Setting, History, Character and the Campaign

[Reynard]

On a whim, I cracked open my big red leather bound copy of LotR and flipped to the Appendices, which I had not read in many, many years. The first thing I read, for no particular reason, was "Durin's Folk", the short treatise on the history of the dwarves of Middle Earth. I was immediately fil;led with a need to run an all dwarf campaign, or at least make good use of Thorabardin in my DL module campaign.

Tolkien, specifically, aside for a moment, I think the reason I found the piece so entertaining, engaging and inspiring was because it encapsulated a particular setting element -- in this case, a race -- puirely and succinctly, while at the same time giving a great deal of history and geography and even a reasonably good treatise on orcs, to boot. All in what is probably about 5000 words or less (I didn't count). Compared to the horrible mash of textbook and strategy guide that most RPG setting books are, the piece made me wish that such material was designed specifically for gaming (instead of merely inspiring it).

Anyway, much of my interest and enthusiasm was fueled by the sense of scope and history encapsulated in such a small work and all the possibilities that bubbled forth from my brain while and after I read it. To play a dwarf whose people had such a history, or to run a game in which that kind of history was present, would be far richer than the usual D&D experience, I think. If nothing else, having that sense of history in mind when playing such a character would be envigorating and rewarding. WHy does Tordek hate goblins? Not because the rules say so, but because Azog put the kings head ona pike a thousand years ago. Why does Tordek adventure? Not because it is D&D and therefore he has to, but because his homeland has long since fallen to fell creatures and he is too rpoud to take charity and too angry to give up searching for ways to gain vengeance. Why does Tordek covet gold and jewels? Not because money=nifty new toys in D&D, but because despite all their power to resist the will of the Dark Lord to command them, they can't stay the greed and covetousness he instills in them. The sections on men and elves and (to ma lesser degree) hobbits are equally worthwhile and inspiring -- there's something there that makes the character and the world in which he operates more than just one dungeon crawl after another -- even iff that is the play at the table actually amounts to.

What role does setting and history play in game you run or in which you play? Do the games in which you are involved consider setting and history, or does the campaign exist discreetly, of its own accord? When you choose to run a game or play a character, what do you find truly inspiring?

 

[CruelSummerLord]

See, this is why I don't game; rather, I write about setting details and information for the benefit of other players.

For reasons I can't fully explain, the Greyhawk setting captures my passion and stimulates my creativity. Given that so little about it is detailed, I find myself wanting to know more, to discover the hidden secrets of the world. Same thing with Titan, the setting for the Fighting Fantasy Gamebook series-there's just something about it that captures my imagination.

Part of it also has to do with the fact that it's generic Tolkien fantasy. Some people hate Tolkien fantasy-I have a deep, abidiing love for it, and am completely, utterly and thoroughly uninterested in settings like Tekumel. For me, if there are no dwarves, elves or orcs, it's not D&D and I'm not interested. YMMV.

Anyway, I want to make these worlds more than just generic backgrounds for gaming, but worlds with their own personality, history and mythology. I see absolutely no reason why a novel in a D&D setting can't have Shakespearean-level characterization, history and background to rival anything else in heroic fiction or myth, and characters as well-developed and fleshed-out as any other fantasy hero.

It's hard to say, exactly, what drives something like this. A lot of my Greyhawk writing aims, I think, to add more depth and understanding to the setting, which is why I write edition-free material; and to show that Greyhawk is not just a generic fantasy world. In fact, I believe there is no such thing, and I make absolutely no apologies for loving Tolkien fantasy.

Beyond that, though, is the advantage it offers to gamers. As I've said, I don't actually game-I see Greyhawk and the various D&D tropes as fodder for novels and narrative fiction, not gaming-but if gamers can make use of my writings, so much the better.

So, in the end, setting and history play a critically important role for me. Tolkien fantasy, with its dwarves, elves, orcs and dragons, is for me endlessly compelling and enjoyable, especially when it can be built on and fresh spins found for old ideas. Best of all is a fantasy world that lasts forever-no disappearance of magic, no industrialization, no turning into our dull, drab Earth.

Twenty thousand years from now, people will still be wielding broadswords and wearing plate mail, and science plays a distinct second filddle to sorcery.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Reynard & CSL:

History and setting play a huge part in my campaigns. But then, much like you guys, I love creating settings. It's nice time filler and relaxer when I get home from work. I enjoy it, and drew my initial inspiration for setting creation for the reasons you guys list. Tolkien initially showed me that it could be done. And of course since then there's been so much done along these lines.

My players are pretty good at reading the stuff I write too. Which is very gratifying. OK, they don't read everything I write. Why do they care that the opera house in my Dwarven Kingdom closed down two centuries ago due to a shift in culture away from the ancient tales and forms to more locally relevant forms? You'd have to be a saint.

In terms of what I find inspiring: history is the hands down winner. Even false histories like Tolkien's. In another thread somewhere a couple of weeks ago some people were saying they hate when Real Life religion gets brought into a game (even dead ones like Ancient Egypt's).* I disagreed on the grounds that real life has detail, connections and a wealth of allusions and cultural baggage that no amount of stuff created for DnD possibly can.

