Planescape, Oathbound, Star Trek? Kingdom Hearts?

[Kobold Avenger]

The Factions never made a big impression with me. I read most of them and had a hard time accepting anyone with any sense would follow any of the tenets. It felt too 'shoe-horned', as well.

Many of the factions are based on real-world philosophies and religions, like Agnosticism, Taoism, Buddhism, Friedrich Nietzsche, Anarchism, Fundamentalism, Fascism and more. Say what you will about those, but many people in real life do follow those tenets.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

Doesn't Shemmy come round anymore?

 

[GreatLemur]

Kingdom Hearts takes Disney characters and Final Fantasy characters and makes something new: how does it do that?

Would you really say that Kindom Hearts achieves the sort of sythesis-of-kitchen-sink-into-coherant-whole result that you're talking about? From what I've seen of those games, they always struck me as a worst-case scenario of When Media Conglomerates Attack!, somehow massaged into good gameplay by some very professional game developers. Conceptually, the whole thing is just unbearable, no matter how good the gameplay is. I ain't particularly a fan of Disney or Squaresoft characters, but I can't get past how completely wrong it seems to combine them, or how illogically it was done.

But that's a completely unhelpful tangent from your original question. So, getting back on topic, I'd suggest that the short answer is that, no matter how diverse the content of a setting is, the tone can probably be made somewhat unified (i.e., Eberron is full of every damn spell, class, feat, and monster that WotC has published, but it's all presented in a high-action, pulp/modernist-fantasy kind of way). Also, I feel that internal consistency is hugely important. If different elements of your setting suggest different cosmologies or fundamental rules, you need to find a way to iron out those discrepancies. (I'd call the Marvel and D.C. comics universes pretty glaring examples of internal inconsistency. Things like time travel, alternate realities, the afterlife, the nature of God / the gods / cosmic powers, and even the capabilities of modern technology are presented differently by each individual writer, with very little evidence that the editors try to keep things coherent.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Would you really say that Kindom Hearts achieves the sort of sythesis-of-kitchen-sink-into-coherant-whole result that you're talking about? From what I've seen of those games, they always struck me as a worst-case scenario of When Media Conglomerates Attack!, somehow massaged into good gameplay by some very professional game developers. Conceptually, the whole thing is just unbearable, no matter how good the gameplay is. I ain't particularly a fan of Disney or Squaresoft characters, but I can't get past how completely wrong it seems to combine them, or how illogically it was done.

This is kind of a good point in regards to the thread, because it seems the game "went wrong" from your POV. It *didn't* succeed in unifying these themes because...it was a bad concept?

I think the idea of world-devouring evil starting to bleed at the cracks of reality and a multiverse-wide search for lost friends is a pretty good way to get a driving theme behind all these world visits. Did it not just take for you? Or do you have to like the source concepts to be able to enjoy the hodge-podge?

 

[Ulric]

Let me simplify (and maybe change) the question:

HOW DO YOU CREATE A UNIQUE, BUT INCLUSIVE SETTING?

First of all you need some sort of justification for why disparate realities are bleeding together. That's really the easy part - there are so many science fiction and fantasy tropes meant to do that, that it's not a difficulty.

Then you need some common antagonists.

I think the key is the "justification for why disparate realities are bleeding together". I think, like Ripzerai said, it is easy to come up with reasons. However, it isn't easy to come up a new, unique reason. For a novel I'm working on right now, it took months and months of serious brainstorming before I came up with a reason that's unique--a reason that I hadn't heard of before. Again, to quote Ripzerai, "there are so many science fiction and fastasy tropes meant to do that", to justify the bleeding together of disparate realities. But that's also the problem. Most of them have become clichés.

If you manage to come up with a unique reason(s), then, next, you've got to work on mood. Mood is determined by two things: 1) setting, meaning location, background etc.. and 2) characters.

