Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:I tend to think of D&D as a bit more cooperative than the DM handing down edicts. When I run games, I love to turn the tables:

Unsuspecting Player: "I want to go to the tavern."

DM Manchu: "Okay, what is the name of the tavern?"

Unsuspecting Player: "Whaaa-??"

I don't think that there is any need to make it adversarial though. Are you saying that they should have researched what all the tavern names are in Silverymoon previous to asking? I guess my approach to it would be "Okay which tavern?" "Whaaa...?" "Well, there are three taverns in the town, the X, the Y and the Z, which one did you want to go to?"

My approach is available in either type of setting, but I try not to make my players do homework in order to have fun in their game. If they want to, that is great and I will provide them whatever they need, but the game is an escape, not another job.

pretre wrote:

Manchu wrote:NO! Spelljammer is the best choice for EVERYONE!

I so heart SJ. I still include bits of it in a lot of my homebrew games. In fact, most of the main settings include elements from SJ in them (astral ships, etc).

And I always thought I was the only one who liked spelljammer. How can you go wrong when the first sentance in the book is: "Everything you know about space is wrong" Its amazing the weird stuff I remember.

I also liked darksun, and ravenloft.

I cringe when I hear greyahwk, you want me to check out the temple of what? oh heck no, you can keep your elemental evil.

pretre wrote:Are you saying that they should have researched what all the tavern names are in Silverymoon previous to asking?

No no no. The idea is to involve them in building the world so it feels like theirs. And when I want them to feel alienated or unsettled, I just do it all as narration with no questions to them about what's around them.

I loved Greyhawk simply for the 1st edition campaign box. Two giant fold-out hex maps and two fake leather and jeweled books. I had those maps on my bedroom wall for so many years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:Are you saying that they should have researched what all the tavern names are in Silverymoon previous to asking?

No no no. The idea is to involve them in building the world so it feels like theirs. And when I want them to feel alienated or unsettled, I just do it all as narration with no questions to them about what's around them.

I'm really confused then. Why would you want a published setting if you are looking for a collaborative world building? Everything in FR is defined. If you go with a homebrew, then they really can have an impact on the setting and help develop it.

You don't have to know how many cobblestones pave the streets of Waterdeep to play in the Realms. The point is that everyone does or can know something about the setting, chiefly the style and tone of it. When I ask what the tavern the player wants to visit in Silverymoon is like, it's to let the player riff off the setting just as I am doing as the DM. World building is too much effort with not enough benefit; you can achieve everything that's good about within a published setting.

Also just because you personally think your world is cool ... well, you get the rest. Better to play in a generic setting already enjoyed by millions than a derivative version of it enjoyed by one.

Manchu wrote:Also just because you personally think your world is cool ... well, you get the rest. Better to play in a generic setting already enjoyed by millions than a derivative version of it enjoyed by one.

Oooh, burn... You been talking to my players? Did they say they didn't like my setting? OMG!

:SOB:

I'm actually going to focus a bit on collaborative stuff because of this conversation.

Da Boss wrote:I'm actually going to focus a bit on collaborative stuff because of this conversation.

In all seriousness, I let players get away with a lot when they make an effort to build something. I don't think I have ever told a player in one of my D&D games 'Yeah... You can't do that with your character background.' We just find a way to make it work. Especially easy when you're the one designing the setting.

Also, I think World Building is a misnomer, M. Don't think that I build every detail of my world. I build what I need for the adventure and then the rest is built on demand.

In one game, where everyone was playing a vampire member of warring noble houses (le sigh), one of my players said he wanted to grab a human off the street to interrogate. I asked him to basically play the human as his partymates did the interrogation. Made for an interesting role-reversal.

See, that's a good time, right there.

pretre wrote:I build what I need for the adventure and then the rest is built on demand.

