Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yora" data-source="post: 8354379" data-attributes="member: 6670763">I am having a problem with the layout for my river and could use some opinions:Currently, there are three largish cities right on the coast, and a fourth medium sized city 100 miles upstream, which is the main base for explorers. From there, towns become increasingly less frequent and smaller for the next 500 miles, and after that it's fully unexplored.Now the question is if I should had another full size city further up the river? I do quite like the idea of reaching a new city deep in the wilderness, but with there only being one straight route towards that city, I am uncertain if it's presence would make the whole river between the Base Camp City an the Final City stop feeling like real wilderness, even if it takes three weeks of paddling to get there. I feel it would simply push the start of the real wilderness further up the river, and make the section between the two cities feel like an established traffic route.In reality, the isolation of paddling up a river without seeing any people for days could still make it feel pretty wild, but that's an element you don't really get in an RPG. I think the players' knowledge of what lies ahead or not becomes the dominating factor in this medium.I really want to have that one city in the wilderness, but it seems to me that it would conflict with the structure of the campaign concept and as such hurt the game. Do any of you have any counter-arguments why having a major civilized settlement in the wilderness would contribute positively to an experience of going into the unknown and rediscovering a forgotten past?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yora, post: 8354379, member: 6670763"] I am having a problem with the layout for my river and could use some opinions: Currently, there are three largish cities right on the coast, and a fourth medium sized city 100 miles upstream, which is the main base for explorers. From there, towns become increasingly less frequent and smaller for the next 500 miles, and after that it's fully unexplored. Now the question is if I should had another full size city further up the river? I do quite like the idea of reaching a new city deep in the wilderness, but with there only being one straight route towards that city, I am uncertain if it's presence would make the whole river between the Base Camp City an the Final City stop feeling like real wilderness, even if it takes three weeks of paddling to get there. I feel it would simply push the start of the real wilderness further up the river, and make the section between the two cities feel like an established traffic route. In reality, the isolation of paddling up a river without seeing any people for days could still make it feel pretty wild, but that's an element you don't really get in an RPG. I think the players' knowledge of what lies ahead or not becomes the dominating factor in this medium. I really want to have that one city in the wilderness, but it seems to me that it would conflict with the structure of the campaign concept and as such hurt the game. Do any of you have any counter-arguments why having a major civilized settlement in the wilderness would contribute positively to an experience of going into the unknown and rediscovering a forgotten past? [/QUOTE]

Verification