With an all inclusive, kitchen-sink type setting, because the locations and background will often be changing, a main or central location will determined the feel. Example: Sigil. Or, if there is no main or central location, the main characters or type of characters is what will give you your mood and feel. Hanging out with pirates will feel different than hanging out with fairy tale creatures whether you're in the mall or on Mars.

"Then you need some common antagonists".

Yes, common antagonists can be a great unifier. No matter how many diverse things you've got going on in your book or setting or game, if everyone hates the Boogyman, and you periodically show what the Boogyman is doing and how everyone has to react and is influenced by the Boogyman, then you can keep lots of stuff connected. But if you use common atagonists as your unifier, you'd better have some darn good, darn interesting bad guys or you've got suck running throughout your entire work.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This is kind of a good point in regards to the thread, because it seems the game "went wrong" from your POV. It *didn't* succeed in unifying these themes because...it was a bad concept?

One that I never got behind, and really find very bland, was Rifts. It never felt like anything other than a hodgepodge to me. I know people who enjoyed playing in it, but I never really found any cohesion in the setting.

Anyone have opinions on Rifts?

 

[Ripzerai]

I think people like Rifts for reasons that have nothing to do with coherency. They like the specific OCCs, and the cross-genre action, mega-damage points, and races like the wolfen and sploogorth.

But I don't think "coherency" is part of the setting's appeal.

I suppose that's a valid question for this thread. Not just, "how do pastiche settings acheive coherency?" but "do pastiche settings even need coherency?"

 

[Voadam]

One that I never got behind, and really find very bland, was Rifts. It never felt like anything other than a hodgepodge to me. I know people who enjoyed playing in it, but I never really found any cohesion in the setting.

Anyone have opinions on Rifts?

Very cool concepts, cool art, cool flavor. Super unbalanced mechanically.

Rail guns, power armor, juicers, psionics, magic, dimensional rifts bringing in wierd alien creatures, and a totalitarian anti supernatural human tech empire.

I like the concept and think it works fine because there are elements like the coalition and other political entities as well as a world history to put the different elements into some sort of coherent relationship.

Your not just a guy with power armor, you are a renegade coalition soldier gone mercenary working with ley line walkers, superpsionics, a DB, a cyberknight and a young dragon, all who must avoid the Coalition.

Or you are a coalition soldier working with dog pack comrades and whatever those psychic vampire supernatural hunters are called, all working for the coalition.

Or you are a schmoe city rat or archivist and explorer, just trying to get by in a world where you are seriously outclassed by many, many things.

 

[Seeten]

I liked the central idea of Rifts, even though, traditionally, I dont like mixing high science and magic. I thought the IDEA was executed beautifully.

Sadly, the system is a complete mess, and virtually unplayable. Still, I think the Rifts settings works, and wouldnt hesitate to play Rifts using True20, for example.

 

[Dragonbait]

Does anyone ever read these?

The players need to be willing to share in this dimension/concept hopping feel. If a person thinks that something like magic and technology can not go together and should not go together, you already have limits to the setting. If the players and GM are willing to see their character in all sorts of environments and encounters, then there are no limits:
"First we fought some orcs in the Flanaess (spelling? Grayhawk), then a Ridley (from Metroid) and Nobodies (Kingdom hearts 2) stole the Kingdom Heart of Oerth and jumped through a portal. Now we are in Sigil (Planescape), looking for the Ridley and Nobodies. We were told that they already left Sigil and were on their way to Newport (throwing the anime Tank Police in there). We were told that one of the IG-88 models (Star Wars) that went rogue from the IG-88 hive mind was here some where and he might know how to get there... Got it. Let's go talk to the old droid then."
Yeah, this is an extreme mix, but it's an example of the possibility of what one could do.

As for keeping the feel: With such massive opportunities and varieties of scenarios possible, I think that characters themselves are really what keep the "feel" of the game the same. If Luke, Han, and the gang encountered the Borg the same way the Enterprise did (thanks to Q) and defeated them, their path to doing so would be radically different than the Enterprise crew. The crew of the Falcon's 'adventure' would more than likely still feel like a Star Wars story rather than a Star Trek story.