Same here. But I always find myself wondering about larger and larger issues. "The campaign begins in a poor village. The players are ... farmers? But why are they poor? What kind of farming do they do and why is it so unprofitable? Maybe the farming would be profitable but for raiders that make the town inaccessible to traders. Who is doing the raiding? " and on and on. It's helpful to say: "Okay there's this poor village. I'll set in the northern Silver Marches because there are all those roving Orc bandits there. [Could go on at length about why.]"

You may find yourself getting too far into the weeds in that case. If it comes up in the game, I'll handle it. Too much realism can kill a game just as surely as too little. As long as you can make the story make sense, that's good enough for me.

Well, I'll give you an example. I'm about to start a game set in the world of the Last Airbender using a ruleset I've cooked up just for this occasion. The geographical, political, and cultural details mentioned throughout the show have been a tremendous help in allowing me to construct flexible but coherent storyline for the session.

Manchu wrote:Well, I'll give you an example. I'm about to start a game set in the world of the Last Airbender using a ruleset I've cooked up just for this occasion. The geographical, political, and cultural details mentioned throughout the show have been a tremendous help in allowing me to construct flexible but coherent storyline for the session.

Sure, theft is the sincerest form of flattery. I have played and run many games in published settings, don't get me wrong. I just think the most memorable ones are the homebrew collaborations.

You missed me again. I'm not stealing. The game is set in that world. What I mean is that although I am telling my own story in my own town, the town and the story make better sense (not to mention have more appeal) because they are set in a wider world that already exists.

Manchu wrote:You missed me again. I'm not stealing. The game is set in that world. What I mean is that although I am telling my own story in my own town, the town and the story make better sense (not to mention have more appeal) because they are set in a wider world that already exists.

'Borrowing' then. You're using someone else's framework for your world, hence borrowing from their setting to save yourself work. There's nothing wrong with that.

Well, more than there being nothing wrong with it, what I have been saying is that it's a lot better for almost every purpose than starting from scratch.

Manchu wrote:Well, more than there being nothing wrong with it, what I have been saying is that it's a lot better for almost every purpose than starting from scratch.

I don't see why though. Do your players ever ask 'Gee, that country over there that we have no stake in... What's their social structure like?' And if they did, couldn't you just wing it? Sure, it is easy to have a pre-made setting for use, but I don't know that it is 'better'. It is just easier. And for someone with good improvisational skills, or a conception of their game world already formed than it isn't even easier.

Manchu wrote:The Pathfinder setting is an even messier patchwork. Each country is basically a genre, many of which are stolen from D&D. Ustalav, for example, is their Ravenloft. There's a French Revolution country and a laser-gun-and-flying-saucer country. It's like old episodes of Star Trek: Want to have a cowboy episode? Just go to the Cowboy Planet. Nazi Episode? Gangster Episode? We've got planets for those, too!

Doesn't like the Pathfinder setting? - IGNORE!

kronk wrote:Doesn't like the Pathfinder setting? - IGNORE!

Assumes I don't like the Pathfinder setting -- IGNORE.

Manchu wrote:

kronk wrote:Doesn't like the Pathfinder setting? - IGNORE!

Assumes I don't like the Pathfinder setting -- IGNORE.

Ignores another user. - IGNORE.

pretre wrote:Do your players ever ask 'Gee, that country over there that we have no stake in... What's their social structure like?'

Players never ask that specifically. But EVERYTHING that they do ask assumes I have knowledge of all that.

Also, we're talking about playing in a world that only exists in our imaginations. It's not only easier but also better if the world exists there prior to any session. Familiarity, authenticity, verisimilitude -- these things make for a deeper experience.

By all means, if you are an artistic genius ready to regale me with the next big thing in fantasy publishing, don't let my practical advice get in the way of it. But don't be surprised when I can't manage any interest in your Forgotten Realms knock off.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:Do your players ever ask 'Gee, that country over there that we have no stake in... What's their social structure like?'

Players never ask that specifically. But EVERYTHING that they do ask assumes I have knowledge of all that.

