Titansgrave and why 5E needs a setting (or two) (and another take on a suggested product lineup)

Mercurius

Legend
I first heard about Titansgrave a few weeks ago but didn't really look into it - I thought, "Why do I want to watch an RPG show starring Wesley Crusher?" But I just watched the prologue video to Titansgrave and am impressed - I'm a fan of science fantasy and found the setting to be interesting and evocative and look forward to picking up the setting book, The Ashes of Valkana.

Anyhow, this got me thinking about 5E and namely what is missing from 5E. I've started a couple threads about adventures, suggesting that there's a glaring hole in 5E where one-shot adventures should be, and specifically that 5E really needs more "movable pieces" - short adventures, encounter scenarios, sites, etc, that can be plugged into a campaign. In the past I have been a huge advocate for the centrality of setting for an RPG, but have kind of given up on WotC, dating back to when they cancelled the Nentir Vale Gazetteer and more so with the lack of setting in 5E, now a year into the cycle. But watching the Titansgrave video, and observing my reaction to it, I feel more strongly than ever that setting is central an RPG.

This should be made clear: A setting is a story, or rather it is the embodiment of a story. When Mr. Wheaton was telling the back-story of Valkana, I was transported to another time and place, a mythic mindscape that tickled my imagination. This "tickling of the imagination" is perhaps the jewel of why I love RPGs and fantasy/science fiction in general. It isn't the only reason I play - I'd have to include hanging out with friends, the fun of combat and adventure, and so forth - but it is the most precious element of it. In a way, it is the only part of the RPG experience (and other forms of engaging imaginary worlds, namely reading and creating) that cannot be found easily in other forms of activity.

I was reminded of how important setting and story is to the RPG experience. I think WotC knows this, at least the story part. But what they seem to be missing is that a story without a setting is paper-thin. A rich setting provides a context for story, a shared imaginative experience for the community and, perhaps most importantly, brings the game to life in a way otherwise not possible. Now of course their story arcs have been set in the Forgotten Realms, which is anything if not densely detailed. But what I'm talking about is a sense of place, a sense of the RPG arising out of mythic worlds that is lacking so far with 5E, and the feeling that only a living world can bring to an RPG.

Paizo seems to understand this, as it supports and develops Golarion as a living world. Not all Pathfinder players use Golarion - my guess is that most do not - but all can participate in the ongoing story of the world, the feeling of connection, of shared experience. I personally have never used a published setting, but I buy and enjoy setting products because they inspire me and bring the game to life by way of example.

I don't expect my measly little post here to change the direction WotC is taking with 5E. And, to be honest, we don't really know what that direction is. We're a year in and we have the core rules, two story arcs, with a third story arc coming later this year and some kind of psionics product in the works, possibly for 2016. But what we don't know yet is what WotC plans to do about settings, if anything at all. There have been rumors of Chris Perkins' campaign setting going to publishing, but I'm not sure whether this is true or not.

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, 5E really needs setting. I personally would advocate for a two-pronged approach: Some kind of resuscitation of classic settings, but also the development and ongoing support of a new world to explore.

If anything, in the spirit of RPGs I'm whimsically playing make-believe. I don't really expect this to happen, but one can hope...



Addendum: Suggested Product Lineup
Speaking of groundless hope, as a related aside here's how I'd suggest they implement this plan, with a suggested product lineup:

*Splats: Minimize splats to strongly thematic books - like Psionics, the Planes, the Underdark, Horror, etc - and perhaps only one per year. A new Monster Manual no more than every 2-3 years.
*Story Arcs: Continue two story arcs per year, with one being in the classic setting and one in the new setting. Both should be customizable to homebrews.
*Classic Settings: Once per year do a full treatment of a classic D&D setting, and then perhaps license it out to a 3PP to support more fully.
*New Setting: A couple setting supplements per year, plus the story arc and maybe two or three adventures. Perhaps after a few years, create a new setting, with continued but lessened ongoing support for the prior setting (assuming it is well received).
*Dungeon: Bring back Dungeon, with adventures in a variety of settings. New adventures could be published twice a month or so, with a PODable PDF quarterly.
*Surprise!: Every so often, even once a year, a surprise product - maybe a sandbox setting in box set form.

The various products can be linked together, even combined. For instance, an Underdark product could actually be a box set that includes a sandbox setting with countless adventure ideas, a monster booklet, and a story arc all in one. Oh yeah, plus maps. This could be a "mega-event" - a $60-70 box set released at GenCon, and of coursed tied into whatever video game they have going on. Better yet, there could be a big budget television series about an adventuring party for which each season focuses on the "theme of the year." But I'm getting way ahead of myself...

Anyhow, looking at the above, that's maybe 8-10 products a year, plus the Dungeon PDFs, so hardly gluttony.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It seems to me, the point of Wil using Titansgrave as his setting, is to show that people can create settings and adventures therein themselves. There are other reasons, of course. And he has has people helping him with it, because it's not just a home game that no one else is going to see, there's a lot of production required to turn an RPG session into a show. But it is his own creation.

