playing Dragonlance: because both my players and I love the world. I don't think any of us would be happy if drow started popping up from an Underdark no-one knew existed until one Saturday afternoon at my house.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think you'll find few voting for the first option, given the two extremes.

That has to be pointed out again. A better poll would be "How much do you change the setting". The gamut runs from those who treat their campaign setting as their Bible over those with very few adjustments to those who only use the occasional feat or idea.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I am going to vote for the first option. Throughout the years, I have often had a difficult time modifying a setting for a few reasons:

1. Certain players would push for "canon."

2. I spend the money on the different campaign books, so I might as well use them.

3. It's easier to not change things, and I'm lazy.

My latest game, however, is going to break from that cycle. I'm running a 3.5e game in the Known World, using only the appendix from the Rules Cyclopedia for world information. This means that I will have to make up and add things to fill in the gaps, since I'm not going to try to obtain other sources of Known World information.

I'm already using the various deities and pantheons (including the D&D pantheon) from Deities & Demigods (3.0 version) for the Immortals. I'm fairly certain that there aren't too many Clerics of Kord in the published Known World materials.

 

[Nifft]

Technically, the first statement is a strict subset of the second... A man can use a setting as written while simultaneously modifying it as he sees fit.

Perhaps the next poll should have some examples of varying degrees of diversion?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wombat]

Constrained by what is written? Never!

Heck, my version of the Plains of Prax was widly different from what Stafford & Co had in mind. What they had in common was the general tenor, but I happily added new sites, removed old ones, changed "important" NPCs around with gay abandon, and altered cults to fit the needs of my group.

And let's not even talk about other game settings...

 

[Glyfair]

Heck, my version of the Plains of Prax was widly different from what Stafford & Co had in mind.

Well, there is a big difference between what the designer had in mind and what was presented in the setting.

Stafford is even more extreme in this case. I'm pretty sure his intent changes on a daily basis. His Elmal/Yelmalio change still resonates with me as a designer who has no concern what his decisions do to the existing fans of the setting.

For those unfamiliar with it, he decided a significant god didn't make sense where it was place so created a new god in his place and retconned the mythology. Imagine Gary deciding that Heironeous doesn't fit in Greyhawk and decides to replace him with Forgotten Realms Helm. All this in a setting where mythology affects everything in the game.

Back to the point. In the early days Glorantha was very sketchy. The details of Staffords world slowly leaked out. You had to make up your own details, sort of like Greyhawk,