What do YOU look for in a Campaign World

[VirgilCaine]

One more question, what do you like in a high magic or low magic setting and why?

I like an in-between.
Lets say, I like magic items to be such that commoners don't scream and shun you when your sword glows or you touch your belt and start flying or whatever and commoners don't make fun of your for your sucky magical mace, when theirs is so much better...

 

[DragonLancer]

PS What do you think about adding Myconids and Grippli as base PC races?

Whatever works in your game really. I prefer to stick to the standard PHB races rather than add new ones. Once you start adding weird races (Myconid as an example) then the world has got to be a little too weird for my tastes.

One more question, what do you like in a high magic or low magic setting and why?

I'm not a fan of high magic either as a player or as a DM. High magic where such is over prevalent feels wrong to me. Its not enjoyable.

On the other hand, low magic is easily playable, feels more reasonable, and is perhaps a little more controllable.

And for reference, I consider standard D&D magic levels abover average magic.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

One more question, what do you like in a high magic or low magic setting and why?

Low magic setting: Well, maybe magic doesn't need to be subtle in a low-magic setting, but then it should be dangerous - meddling too much with it should be a risk to the magic-user's soul. The Warhammer Fantasy world is the perfect example - while wizards can create some spectacular effects, they all risk getting seduced by the forces of Chaos. And most of the licenced wizards specialize on Battle Magic to defend the Empire from outside enemies - thus there is little in the way of "convenience magic".

High-magic setting: It should be build logically and consistently. When a spell has the potential to drastically alter society, such as raise dead and plant growth, then it should drastically alter society. Anything else is just silly or bad setting design. Eberron and (I hope) Urbis fall into this category.

 

[Dr Simon]

Me, I like Quirkiness.

I think your best way forwards is to design a setting that *you* would like to use, and not worry about anyone else. Reading the posts on this group should show you that you can't please everyone, and also that most gamers will either house-rule and modify part of a campaign world that they don't like, or cannibilise from parts of those that they do.

 

[The_Gneech]

It depends on the game ... for hack'n'slash fun, there's no need to go beyond Greyhawk.

But for a more story-oriented game, I prefer a setting with some focus, if you see what I mean, without the Disneyland atmosphere of having a bazillion different intelligent creatures. Take Middle Earth for instance ... there are humans (and a few variant humans such as the woses), elves, dwarves, hobbits (who are a derivation of humans), orcs (who are a derivation of elves), and trolls. That's it for races ... no gnomes, no kobolds, no hobgoblins, no gnolls, no bugbears, no dark creepers, no genasi, etc, etc.

This gives the world a certain cohesion ... everything ties in to the world creation story somehow, and it all ties together.

Or even more extreme, take the Hyborian Age: there are a dozen human cultures, but no demihumans of any kind. This makes the rare sentient nonhuman or monster seem all the weirder. Yag-kosha, sitting in the Tower of the Elephant, is a freak unknown to the world of man, rather than just another "race." While a few specimens of the snake people or the giants of Acheron might still be lurking in corners of the world, they would never be player characters.

I guess what it boils down to is that I like a world that is interesting in its own right, rather than just being filled with a lot of different stuff.

-The Gneech

 

[Terwox]

As to myconids and (whatever a grippli is) being PCs:
A lot of people have already answered this question above -- it's not cool, unless it directly ties into your setting.
Half-giants and rabid halfling and thri-kreen are part of what make Dark Sun cool (I think so, at least?) and this is because they just fit the setting. Same with defilers/preservers -- new classes, but they fit the setting.

That being said, if myconids have a good reason to be PCs, etc, besides "they're cool!" then it could be great. Otherwise... no.

As to the deus ex machina comment, yes, it's in the wrong context -- he's just referring to using (basically fables) as explanations for world events like mountain ranges. I'd tend to disagree with that, I like having valleys and rivers named after the battles of the deities.

Mainly... you can't please everybody, so make something that pleases you. If you're trying to sell it... good luck. It might fly, it might not. But it won't sell if you don't believe in it enough to make it cool. (well, that can be violated, of course, but hey whatever.)

 

[Prince of Happiness]

High magic vs. low magic?

I guess we'd have to agree on what the terms mean if we were to truly discuss, hm? I don't really have a preference, per se, I have preferences depending on the tone of the story I want to tell.

I've found that the definition that was written in "The Road of Kings" for Mongoose's Conan d20 game pretty much solidified my feel on what high/low magic is:

"The Hyborian Age is a low-magic world, for lack of a better term. This does not mean that there is little magic. Indeed, virtually every Conan story reeks of magic. The difference between 'low' magic and 'high' magic is frivolity...Magic does not solve day to day dilemmas...Magic is not a substitute for technology...Magic is not a high art..."

I prefer their definition for low magic for Conan, but for D&D, the default levels of magic are just fine for me. Why? Because I'm playing D&D. The settings where magic does for all intents and purposes replace technology make me twitchy, but given some more context, I can just as well digest that too.

 

[was]

(whatever a grippli is)

I think they're little frog people.....seriously.....

 

[Sargon the Kassadian]

Dragon saved me again, by making grippli as a race. My mechanics, looking back on it, were really screwed up. Anyways, I'm hoping to incorporate myconids and grippli as core races with their own backgrounds and cultures.

 

[Dr Simon]

Myconids and Grippli as races -

Could work if your campaign had quite a botanic theme (anyone recall Aris from the old Dungeoncraft articles in Dragon by Ray Winninger?), with the grippli from the canopy zone and the myconids down on the floor or underground. Actually the two races would relate quite well in a sort of ecological sense and might even have some sort of political relationship based on symbiosis.

Tree-dwelling critters aren't problematic. One of my campaign worlds has the Salsham'ai, who are, crudely, "halflings with monkey feet" and they are quite popular. Myconids - you might need some sort of Racial Level system for them. As I recall they can produce mind-affecting spores which might give them a few ECLs if done straight from the book.

I don't see why it would be "stupid" to include grippli and myconids as PC races in a standard Greyhawk-y kind of fantasy world, but it would be good to have some reason to bring them to the fore-front. Hell, *I'd* play a myconid, but then I did Thri-Kreen PCs years before Dark Sun.