Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 2182735" data-attributes="member: 812">My lack of interest in &quot;planar&quot; games (that is, games that feature a large amount of travel between various &quot;worlds&quot;) is two-fold:1. As DM, it's enough work for me to come up with ONE campaign setting that's fun and rich and memorable. As soon as I open up the idea that there's a multiplicity of worlds, I need to come up with MORE. It's not impossible, sure, but it's suddenly twice as much work. Is it twice as much fun?Of course, I could define a setting that has lots of &quot;worlds&quot; and just keep them limited in scope and style so that it ends up being the same amount of work. Yep. But then none of my worlds are as well-thought-out as the one world of the non-planar game (given the same amount of effort), which is less satisfying for me.2. As someone pointed out, every alternate world reduces the importance of what happens on any single world. For players, too, if they've invested in one world and then find out it's just a little part of a much larger whole, they'll feel insignificant unless the game includes means for them to have an impact on the whole.Fundamentally, though, planes are just window dressing. There's no real difference between a setting where the bad guys live in the kingdom next door, or on the 453rd layer of the Abyss. The job of the DM is provide a setting that's sufficiently fun and rich and can support the adventures of the party. Whether the party travels from place to place by walking or by spelljammer is a question of pure cosmetics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="barsoomcore, post: 2182735, member: 812"] My lack of interest in "planar" games (that is, games that feature a large amount of travel between various "worlds") is two-fold: 1. As DM, it's enough work for me to come up with ONE campaign setting that's fun and rich and memorable. As soon as I open up the idea that there's a multiplicity of worlds, I need to come up with MORE. It's not impossible, sure, but it's suddenly twice as much work. Is it twice as much fun? Of course, I could define a setting that has lots of "worlds" and just keep them limited in scope and style so that it ends up being the same amount of work. Yep. But then none of my worlds are as well-thought-out as the one world of the non-planar game (given the same amount of effort), which is less satisfying for me. 2. As someone pointed out, every alternate world reduces the importance of what happens on any single world. For players, too, if they've invested in one world and then find out it's just a little part of a much larger whole, they'll feel insignificant unless the game includes means for them to have an impact on the whole. Fundamentally, though, planes are just window dressing. There's no real difference between a setting where the bad guys live in the kingdom next door, or on the 453rd layer of the Abyss. The job of the DM is provide a setting that's sufficiently fun and rich and can support the adventures of the party. Whether the party travels from place to place by walking or by spelljammer is a question of pure cosmetics. [/QUOTE]

Verification