Why is it so hard to change a world?

[S'mon]

This seems like a silly complaint to me, no offense intended. Do you have a problem with a particular DM? Take it up with him. Do you have a problem with the philosophy in general? OK, fine, but realise a lot of people will disagree with you.

I really don't see "Why is it that no matter how great the quest, how noble the deeds, or how impressive the party may become, DMs will not let you change the campaign world in any meaningful way?" as a silly complaint, if true. I think most players want a sense of empowerment when playing most RPGs, D&D certainly. Not being able to change the campaign world certainly affects that.

 

[Nightfall]

That's obvious Nightfall. It will always only happen in my campaign. I'm sure nobody expects me to write WotC and tell them:" Well, guys, 'got good nooz and bad nooz. The good news are, one of my players just got a whole bunch of X.P.'s. The bad news are, he did so by killing Mordenkainen. So, could you please update the Greyhawk errata and cross him out, because he's dead. I'm sure the gaming community will understand."

Guys, anybody remembers Waldorf from a long ago Dragon Magazine ? It was a guy that wrote a letter to Dragon saying that his character, Waldorf, destroyed the city of Greyhawk with some atomic explosion spell and that he's now some 300 odd levels and that Greyhawk is no more for all intents and purposes... they printed it and gave the whole gaming community a huge laugh for years to come.

Traniz,

I understand that view point. But what I'm saying is people do like worlds where nothing changes. That's why you never see much beyond modules and maybe a few sourcebooks for Kalamar.

 

[Nightfall]

Nightfall:


Ah. I thought you were using Ravenloft of an example of a campaign world which successfully used this setup. It was a great world, but the lack of change led to stagnation and boredom for the PCs.


By the way, as for inspiring others to heroism, that is fine. I do not judge people who choose the lifestyle of the Bard, that is their business. Seriously, the PCs should be the focus of the game, for the most part, not cheerleaders for the NPCs who are the "true heroes".

PS

The Mithril Golem. Defeatable in your campaigns?

Lu, it is a great world but I will agree the lack of change can be very stagnating. But I don't see why a PC shouldn't try to be inspiring even he/she doesn't always succeed.

As for good ole MG, I'd prefer him not to be defeated by measely PCs. Now going down in a fight against Kadum, ala "Destroy all Monsters" I'm down with that. Course I want him back up again...now I got that Tubthumping song stuck in my head! Darn you LU!

 

[MoonRaven]

In response to the original post:

I am one of those GM's that don't use other people's worlds for my campaigns. I write my own. Which, of course, I dump tons of detail into and such, creating an awesome world that my player subsequently destroy. Plotline? What's that? It can't exist in my world, since the players all want to change any form of plotline I might have.

While GMs running campaigns in other worlds should allow some form of change (within reason), those that have dumped tons of time and effort into detailing a story will be rather reluctant to allow PCs to run amok, doing what they want. I can understand this. However, it is important for a GM to maintain a level of fun and adventure in their games - after all, that's why they are called "games".

Players, too, should realize how difficult it is to put such detail into a world and then run it. Players and GMs should give each other equal respect on this - after all, it is everyone's game. Meet in the middle - players, don't try to change everything about the game and GMs, allow some changes.

Otherwise you'll have GMs refusing to run and players finding other things to do on Friday nights due to their lack of interest in the game....

 

[the Jester]

In general, a lot of the reason it's hard to change a world has to do with the plot-nazi tendency of a lot of storyteller-style dms. (And I recognize that many, if not most, storyteller-style dms don't fall into this habit, so no offense intended to anyone here. ) If you have an ending in mind when you start the campaign, you're likely to perform some railroading of the pcs in order to force the ending to come out the way you'd like- it's very hard to avoid.

Another thing that factors into this is the 'metaplot' of a setting. FR and DL are the worst for this, in my experience; if you make a big change in the Realms, all of a sudden you have to do tons of work to use any of the new supplements. Worse yet, if you don't use a change from the novels or whathaveyou, suddenly you have even more work to finagle use out of the new stuff that's released concerning that area, plot point or npc.

This issue doesn't seem nearly as bad as it was in 2e, however.

 

[DanMcS]

I understand that view point. But what I'm saying is people do like worlds where nothing changes. That's why you never see much beyond modules and maybe a few sourcebooks for Kalamar.

That's not true at all. The company that publishes Kalamar may not have advanced the timeline for it, but company-foisted campaign plots tend to be bad anyway. But no one has ever played in a game in Kalamar where nothing changed.

You're comparing a company-published plot to letting PCs in games accomplish things, and one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Voadam]

Ravenloft is set up to be changed. About a third of the modules focus on taking down a darklord (Feast of Goblyns, Ship of Horrors, When Black Roses Bloom, the Sri Raji one, etc.)

There are explicit rules in the game for what happens when you do so.

Also the darklords are usually not that tough, some were 1st level characters in 2e.

Many do have resurrection powers and there are some really tough ones (Strahd) but of course you can work against them and have effects on the world. Even those who cannot die can be imprisoned.

My PCs have had big effects in the world and the plots keep getting bigger in their impact.

 

[Desdichado]

It's silly in the sense that it needs to be taken up with the DM, not discussed philosophically here on the boards.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I don't think setting villians need to be stat'd, because someone always comes along and sees the numbers and goes "mmmm, I can take them."

The DM really can not stop a party's idea and I don't think they should. The DM should build and control the game around what the players want. If the players want to face the the big bad of any campaign setting it is their choice, the DM builds the road, putting in pitfalls, detours, road signs, and stops along the way.

Midnight is a dark fantasy game, it is a game of putting up the good fight, not of winning but holding the line (my take). By the time the players are at the point they face the Night Lords they should be jaded, worn and wondering what was the point, the world would see them as heros but their self image would be in question. Now, if the DM thinks the Night Lords need to fall, he does it, if not, the characters do.

 

[Nightfall]

Moonraven,

That may be your assessment, but some of us DO like to have some kind of planning involved. At least some idea of where this is all going. I mean if there's only a bunch guys running around killing stuff, sure that's fun. But I'd hardly call it role playing.

Jester,

I agree entirely with your sentiment. Even though I think there is still a lot more "plot" call in Faerun than before. But I blame that on the novels.

Dan,

Maybe so, but even that to me says "Gee the PCs can't blow up something just because some where down the road, my other group might want to use that after they make 5th level?" Kind of hamstrings you right there.

Josh,

True but then my post count wouldn't be nearly double what it was a week ago.

Voad,

While I do think they can change Ravenloft, let's face. Changing Ravenloft from a den of stinking ceespool of evil into a little less so...kind of diminishes the setting. I'm not saying you shouldn't...but then what you have is just Ravenloft lite.