Aus_Snow
First Post
Quite.
Must a campaign world change?
- Thread starter thedungeondelver
- Start date
megamania
Hero
I like making everything fit. Its a preference.
I like doing detailed timelines combining books, novels and other resources of the game world. Sometimes the players alter the "accepted" core timeline which officially makes it "ours".
I overlap campaigns allowing limited overlap of NPCs and events.
Sooooo.....
ultimately its about you and your players. You add what you want, ignore what you want and TOGETHER build a new world. The companies want you to buy everything still but even if you buy it, doesn't mean you have to use it.
I like doing detailed timelines combining books, novels and other resources of the game world. Sometimes the players alter the "accepted" core timeline which officially makes it "ours".
I overlap campaigns allowing limited overlap of NPCs and events.
Sooooo.....
ultimately its about you and your players. You add what you want, ignore what you want and TOGETHER build a new world. The companies want you to buy everything still but even if you buy it, doesn't mean you have to use it.
IronWolf
blank
I am not a fan of massive campaign changing events that seem to usher in new versions of D&D. I am fine with a campaign evolving over time.
In either case though, as a DM I can always choose the timeline I am planning to run my campaign in. If I don't like the way a campaign setting looks after some changing event, I can set my campaign in a timeline that occurs before that event. If I want to go a step further I can say that the campaign I run is what is evolving the world, not what the sourcebooks dictate.
In either case though, as a DM I can always choose the timeline I am planning to run my campaign in. If I don't like the way a campaign setting looks after some changing event, I can set my campaign in a timeline that occurs before that event. If I want to go a step further I can say that the campaign I run is what is evolving the world, not what the sourcebooks dictate.
Of course a campaign world needs to change. But every change should happen because it was instigated by the 
pcs in your game and not because of something 'official'.
If a campaign setting is accompanied by a line of novels that advance the 'official' timeline, it might make sense to provide updates for those interested in starting the game at a later point in the timeline. But I don't see any need for a change in the 'official' (read: default) starting point (assuming there is one! [which really isn't required for many settings]).
I have no problem with adding fleshed-out alternative starting points, though.
A good example, imho, was the Eberron supplement 'The Forge of War'. It provides lots of infos for those interested in playing before the setting's 'official' starting point (or just play the occasional vignette in the past). It's also very useful to simply learn more about the setting's history.
pcs in your game and not because of something 'official'.If a campaign setting is accompanied by a line of novels that advance the 'official' timeline, it might make sense to provide updates for those interested in starting the game at a later point in the timeline. But I don't see any need for a change in the 'official' (read: default) starting point (assuming there is one! [which really isn't required for many settings]).
I have no problem with adding fleshed-out alternative starting points, though.
A good example, imho, was the Eberron supplement 'The Forge of War'. It provides lots of infos for those interested in playing before the setting's 'official' starting point (or just play the occasional vignette in the past). It's also very useful to simply learn more about the setting's history.
I think that a campaign world should change over time. However, I am not a big fan of lots of world-shaking cataclysms, or the PCs as mere spectators for major events. I think that a campaign setting should evolve somewhat over a few years, and metaplot is good when it helps the GM come up with adventure ideas and when it lends verisimilitude to the setting.
I think that supplements advancing the timeline by a year or two is good, as it can help the DM determine what has changed in the rest of the world while the PCs have been adventuring (perhaps hostilities between two countries have erupted into a war that the PCs might be interested in fighting in or taking advantage of, maybe the old king died under mysterious circumstances and there is now a succession war or nobles trying to break away from the kingdom, or any number of other things). Including changes that took place in adventures published for the game line or even better changes that result from the adventures, are very helpful, even if the DM may need to alter things a bit based on how his/her players completed the adventure.
That said, a campaign world does not need to change through new published material. It is perfectly fine for the DM to pick whatever starting point they like, and just make changes as the players move along. However, I think that even then the DM should have things that happen as time passes so that the players see that the world is a real place and not a static thing. For example, if the players hear about a dragon taking over a trade pass, and do nothing about it, they should hear about the repercussions taking place.
I think that supplements advancing the timeline by a year or two is good, as it can help the DM determine what has changed in the rest of the world while the PCs have been adventuring (perhaps hostilities between two countries have erupted into a war that the PCs might be interested in fighting in or taking advantage of, maybe the old king died under mysterious circumstances and there is now a succession war or nobles trying to break away from the kingdom, or any number of other things). Including changes that took place in adventures published for the game line or even better changes that result from the adventures, are very helpful, even if the DM may need to alter things a bit based on how his/her players completed the adventure.
That said, a campaign world does not need to change through new published material. It is perfectly fine for the DM to pick whatever starting point they like, and just make changes as the players move along. However, I think that even then the DM should have things that happen as time passes so that the players see that the world is a real place and not a static thing. For example, if the players hear about a dragon taking over a trade pass, and do nothing about it, they should hear about the repercussions taking place.
Raven Crowking
First Post
This.
I would prefer a world with a static timeline – the reason being that if the timeline advances, you need to read all the associated books to understand everything and I just do not have that much free time.
And, if I don’t keep up with the timeline advances and somebody else in the group does, I risk them not having as much fun because events X, Y and Z have not happened in my game and they were really looking forward to dealing with them.
Both Harn and The Kingdoms of Kalamar have survived for a long time and both have static timelines – they leave it up to the players to advance the timeline as the movers and shakers in the world. Harn started in the 80s, if I'm not mistaken, and Kalamar has been around since the early 90s.
And, if I don’t keep up with the timeline advances and somebody else in the group does, I risk them not having as much fun because events X, Y and Z have not happened in my game and they were really looking forward to dealing with them.
Both Harn and The Kingdoms of Kalamar have survived for a long time and both have static timelines – they leave it up to the players to advance the timeline as the movers and shakers in the world. Harn started in the 80s, if I'm not mistaken, and Kalamar has been around since the early 90s.
