-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
What do YOU look for in a Campaign World
- Thread starter Sargon the Kassadian
- Start date
DragonLancer
Adventurer
Kanegrundar said:
I like having a metaplot. If you don't want it, don't use it, but having signs that the world is going on around the game is a must IMO. The PC's are the centre of the game, but the world goes on around them out of their control.
Kanegrundar
Explorer
That's all well and good, but trying to build up a storyline and adding in touches like details of a war in some far off kingdom that goes against the metaplot can create problems with players that know every scrap of info on the setting. Sure, I'm DM, I have the power to tell them "That's not what happens in this world." However, I like to sidestep those pitfalls altogether. It's one of the major points that I don't tend to run games in settings with a popular book-line attached to it. I don't want to hear complaints when word gets out in the Realms that Drizzt is dead and I invalidated canon. *I'll* decide how the world moves on around the players, not the authors.DragonLancer said:
Kane
Sargon the Kassadian
First Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonLancer
I like having a metaplot. If you don't want it, don't use it, but having signs that the world is going on around the game is a must IMO. The PC's are the centre of the game, but the world goes on around them out of their control.
I would like to have such signs, but I believe that players and DMs alike tend to feel railroaded or restricted by metaplots, and it is better to give subtle hints about cool things for the DMs and players to develop on their own. This creates a more "user-friendly" atmosphere and promotes people using your whole campaign world or jacking ideas from it. They don't have to worry about metaplot's getting in the way of fun or of idea compatibility.
PS What do you think about adding Myconids and Grippli as base PC races?
Originally Posted by DragonLancer
I like having a metaplot. If you don't want it, don't use it, but having signs that the world is going on around the game is a must IMO. The PC's are the centre of the game, but the world goes on around them out of their control.
I would like to have such signs, but I believe that players and DMs alike tend to feel railroaded or restricted by metaplots, and it is better to give subtle hints about cool things for the DMs and players to develop on their own. This creates a more "user-friendly" atmosphere and promotes people using your whole campaign world or jacking ideas from it. They don't have to worry about metaplot's getting in the way of fun or of idea compatibility.
PS What do you think about adding Myconids and Grippli as base PC races?
Sargon the Kassadian
First Post
One more question, what do you like in a high magic or low magic setting and why?
was
Adventurer
-I have played and DM'd in both types of campaigns. I tend to favor something low in magic and dark with a more gritty, realistic feel to it. There are two main reasons for this.
-First, it has been my experience that lots of magic tends to lead to an over-reliance on those items and not on the characters natural abilities. For example, why should Joe the fighter worry about his climbing ability when scaling down the cliff face in full plate armor when he can just jump off and rely on his ring of feather falling? Or, why should Slick the thief worry about hide checks sneaking into the castle? After all, he has a ring of invisibility! Doing the job without the magical crutch just seems to be more rewarding.
-Second, I have found that low-magic campaigns tend to encourage more intelligent combat tactics. I like something a little more intelligent that the same old plan of the wizard softening the foe up with a fireball while the fighters wait patiently and then charge the bad guys. It gets old really quick.
-Now it's time for my disclaimer before everyone gets ticked at me. This is just based on MY experience and preferences. They have most definitely changed since my earlier gaming days. It is by no means typical of high magic campaigns or groups.
-I just love a good tactical scenario or novel ways of solving problems. I believe that low magic settings help promote this. My players have amazed me with both their versatility and creativity. I just can't wait to see what they'll come up with next.
...good night...
-First, it has been my experience that lots of magic tends to lead to an over-reliance on those items and not on the characters natural abilities. For example, why should Joe the fighter worry about his climbing ability when scaling down the cliff face in full plate armor when he can just jump off and rely on his ring of feather falling? Or, why should Slick the thief worry about hide checks sneaking into the castle? After all, he has a ring of invisibility! Doing the job without the magical crutch just seems to be more rewarding.
-Second, I have found that low-magic campaigns tend to encourage more intelligent combat tactics. I like something a little more intelligent that the same old plan of the wizard softening the foe up with a fireball while the fighters wait patiently and then charge the bad guys. It gets old really quick.
-Now it's time for my disclaimer before everyone gets ticked at me. This is just based on MY experience and preferences. They have most definitely changed since my earlier gaming days. It is by no means typical of high magic campaigns or groups.
-I just love a good tactical scenario or novel ways of solving problems. I believe that low magic settings help promote this. My players have amazed me with both their versatility and creativity. I just can't wait to see what they'll come up with next.
...good night...
Last edited:
Sargon the Kassadian
First Post
Bump! C'mon guys, I need more responses!
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
Well, this isn't exactly about what's good or bad about existing worlds, but I've created a Designer's Journal in which I hope to showcase the thoughts that went into the creation of my own setting. I hope this is useful for you, too...
Boojum
First Post
-Interesting concept. If you have the same array of kingdoms, barbarian tribes, evil races, gods, etc. just with new geography and different names, don't even bother. I'd rather just play one of the several existing vanilla settings that don't require learning all those new names and geography. Instead, I want something to be different about the setting, a general concept or group of concepts that shapes the flavor of the setting and makes it a different experience than any other setting out there.
-Tweaked and/or new races. Tying into the above point, I don't want races to be exactly the same as the standard. The tweaks need not be mechanical in nature, but I like some thought put into how the races have been affected by or grown out of whatever is different about the world. After all, if the world is different than anything else out there, it would certainly shape its inhabitants in different ways.
-Variety of fun ideas. When I read the setting, I want to constantly be thinking "wow, that's a cool idea/place/npc/whatever, I should use that in an adventure/make a character that ties into it."
By contrast, I care less about believability, consistency, and level of detail. To a certain degree, things should make sense, but if there is a choice between keeping things exactly consistent and believable or having an intriguing backstory and a colorful backdrop to adventures, I'm quite willing to suspend disbelief. By the same token, I'm pretty comfortable coming up with standard cities/kingdoms/whatever on the fly, so I'd rather have nuggets of really unusual or interesting customs, locations, and so on than pages and pages of mundane geographical description.
-Tweaked and/or new races. Tying into the above point, I don't want races to be exactly the same as the standard. The tweaks need not be mechanical in nature, but I like some thought put into how the races have been affected by or grown out of whatever is different about the world. After all, if the world is different than anything else out there, it would certainly shape its inhabitants in different ways.
-Variety of fun ideas. When I read the setting, I want to constantly be thinking "wow, that's a cool idea/place/npc/whatever, I should use that in an adventure/make a character that ties into it."
By contrast, I care less about believability, consistency, and level of detail. To a certain degree, things should make sense, but if there is a choice between keeping things exactly consistent and believable or having an intriguing backstory and a colorful backdrop to adventures, I'm quite willing to suspend disbelief. By the same token, I'm pretty comfortable coming up with standard cities/kingdoms/whatever on the fly, so I'd rather have nuggets of really unusual or interesting customs, locations, and so on than pages and pages of mundane geographical description.
