Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5490833" data-attributes="member: 85870">The thread a while back discussing the fact that 4e didn't really have its own internal campaign setting got me thinking (obviously 4e has the FR, and Eberron settings for it now, but not its own naturally assumed setting). Around 6 years ago, our group started playing a 3.5 campaign that was loosely based on the English version of the Engels D20 supplement by Sword &amp; Sorcery, though the setting was heavily modified by the GM, one of my good friends. Instead of using the massively altered/post-apocalypse continental Europe used in the supplement, we basically kept the general &quot;feel&quot; and the angelitican orders, but moved it to a standard European landscape. And more than in any other campaign I've played before or since, our group had some amazing sessions of actual roleplaying. There were combats as well, obviously, but there was something about that setting that seemed to promote roleplaying. It was partially the group, I'm sure, but in my mind it was at least partially a result of the setting. In other campaigns, particularly when the other players weren't as familiar with the setting and its general &quot;feel,&quot; it seemed the game moved much more towards &quot;roll playing.&quot; When the player(s) didn't have a sense of place/time/space, it seemed their natural inclination was to turn to the physical thing in front of them: the character sheet. But in this campaign, many of the &quot;unstated rules&quot; of the world were already in their heads--you can picture the landscape of northern Italy, the rolling river plains of western France, the Alps, the cold beaches of Normandy. When you talk to a merchant in Paris, you know how he/she is going to react; when you talk to a thief in the streets of Rome, you know what's happening; when you talk to a streetwalker/courtesan in Marseilles, you have a sense of what's happening. Simply put, the setting meant there was less abstraction in the players' heads--and as one of those players, the places, setting, tone, etc., were definitely more vivid and &quot;alive&quot; than in other campaigns I've played. It put us in the mindset of less focus on the &quot;game,&quot; and more focus on the &quot;world&quot; and the people in it, and how our characters fit into it, if that makes sense. The reason I bring this up is I'd like to put together some ideas of why and how that all came together. I'm curious to hear if other people have had experiences similar to this, and what they (or the GM) did to really &quot;get into&quot; the setting to promote better roleplaying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 5490833, member: 85870"] The thread a while back discussing the fact that 4e didn't really have its own internal campaign setting got me thinking (obviously 4e has the FR, and Eberron settings for it now, but not its own naturally assumed setting). Around 6 years ago, our group started playing a 3.5 campaign that was loosely based on the English version of the Engels D20 supplement by Sword & Sorcery, though the setting was heavily modified by the GM, one of my good friends. Instead of using the massively altered/post-apocalypse continental Europe used in the supplement, we basically kept the general "feel" and the angelitican orders, but moved it to a standard European landscape. And more than in any other campaign I've played before or since, our group had some amazing sessions of actual roleplaying. There were combats as well, obviously, but there was something about that setting that seemed to promote roleplaying. It was partially the group, I'm sure, but in my mind it was at least partially a result of the setting. In other campaigns, particularly when the other players weren't as familiar with the setting and its general "feel," it seemed the game moved much more towards "roll playing." When the player(s) didn't have a sense of place/time/space, it seemed their natural inclination was to turn to the physical thing in front of them: the character sheet. But in this campaign, many of the "unstated rules" of the world were already in their heads--you can picture the landscape of northern Italy, the rolling river plains of western France, the Alps, the cold beaches of Normandy. When you talk to a merchant in Paris, you know how he/she is going to react; when you talk to a thief in the streets of Rome, you know what's happening; when you talk to a streetwalker/courtesan in Marseilles, you have a sense of what's happening. Simply put, the setting meant there was less abstraction in the players' heads--and as one of those players, the places, setting, tone, etc., were definitely more vivid and "alive" than in other campaigns I've played. It put us in the mindset of less focus on the "game," and more focus on the "world" and the people in it, and how our characters fit into it, if that makes sense. The reason I bring this up is I'd like to put together some ideas of why and how that all came together. I'm curious to hear if other people have had experiences similar to this, and what they (or the GM) did to really "get into" the setting to promote better roleplaying. [/QUOTE]

Verification