Must a campaign world change?

[thedungeondelver]

As an interested observer with no dog in the fight, I was skimming the "What don't you like about FR" thread (I never had a want for THE FORGOTTEN REALMS; WORLD OF GREYHAWK will probably occupy my gaming time until I take the Big Nap), and I was reading about the metaplot, and I started thinking about how post-Gygax TSR wrecked it on purpose, then late 2e TSR sorta-kinda tried to fix it, then WIZARDS OF THE COAST tried to fix that and make a unified whole out of it, then "advance" it with LIVING GREYHAWK and so on and et cetera.

Then I recalled back in my BATTLETECH days: when the "Return of the Clans" cycle started, and tech advanced...man I was right at the forefront. I wanted that plot to go forward, I wanted to read up on how this unit was destroyed and that one was formed...then they (FASA) got on the "three or four new novels a month" train that TSR seemed to have been on since the mid '80s, and it was clear that "advancing the plot through novels" was a cyclical novel/game sales tool, and trying to keep up with it all was fighting a mighty deluge of (bad) sci-fi.

So to come to the essence of it all: does a published campaign world have to advance? To change? Must there be changes, must there be a metaplot? Can you just introduce new villages, new dungeons, new islands and continents and not have Rary be a Traitor, have Vecna die, or kill off a bunch of Gods?

I think the ideal campaign world (from a gamer's standpoint, not a business standpoint; if you're just interested in separating gamers from their cash irrespective of their desires, then carry on), would be more like that (the timeline starts when you, the player/DM opens the box and advances on your schedule).

Thoughts? With of course the caveat that as a DM we all know we're free to ignore "plot advancements" - I know of post WORLD OF GREYHAWK folio and boxed set "advances", I just ignore them, and they won't happen IMC...

 

[Umbran]

I think for a given individual home campaign, no, there's no need for the world to advance. The typical campaign lasts for a year or 18-months, and can easily work with just the published materials as they exist at the time the game starts.

From a business perspective, though, I think the world probably needs to change just like rules sets have to change. If your world is static, you quickly saturate the market with information on that world - the market for the world being smaller than for the game itself. Changing the world drives purchases much like changing rule sets does, maintaining the revenue stream for far longer than you'd get out of a static world.

 

[DragonLancer]

I for one happen to prefer a metaplot and an ongoing history. It gives a game world a sense of moving on along in the background. It have to be anything major either, just references in new materials. Sweeping changes such as those in Greyhawk, Dragonlance and FR over the years are bit too much though IMO.

 

[Shemeska]

Evolve? Yes.

Abruptly turn into a different campaign setting? Absolutely not.

Metaplot? Tastes vary wildly here, but personally. I adore well written metaplot.

 

[slwoyach]

Harn managed to survive without change for a good long while. They concentrated on fleshing out what was already there instead of advancing the years with new events.

 

[delericho]

From a world design point of view, no. From a "selling stuff" point of view, probably (although Paizo may be in the process of proving me wrong on this).

(Alternately, you could drop in, produce a handful of products, and then leave it alone (this being WotC's current strategy), but they're not really "selling stuff" for a particular setting beyond the first year; they just have a lot of settings to redo.)

The thing is, if you talked to all the DMs running Forgotten Realms, and had them draw circles on the map showing where they actually run their campaigns, you would inevitably see a lot of circles all over the place, some larger than others, and many in isolated areas. However, the overwhelming majority of circles will be clustered around some "core area" (sorry, I'm not really au fait with the Realms - presumably the Dales and thereabouts?).

So, when producing product, WotC will want to detail that area, to capture the most sales. And they will then likely expand. But there comes a point where there's no point in detailing some out-of-the-way area that's only used by that one guy's campaign.

So, what to do then?

Well, the answer is "new edition", and resell all the same stuff. But people generally won't just pay to buy a new packaging of exactly the same stuff. And so, it has to change.

Of course, Paizo are in the process of giving the counter-example. They don't appear to be (over-)detailing their world at all, but rather filling it with lots and lots of modules and Adventure Paths. It may be that they have found a way to keep "selling stuff" without advancing the timeline. Or, alternately, we may see a Golarion Changing Event at some point in the next few years. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[delericho]

Incidentally, I really like what WotC did with the 3.5e version of Eberron: because it was new they were able to spend a few years giving plenty of detail to an unchanging world across a dozen or so sourcebooks, and then the line was stopped (due to the move to 4e).

That suits me a whole lot better than the ongoing metaplot of the 3.0e -> 3.5e Forgotten Realms, especially now that I'm not moving on to 4e or Pathfinder, and now find the Eberron setting almost perfectly suited for the games I want to run going forward.

 

[Philosopher]

I agree that there are different interests for the gamer and for the publisher. But even if you just focus on gamers, there are different preferences. Some people like to be given the basics of a setting and nothing more. Some people like to have the setting constantly change (within reason, as Shemeska points out) to make it feel more alive. Sometimes I like just being given the basics and letting the setting change according to my gaming needs. Other times I like having those changes presented to me (for the same reason that I sometimes like to use prepublished settings - it saves me time and effort).

Given that I have no qualms about running Greyhawk using only the folio, or the Forgotten Realms using only the old grey box, or Dragonlance using only the setting information from the original modules, then it strikes me as reasonable for a setting to change, and let me decide whether I want to keep up with the changes or not.

A problem does arise, however. Some people may want certain aspects of the setting fleshed out (again, it saves time and effort), without wanting the setting changed. Maybe I want a particular kingdom fleshed out, but the publisher only releases information about that kingdom after a world shattering event takes place. If I want to use the sourcebook on that kingdom, I may have to incorporate the world shattering event, even if I may not want to.

 

[malraux]

If there is metaplot, I'd prefer that to be the point of the setting. That is, something like (what I gather about) Dragonlance where the advancement of the plot happens through the adventures of the characters. I'd rather my character not have to read a newspaper to catch up on the major new metaplot events.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think the ideal campaign world (from a gamer's standpoint, not a business standpoint; if you're just interested in separating gamers from their cash irrespective of their desires, then carry on), would be more like that (the timeline starts when you, the player/DM opens the box and advances on your schedule).

I agree with you. I think you can publish material that adds to the setting without needing to "advance" the setting. The DM and the players need to be the ones advancing the campaign, not the writers.

I don't mind metaplot, as long as it is done in such a way that it is easy to sidestep. Metaplot that shakes the foundation of the world is tough to ignore, so ti just isn't for me.