My conscience stopped me from submitting.

[orion winterfire]

That point of view never occurred to me. I guess I take it for granted that it is common knowledge/opinion if you write professionally, you are indeed selling your ideas. That's what writing professionally is.
I didn't read those things into any of the posts I've read, but I can see how someone could. I certainly hope nothing I said came across that way.

Selling an RPG world, or selling a novel, is no different than selling your skills as a scientific researcher or manual laborer.

 

[MulhorandSage]

I don't know about all that. I, for one, did take a look at my campaign (as I did submit it). However, the template that WotC asked submission to conform to doesn't even touch the "soul" of a campaign world. As I worked on my submission, I was frustrated that it seemed to skip over all the important parts of a world (history, mythology, culture, races).

Who the heroes are, who they fight, how they do it, and the "nature of magic." With the possible exception of the last one, these really don't make a world unique, at least IMO.
Anyway, I've gone on for far, far too long. I hadn't intended to write a damn essay.

[Much worthwhile discourse deleted.]

In summary . . . To each, his or her own, and it's no one's place to say otherwise.

I agree with much of what you say, but disagree very strongly on one point; a world's heroes *are* an essential piece of its soul. Just look at the real world, where its heroes, from Kennedy to Gandhi to Einstein to the Apollo astronauts, are essential to *its* "soul" and does much to define it (and us).

I can't argue with the importance of culture, religion, history, or the other things you mentioned. Nor do I criticize people for not submitting their worlds, though I don't particularly buy some of the reasons that have been given for doing so (for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere), and I think this enterprise is a worthwhile one.

Scott Bennie

 

[orion winterfire]

And lastly, someone above mentioned that they thought WoTC was asking the wrong, or at least not enough, questions about the worlds being submitted (history, mythology, culture, races, etc. being neglected). While you are more than entitled to that opinion, and I have no desire to get into an argument about it, I will say that I see things differently.

The kinds of things that WoTC as were exactly the kinds of things I would care about if I was going to play in and/or buy a new campaign. While things like the world?s mythology are certainly important, a cool set of gods or races wouldn?t make me want to play in that world. The over-all theme of the place, who the hero?s are, who the villains are, etc., at least to me, are much more important.

That would be me. I don't have any intention of arguing, either (arguing is absolutely pointless . . . I for one have never seen anyone change their opinion because of one).

To clarify what I meant . . . To me, things like history and mythology reflect the theme of the world more than the "who's who." For example, reading about Elminster, the Harpers, and Thay don't give me (personally) any idea of the theme (or the "soul" as I think of it) of FR.

I see a good RPG setting much like a really good epic fantasy novel. The story occurs within the context of a greater theme . . . and IMO, that epic feel, that greater theme, comes from the background of the world.

Of course, in the end, the heroes and villains of the story make it work, but those characters are built on, and birthed from, the essence of the world itself, not the other way around.

I didn't mean to say that I wanted to list my gods and races . . . Rather, I would have liked to give a brief summary of the world's history, the "hows" and "whys" of how the info in the template came to be. That is what makes a rich world, IMO.

If concentrating on the current heroes & villains is what makes a world come alive for you, great. I'm not going to say you're wrong, because you're not; it's just a different way of looking at things.

 

[orion winterfire]

I agree with much of what you say, but disagree very strongly on one point; a world's heroes *are* an essential piece of its soul. Just look at the real world, where its heroes, from Kennedy to Gandhi to Einstein to the Apollo astronauts, are essential to *its* "soul" and does much to define it (and us).

I hope my last post cleared up my view a bit. To answer you specifically . . . the heroes you mention (and the events and culures they shaped) are a part of history. I doubt very seriously that when WotC asks "Who are the heroes?" that they want a list of legendary figures from the past.

Even important figures from today are important, but less so. Osama bin Laden himself is less characteristic of modern times than the militant/fundamentalist movement as a whole.

Does that make more sense?

 

[rounser]

The real world doesn't revolve around heroics very often, though.

Most sword and sorcery fantasy worlds worth a damn do tend to revolve around heroics most of the time, though - they have conflicts in motion, in the present and in future - to be resolved. A poor fantasy setting often has all it's main conflicts in the past - I've seen a few homebrew worlds which have fantastic conflicts as the background of the world, but it never occurs to the DM that that conflict should be precisely where they set their campaign! Another example: Look at the state of Dragonlance after it's main conflict was resolved - it sort of floundered looking for new ones...

WotC chose their questions wisely; I theorise that some people don't like them because they're difficult to answer well, and may uncover a few setting weaknesses to boot.

 

[orion winterfire]

WotC chose their questions wisely; I theorise that some people don't like them because they're difficult to answer well, and may uncover a few setting weaknesses to boot.

I suppose you're right that some people don't like difficult-to-answer questions. My problem with the question is this: I believe that the only "heroes" of a setting that should really matter are the PCs.

NPC heroes do not make a world. (Not to say they are not good details . . . )

Looking at the question as "who are the PCs" rather than "who are the NPC heroes" pigeonholes the campaign, IMO.

 

[rounser]

My problem with the question is this: I believe that the only "heroes" of a setting that should really matter are the PCs.

NPC heroes do not make a world. (Not to say they are not good details . . . )

Looking at the question as "who are the PCs" rather than "who are the NPC heroes" pigeonholes the campaign, IMO.

The problem you state doesn't exist - nowhere do they mention that the heroes of the world will be "NPCs" alone.

PCs need a reason to be heroes, and PC heroes need a conflict and a role. D&D provides a rather weak default ("adventurers"), but the setting is far stronger if it provides a tangible role, objectives and opposition for heroes with far more "oomph" than that.

Only in the novels do the heroes by default become NPCs, because you can't roleplay a character in a novel (unless you're the author, or writing about the Dragonlance PCs). Some people will outline specific characters for the role of heroes, others will speak in general terms. I think that the latter group are more likely to score a "hit" on the heroes thing, because a world with only a handful of heroes is poor for gaming, and for setting a multitude of pulp fantasy novels in. If the Knights of Myth Drannor were the only heroes on Faerun, the number of stories to be told is drastically cut down - both in games, and in novels.

 

[orion winterfire]

PCs need a reason to be heroes, and PC heroes need a conflict and a role. D&D provides a rather weak default ("adventurers"), but the setting is far stronger if it provides a tangible role, objectives and opposition for heroes with far more "oomph" than that.

I guess what I've been trying to say is that the thing that defines the heroes . . . the conflict . . . comes from the "big picture" of the world, not from "who are the good guys, who are the bad guys."

 

[Aaron L]

Much of the antagonism of this topic could have been avoided if the title had been something other than "My conscience didn't alow me to submit", implying that submitting our settings was morally wrong, and that the creator of the topic was somehow better than us because he didn't do it. That probably wasn't the intention, but that definitly was the way it came across.

[spelling edit]

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or Shut up.

That you've decided not to leave our fued at the OoP Board at WotC...

You know, I just went back and checked some stuff and I find this little tidbit interesting.

My comment was generally directed concerning posters who have talked about how they didn't submit for various "moral" reasons and so on. I count three or four such posters other than you who had previously posted to the thread. I didn't quote you, or reference you at all.

And yet you decided that the comment was directed at you in continuation of some sort of nonexistent feud you think is being pursued. And launched you into flame war mode, over a comment not even referencing you.

I'll just let that speak about the level of your ego.