And this goes as much for a history as for a religion or art forms like music. My Dwarven campaign's opera (it's made a comeback!) is Wagnerian in style. I can see Dwarves loving Wagner. It's epic, long, heavy, fatalistic and, dare I say, pompous and self-important. Perfect for your standard received Dwarves (like standard received English, but Dwarves).

I also get inspiration from other gamers. Glenn Vincent Dammerung's piece on Dwarven Opera (on Canonfire) was a great read. As most of his articles are. There's always stuff here and there to use. INcluding of course the main rule books. Greyhawk is my personal fave too. Greyhawk's appeal to me is, to use the current buzzword, the Points of Light thing. There's a framework, some inspiration, but not so much that you can't make your own bits and insert them without disturbing the whole. My version, although not Canon, is not so different as to be unrecognizable. Hell, it could be superimposed over another campaign and barely make a wave. That's a great freedom yet at the same time gives you a frame of reference to communicate with others. In fact, saying that, Greyhawk's a common culture within which references can be made. No different, except in scale, from any other cultural movement, from Cubism to Christianity.

ANd maybe this thought shines a light on why my attitude towards, say, Forgotten Realms, is quite negative. It's another cultural reference that I'm just not getting.



*I'll use living religions too. As an atheist I have no concerns about committing blasphemy, which can be a genuine concern for some players (at least that's what I get from reading between the lines in some posts.) Hey fair enough: religion is a deeply held belief for most folks and I certainly don't think I should try to enforce my style of play (let alone beliefs) on them.


Cheers guys.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Reynard & CSL:


And this goes as much for a history as for a religion or art forms like music. My Dwarven campaign's opera (it's made a comeback!) is Wagnerian in style. I can see Dwarves loving Wagner. It's epic, long, heavy, fatalistic and, dare I say, pompous and self-important. Perfect for your standard received Dwarves (like standard received English, but Dwarves).

I also get inspiration from other gamers. Glenn Vincent Dammerung's piece on Dwarven Opera (on Canonfire) was a great read. As most of his articles are. There's always stuff here and there to use. INcluding of course the main rule books. Greyhawk is my personal fave too. Greyhawk's appeal to me is, to use the current buzzword, the Points of Light thing. There's a framework, some inspiration, but not so much that you can't make your own bits and insert them without disturbing the whole. My version, although not Canon, is not so different as to be unrecognizable. Hell, it could be superimposed over another campaign and barely make a wave. That's a great freedom yet at the same time gives you a frame of reference to communicate with others. In fact, saying that, Greyhawk's a common culture within which references can be made. No different, except in scale, from any other cultural movement, from Cubism to Christianity.

ANd maybe this thought shines a light on why my attitude towards, say, Forgotten Realms, is quite negative. It's another cultural reference that I'm just not getting.


*I'll use living religions too. As an atheist I have no concerns about committing blasphemy, which can be a genuine concern for some players (at least that's what I get from reading between the lines in some posts.) Hey fair enough: religion is a deeply held belief for most folks and I certainly don't think I should try to enforce my style of play (let alone beliefs) on them.


Cheers guys.

Yeah, GVD's articles are great stuff. He and I have some disagreements over the nature of Greyhawk, but that's the nature of the beast. We love each others' work, and I have no doubt we would have a grand time gaming in each others' versions of the setting. And it sounds like I'd love playing in your game, too-the history and cultural variations you mention, both in this thread and the one I started, are fascinating.

Just like yours, my version of Greyhawk deviates from canon, but not so much as to be unrecognizable. Much of what I change has to do with weeding out political correctness, deliberately adding shades of grey, and political intrigue and depth, as well as what I cited above.

I myself have mixed feelings about Forgotten Realms. Part of me likes some of the genuinely good ideas that it has, but there are others that I find very annoying: the sheer number of high-powered wizards, whether living people or liches, to the point where a 20th level wizard elicits a "so what?" response from me; the lines of good and evil seemingly too clearly drawn-everyone in Aglarond is good, everyone in Chondath is bad, etc.; and the fact that the iconic NPCs are essentially perfect creatures, with apparently no flaws whatsoever, and even more infuriatingly, the fact that they explicitly break the rules in ways players would never be able to, if the DM enforces the RAW.

What don't you like about it?

 

[Reynard]

I gather that caring about the setting, hostory and wider world in general is not a common thing. It is nice to know, though, that there are some few people who think that sometimes "fun" just isn't enough, as I do.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I gather that caring about the setting, hostory and wider world in general is not a common thing. It is nice to know, though, that there are some few people who think that sometimes "fun" just isn't enough, as I do.

Really?

I've always had the impression that this turns people's cranks at least as much as anything else.

Certainly, most of the players and DM's I know are more interested in the wider world's story than their own characters' small dramas.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

It's hard to pin down exactly what I don't like about the Realms. The things you mention are part of it.

