How do you use settings/worlds?

[crazy_monkey1956]

I voted for the 4th option, but I run a homebrew and borrow, steal, and otherwise slice and dice from other published settings. My current campaign world has elements of FR, GH, and Eberron all mushed together into a bizarre little stewpot.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Option #3.

 

[Rothe]

Yes. I even included mechanics to allow them to change things outside of the actions of their characters.

Me too, I think. I have a reputation point system. At some point the player's may have such a high rep that kings and such ask them how things should be. Nations and peoples have a starting configuration, but the PCs can (and I hope they do) change and influence it. To me, that is the essence of high adventure. They start being the big fish in the local village, saving the day and effecting peoples' fortunes, move up to impacting things on the regional then kingdom wide scale, and beyond. All the while facing challenges and dangers few would believe.

The big overall stuff balance and setting defining stuff, e.g., playable species etc. is pretty "fixed." I'm always willing to listen to an argument and come up with some neat way to fit the odd in. But I don't run the setting with kid gloves. You play a half minotaur thing, drow etc. you will be reacted to as such. Most likely summarily hunted down and executed by some other PC power level group. Sure it's prejudice, maybe you can convince them to spare you. You did choose that half-fiend, half-minotaur character for role-playing and not monty haul powergaming, right?

 

[The Green Adam]

I find this subject very interesting but extremely difficult to answer.

Over time I have become well known by my gaming groups as the go-to GM for running licensed worlds/universes. There are probably far better Scifi GMs but I can really rock a campaign of Star Trek or Star Wars.

At the same time, I interject tons of original material in these campaigns. From simple things like new species, ships, worlds and devices to explaining in logical detail seemingly illogical continuity errors, I include almost as much of my own creations as I would for my own universe.

I think it works like this for me - Because I don't have to generate certain basic elements (the theme, feel, powers-that-be, etc.), my mind is free to produce more plot and universe-building components. I am pretty strict in that I won't undue things done within the established universe (with some exceptions of course), I have not problem adding to it as long as it fits the atmosphere.

I would find it hard to do this in fantasy however, which is why I don't really like established fantasy worlds. Since your talking about a single, often well mapped, world there doesn't appear to be enough room to place my own stuff.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

There are things I won't change, and things I will.

Take Eberron. A small example: officially, anyone born into the dragonmarked houses adds the d' prefix to the front of their surname - so, d'Cannith, d'Thuranni, et cetera. Those who marry into the house take the surname (both men and women) by itself - Vadalis, Deneith, et cetera.

In my games, the d' prefix is reserved for individuals who actually bear the dragonmark of the house - so I have two brothers from House Orien in my Savage Tide campaign, Amadeus Orien and his younger, dragonmarked brother Lutagnan d'Orien. Those who marry into the house are still known as Orien, because they are of course not dragonmarked.

Another Eberron example: Officially, the Blood of Vol is a minority religion in the nation of Karrnath, established as the state religion for a relatively brief period of time during the Last War but subsequently disestablished. The majority of Karrnathis have always been followers of the Sovereign Host, though the Blood of Vol has historically been a visible minority in the nation.

In Keith Baker's original design of the setting, the Blood of Vol was the traditional, majority religion of Karrnath. I think it's cool enough that I'm restoring it to that position. I think I will probably maintain the historical elements of its being officially established as the state religion only during the Last War, and its having been removed from that position as King Kaius III seeks to promote the Sovereign Host, if only because the latter is much more ripe for conflict between various religious and secular factions in Karrnathi society.

I generally won't use a setting at all unless I like 90% of it; there are always things I will do differently, but if the number of changes is too great I just won't bother. Likewise, I'm always open to adjusting elements of a setting to better fit a character or their story.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Other game worlds exist to be plundered and pillaged!

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Just something else I'm curious about...can your players, through their choices and actiions, affect real change in your world of choice. Why? or why? not?

Absolutely, with a caveat.

It's not particularly likely that I'm going to run two consecutive campaigns in the same setting, with the same group. This means that I don't really have to worry about my players expecting a "sequel" where the actions of their previous characters in the previous campaign have wrought lasting changes on the setting.

If, after my Savage Tide game concludes, I ran a more open, PC-driven campaign, I wouldn't necessarily be averse to including Sasserine, the Farshore colony on the Isle of Dread, or Scuttlecove in the game if that's the way the players drove the story - and in that case, there's no reason not to show the consequences of player actions in the previous campaign. On the other hand, if the PCs in my Savage Tide game fail, I'm not going to commit to running every future Eberron campaign with the world devastated by the Savage Tide itself!

Generally, I think that it's best if the PCs are seen to effect lasting change within the context of a single campaign. In other words, they can topple a crime lord in their city, and things will be better (or, perhaps, worse) throughout the rest of the campaign.

 

[Nellisir]

I read alot of published settings, but all my campaigns are in my homebrew world. It shifts to accomodate the PCs and the story, and I always incorporate what they do into it.

 

[airwalkrr]

It is hard for me to actually say since I fall into all four categories in the poll from time to time. It depends on what I want to accomplish with the campaign.

 

[DragonLancer]

Just curious how the majority of posters here approach worlds/settings of both their own design and/or published.

If I buy a campaign setting, the odds are that I like how it stands currently. I wouldn't buy one I didn't like the idea of just to change it. That said, I do make some changes but they aren't majot ones, just changes to match the flavour I want. Most of it, my players won't even know about most likely.