World ideas that you think are lame

Emiricol said:
Yeah, in the real world stuff looks almost... I dunno, like, real or something. I wonder what kinda card it takes to render all that in realtime?
I think God uses a G-Force NVIDA NXInfinitySquared Card.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nifft said:
"REALITY: The plot sucks, the characters make no sense, but the graphics are to die for."

-- N

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=1999-04-21&res=l

Seems relevant. ;)

And on a note more relevant to the original topic... I was about to say I don't like it when the writers try and pass off a setting as fresh and different by taking the generic world implied by the core rules and changing all the minor details just for the sake of being contrary. Upon further reflection, I realized I mostly just don't like it when a DM does this to a published setting just to annoy the players. ;)

--Impeesa---
 

Nifft said:
I think it's stupid for the PCs to be the first people to ever think of casting Speak with Dead. Seriously.

I would love to play in a CSI: Waterdeep game. Where when Speak with Dead fails, because the killer knows he has to make sure the victim doesn't see his face, or because the Modify Memory kicked in before the victim's throat was cut, or whatever, the PCs take the scrapings from under his fingernails back to the lab to be the "connection to subject" for the technicians to run a Scrying through the Crystal Ball...

But I don't know who I'd get to DM it... :(

-Hyp.
 

Worlds that are all flash and no substance are lame; I'm tired of seeing settings featuring societies that lack the fundamental concepts required for such things to exist.
 

Nightfall said:
Boring?!! *sighs* Some one get me the big knife!!!

I just decided I hate this world. Cause people suck.

Yes, Boring. I tried, and tried again, to get into that world. I wanted to, but everytime I tried reading the books I fell asleep. Plus, they reminded me too much of the writing done in most White Wolf books...and with the exception of Exalted, White Wolf books bore me.

Dawnforge, however, now that's not boring. :D
 

Worlds created as primarily as exercises in worldbuilding, and with a priority of supporting a game as a distant afterthought. And they're so common - DMs who create reams of history and culture and god stats, and expect players to care about such ephemera even when it has nothing to do with what's happening in the game, and make that worldbuilding the focus of their creativity and interest rather than designing decent adventures or a good campaign.

In this scenario, the game isn't so much a game as simply a self-indulgent device to show off the DM's world. Occurs all the time in published settings too - settings designed as an end in and of themselves, rather than the support structure for playing an enjoyable game. This fuels my own opinion that most campaign design is done back-to-front, with the setting designed first and adventures shoehorned into it as an afterthought. The setting should, IMO, be designed to support the adventure ideas you'd like to run, not the other way round, just as in the rulebooks, the rules should support the implied setting, not define it.
 

I dislike worlds where it's nothing but water but lots of islands (size of hawai(sp?)) is fine with me. I'm not sure which is called water world.

I dislike worlds with an uber-race (middle earth if elves did things), so nothing you do has any effect unless they say ok.

I don't see why the way a world works globally should effect how you play in it locally, unless you play epic globe trotting games.
 

blackshirt5 said:
I have an active dislike of "realistic geography" in fantasy worlds. Who says that the Elves didn't bring this forest to Point A to serve as a bastion against the predations of the Orcs on Kingdom B? Who says that Archmage X and Y's spellduel centuries ago didn't lay waste and create a blasted desert at Point C, or a mountain, out of place, at Point D?
I guess this is why it's a good thing there are many different campaign settings. Because the things you describe above really annoy me in a campaign world. I want the world to be realistic. Of all the campaign settings out there, Kalamar is one of the best, IMO. Wilderlands is the only one I like better. I haven't looked at Harnworld, but I suspect I'd like it a great deal too.

I agree with those who dislike the patchwork feeling of Forgotten Realms, and having tons of magic items lying around. In fact, high magic in general isn't to my taste.

I just wanted to say, though, that I'm not really comfortable labeling someone else's hard work as "lame". One style is as good as another, it's just that we all have different tastes. Calling a setting lame implies that it's not very well done. Usually, this just isn't true.
 

Nightfall said:
Boring?!! *sighs* Some one get me the big knife!!!

I just decided I hate this world. Cause people suck.
Nightfall, give it a rest. We all know you love Scarred Lands. But not everyone else does, and that doesn't mean that they suck.
 

Well, IMHO...

Steampunk Fantasy: I've just never cared for this sort of setting. I've always envisioned there being a balance between magic & technology: if one increases, the other must/does decrease somehow. Now, oddly enough, I don't mind stuff like d20 Modern, or superhero games with magic (which I always view in a more comic book-ish style as it is), where magic & above-average tech mesh.

D&D in Space: I didn't care for Spelljammer, & Dragonstar didn't grab my interest at all. Not interested in any sort of fantasy/sci-fi mix along these lines.

Planescape: I didn't care for the idea of having adventures in the Outer Planes--to me, it removed the awe factor of these planes--I mean, this is supposed to be taking place in a D&D world's equivalent to Heaven & Hell (plus a few other places).

One-Terrain Worlds: I like campaign settings to have a variety of terrain (& thus allow for a variety of adventures)--thus, I didn't enjoy the desert-dominated Dark Sun, nor could I really get into an all-aquatic campaign (sorry, Aeolius). I mean, I enjoyed reading Wizard of Earthsea, but I doubt I'd enjoy playing a campaign set in that world for very long.

Gloom & Doom Worlds: Both Ravenloft, as well as WW's World of Darkness fall into this category. I think that horror themes & elements can be incorporated into any game, but & don't like playing games that are heavy into horror. I think that a good game can have & allow a diverse array of themes/genres--1 adventure may be horror-inspired, while others may include an undersea adventure, a dungeon crawl, a city adventure, a wilderness survival test, a comedic romp, a game of intrigue, etc. Basically, a nice & healthy mix of stuff instead of games focused on 1 or 2 themes.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top