I'm not saying you're wrong wanting what you want. You want what you want, nothing wrong with that. Just pointing out the irony. :)
 



Spoilers:

What I found interesting about watching those episodes was the fairly serious, dark tone of the setting and the grim events that will be involved in the campaign compared to the comedy of adventuring to save the beer supply for an NPC whose name is a Simpsons reference.
 

Spoilers:

What I found interesting about watching those episodes was the fairly serious, dark tone of the setting and the grim events that will be involved in the campaign compared to the comedy of adventuring to save the beer supply for an NPC whose name is a Simpsons reference.

I suspect that's a result of Wil's style of GMing... which (now that I've seen the Dread episode of Tabletop plus these first two eps of Titans Grave) tells me that I don't think he's very strong at creating atmosphere. I've haven't really enjoyed his two forays into GMing onscreen thus far to tell you the truth, and it's because he seems either reticent or incapable of setting a deeper mood. Even his NPC voices and characterizations are a bit shallow to me.

But then again... that's almost definitely based upon my own experiences in what I've found in the games run by the GMs I've latched onto... so just because Wil's not really engaging me, doesn't mean what he's doing is bad by any stretch. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there watching it that think he's amazing. But when I see what Matthew Mercer is doing in the Critical Role livestream... his is a style that grabs me more as a listener and as a player. And a game set in Titans Grave run by him would be a much different experience.
 

I suspect that's a result of Wil's style of GMing... which (now that I've seen the Dread episode of Tabletop plus these first two eps of Titans Grave) tells me that I don't think he's very strong at creating atmosphere. I've haven't really enjoyed his two forays into GMing onscreen thus far to tell you the truth, and it's because he seems either reticent or incapable of setting a deeper mood. Even his NPC voices and characterizations are a bit shallow to me.

But then again... that's almost definitely based upon my own experiences in what I've found in the games run by the GMs I've latched onto... so just because Wil's not really engaging me, doesn't mean what he's doing is bad by any stretch. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there watching it that think he's amazing. But when I see what Matthew Mercer is doing in the Critical Role livestream... his is a style that grabs me more as a listener and as a player. And a game set in Titans Grave run by him would be a much different experience.



I'm right there with you. I absolutely love the setting, but I can't tell if I like the AGE system or not because I compare it to the playstyle of the Critical Role crew. I kind of wish they hired Matt to do the GM'ing but at least Wil is passionate and really cares about gaming.
 

It seems to me, the point of Wil using Titansgrave as his setting, is to show that people can create settings and adventures therein themselves. There are other reasons, of course. And he has has people helping him with it, because it's not just a home game that no one else is going to see, there's a lot of production required to turn an RPG session into a show. But it is his own creation.

I'm not saying you're wrong wanting what you want. You want what you want, nothing wrong with that. Just pointing out the irony. :)

There is no irony because that's exactly my point! I stated in the OP that I don't use published settings, I've always used my own. But that the main point of a published setting is to inspire, to set the tone, to bring the game to life - to show people how its done so they can create their own worlds, or at least make a published world their own.

You're never going to stop making these threads until you finally get what you want, aren't you? ;)

I suppose that's one way to look at it, although it is a bit reductionistic.
 

I'm right there with you. I absolutely love the setting, but I can't tell if I like the AGE system or not because I compare it to the playstyle of the Critical Role crew. I kind of wish they hired Matt to do the GM'ing but at least Wil is passionate and really cares about gaming.

I think comparing Titansgrave to Critical Role is a bit unfair. Titansgrave has some random folks with ridiculous amounts of geek cred play a fairly humorous game with what seems to be a rather dark backstory, and has some heavy editing going on to make things seem more "snappy" for those who tune in and wonder "what's all this role-playing thing then?" Critical Role had been running for two years (in Pathfinder) before they started showing it on Twitch, so the players are all eminently comfortable with one another and with their characters. It's also streamed live, so you get to see the whole game, warts and all (and with all the rule errors - they still don't seem quite comfortable with the Concentration rules...), which to me creates a more immersive experience. It also shows the camaraderie in a completely different way - I'm sure Wil, Hank, Alison, Yuri, and Laura get along super-well off-screen, but we don't see that, and at least one of the players (Hank) doesn't even live anywhere near the others, whereas Critical Role includes two actual couples (Matt & Marisha, and Laura & Travis).
 

I think comparing Titansgrave to Critical Role is a bit unfair.

Well, my intention was not to really compare the two shows, but rather the styles of the two DMs. Wil has this habit (which to be fair is one that Chris Perkins has too) when talking as an NPC he starts most lines with "He says..." and then drops into his character voice. Whereas Matthew (and the DMs I play with in my home games) stays in character through several lines of back and forth dialogue (if not entire conversations). As a roleplayer who is also an improviser, staying "within the scene" is something I've come to more greatly enjoy as a technique. Thus Wil's tendency to sometimes break out of a conversation to give a quick third-person narrative before going back into "Then he says..." just disengages me as a viewer. Again... nothing at all wrong with his particular technique and style, it's just one that I find is distancing and thus a bit shallower. For me, the mood is harder set when you are wanting conversations with these NPC characters but they get broken every line or two by switching to narrator-voice. Just my opinions on what I prefer.
 

Remove ads

Top