The excessive number of high level NPCs and such is a bit disturbing. I like a low and gritty campaign to be honest. My preferred class to play is fighter/thief because I like the combo of being able to do "stuff" and hit hard from in front or behind. So I guess I just like a campaign that can accomodate that. Lanhkmar and Hyboria come leaping to mind as my ideal fun places to play. And my bias as a player overflows into my bias as a GM. Or possibly the other way around.

The blanket coverage of the setting, by which I mean the way in which every little nook and cranny is covered in detail somewhere, leaves little for me to contribute. This is fine for many people, and I'm sure a selling point for the product. But not what I'm after, or, I suspect, you or Reynard.

Back to that high level thing. It really changes the style of the game. Instead of having challenges that the heroes can overcome through ingenuity, hard work or just plain luck, the prevalence of powerful magic available means that heroes will have to have the correct counter spell(s). It lacks in dramatic tension. The spell will work 100% of the time unless blocked by the specific spell that blocks it. So in turn the bad guys need to have a counter to the counter. It quickly turns into a game of trumps. Teleporting to bypass mundane and location oriented defenses, anti-teleport wall to block teleports, armour piercing teleport to penetrate anti-teleport wall. OK I made that last one up, but how long till it happens?

This is the fault of the magic system: the least over-hauled thing in all the editions and most difficult to implement in a satisfactory manner. And I don't mean the Vancian system. Although that has it's flaws and is slowly being done away with. I mean the lack of cohesion within the spell descriptions. So many spells are presented as the ultimate (at whatever) until someone else writes up a spell that is more ultimate. <sigh> The thing that really irks me here is that certain spells do have simple, workable mechanics that allow for variation/challenge within the spell itself. Dispel Magic presents a simple mechanic that can be made to fit many many situations. Many more spells could use this caster vs caster level mechanic but don't. I have heard of, but not read, Spell Compendium re-creating the magic system in a more cohesive manner. I should check it out. (I think it's Spell Compendium.)

But this is all getting a bit (a big bit) off topic. Your question was presumably more about the historic/cultural settings within the Realms.

Well they're there at least. But everything is larger than life. SOOOOO much larger. There's nothing everyday and human about any of it. Queens who are the goddess of magic personified (or something like that, I don't know the exact details of the Simbol/Cymble/Symbol and can't bring myself to care.) Even the next door neighbour can turn out to be a world-shatteringly powerful wizard. Not only that, despite being an old, grumpy, ugly, know-it-all with a penchant for endless rambling he never-the-less pulls all these amazing hotties. I guess power is an aphrodesiac. Mary Sue much?

As to the Realm's history: it's all so monumental. Entire kingdoms vanishing off to other planes thanks to magical catastrophes caused by their megalomaniac wizard-kings. Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this happened to more than one or two kingdoms in the Realm's past? I mean one Atlantis parallel is enough surely? And let's not forget the day to day interference of Gods. ANd their occasional exile to the world as well. What about the "boring" mundane stuff like wars of succession or barbarian migrations? Or famines? Or plagues? Or petty things like Baron X is jealous of Baron Y and his hot wife Z: a war results.

The day to day life of people seems impossible without major and constant interference from Elminster and Co. Or the Red Wizards depending on who is your local big boss. I imagine the crops couldn't grow without a high level druid to cast the right spells. What about commerce? How can it survive without high level magical protection. And if it has it why do we need caravans or ships? You'd ship everything via teleport portals. I can live with a world that does this and accepts magic as technology and the world changes accordingly. Eberron f'rinstance. But the Realms has magic both more powerful and more ubiquitous than in Eberron yet everyone lives these quasi medieval lives.

Oh yeah: quasi medieval. It's like that Kevin Costner Robinhood movie. No mud. No illness or disfigurement. None of the bad things that would lend a bit of realism to the setting. Presumably magic makes all the bad go away. Again the local Elminster looks after us all. It reminds me more of Star Trek than anything. Effectively infinite amounts of energy that can be turned into literally anything. There's no reason for anyone to struggle for anything.

Something about the way adventuring companies are done. Just doesn't feel right.

And as you mentioned: where are the shades of grey? Bad guys are all bad, good guys all good. It's too simplistic. OK an outgrowth from the alignment system but you don't have to be quite so slavish to it do you?

Hell, even the art work has a certain over done/over produced quality to it. It's almost comic bookish. Which, now I think of it, is a fine analogy for the rest of the setting.

So to sum up: it's over the top, super-heroics, lacking in flavour (macdonalds is not a flavour), simplistic and twee. Not sure where you call home, but if it's the States then "Twee" is a dialect word. Means something along the lines of wishy-washy, overly cute and just generally too nice and trying too hard to be nice.

WOw, that's kinda long. As I said: kinda hard to pin down exactly what I dislike about them.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Hey Dr. Strangemonkey.

In my experience I find most players I play with now days are interested in the campaign background to an extent. Which is very gratifying for me when I GM and makes for more fun for me when I'm playing. So all up a good thing.

It hasn't always been like this. Certainly in my younger days people who cared about much more than twatting the bad guys and taking their stuff were reasonably rare. And I include myself there. I think it's a thing that changes as you get older. You just want better stories. Maybe I should say different stories.