Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6064923" data-attributes="member: 2303">My favorite worlds are more defined by what the don't have.No strangely barbaric/civilized areas that somehow exits without having any impact or being impacted upon by their neighbors. If a land is isolated, it needs a reason to be isolated.No current large war or large-scale conflicts that need to progress in-game. A cold war or unstable peace is good, but an actual hot war is generally out unless it is the central theme of the campaign. A major war is simply too disruptive. Local wars and skirmishes are ok.I am not fond of an "empire of evil" that lacks an economy or otherwise feels unsustainable. A tribal orc society in badlands is by itself incapable of being more than a nuisance to a strong human state. I also dislike "evil for the sake of evil" societies, but realize they are sometimes needed to provide legitimate enemies to the players.I don't use points of light settings. The players may not know what is around the corner, but I need to - or else I cannot effectively use foreshadowing.Beyond that, I love a world with history, both ancient and modern. I adore the migratory maps of the Greyhawk setting and the past empires of Golarion. I am ok with ripoffs of historical societies and from literature, and I don't mind old tropes - I find they usually makes it easier for the players to understand the setting. Science fiction used to have an adage; you can introduce ONE odd/unrealistic element in your story to make it otherworldly and set the scene, but the rest should all seem reasonable or derive from your one change. I like that idea, and often make variants of known settings, such as "Just like 10th century France, but with hereditary superpowers".</blockquote>

Verification