Also, we're talking about playing in a world that only exists in our imaginations. It's not only easier but also better if the world exists there prior to any session. Familiarity, authenticity, verisimilitude -- these things make for a deeper experience.

Sure, sure. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that you can achieve all of these things with your own homebrew. My gaming group has been playing in my homebrew world (in different time periods, etc) off and on for almost 10 years now. There is familiarity. They understand how it works, even if it is a different time period and the names and faces are different.

By all means, if you are an artistic genius ready to regale me with the next big thing in fantasy publishing, don't let my practical advice get in the way of it. But don't be surprised when I can't manage any interest in your Forgotten Realms knock off.

Damn, dude, harsh. I never said I was a genius but you're getting all in a twist. I'm just saying that my group and I prefer homebrew and that I am able to improvise when someone asks a question about part of the setting that isn't developed yet. In addition, when did I ask you to play in my game or buy something related to it? I didn't. Lay off the nasty, I thought we were having a nice conversation.

"You" as in the generic plural, not you specifically, pretre.

Also, you will need improvisational skills no matter if you are playing in a published setting or not.

Manchu wrote:"You" as in the generic plural, not you specifically, pretre.

Also, you will need improvisational skills no matter if you are playing in a published setting or not.

Okay, now I feel better. /hug

Absolutely. I just think that a lot of folks who make homebrews or use published settings have TOO much information available and put TOO much work into it. I think that improvisation makes for a better game. You build the skeleton. You build the adventures and the stuff the players need to see and then you go from there. Otherwise, you just end up with piles of stuff you wrote (or splatbooks you bought) that you'll never use.

The only time that improvisation has really failed me was in a recent supers game where the players went in a completely different direction. I think the main problem there is that I had only a single backup plan and the concept of the world / theme of the game wasn't really very cemented in my head. It is also much more difficult to anticipate what a player will want to do in a 'modern' game than in a fantasy game, in my opinion.

Here's another trick:

A published setting will basically become "homebrew" in fact by the time players have had at it for a year or so as a result of your own adventuring. The Silver Marches published material is a set up for you to mix it up and change it.

Going back to the Avatar setting, pre-existent settings also allow people to visualize their expectations for the game. If my friends tell me that they want to play in that setting then I already have a great idea of what they expect out of the sessions. That's a lot better for everyone than me going up to the group and saying "alright guys, my world is an Asian-based fantasy where martial arts are magical."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Okay, now I feel better. /hug

Few things warm my heart like hugging it out digitally in digital public.

Manchu wrote:Going back to the Avatar setting, pre-existent settings also allow people to visualize their expectations for the game. If my friends tell me that they want to play in that setting then I already have a great idea of what they expect out of the sessions. That's a lot better for everyone than me going up to the group and saying "alright guys, my world is an Asian-based fantasy where martial arts are magical."

No argument, they know what they are getting. Sometimes though, it is nice to get something you didn't expect.

pretre wrote:Sometimes though, it is nice to get something you didn't expect.

This is where personal experience throws down all the red flags it can. I suppose if I had seen some even tolerable homebrew settings, I'd agree wholeheartedly but thoughtlessly.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:Sometimes though, it is nice to get something you didn't expect.

This is where personal experience throws down all the red flags it can. I suppose if I had seen some even tolerable homebrew settings, I'd agree wholeheartedly but thoughtlessly.

Yeah, I think they can be pretty terribad if not done well. But the same kinds of DMs that do bad homebrews, do bad DMPCs and the like, so you're getting the whole terribad package.

I have a former friend who was renowned for his homebrew games and he really set me on the path. I, in fact, continued to borrow bits and pieces from his mythos and included them in my games, which lent continuity for our group even after we were far away from that original place. At this point, my worlds have their own flavor and even when it is a new game, my players have that same touchstone that your players do in having published settings. They know what to expect based on the game synopsis and are able to interpret that.

I'm not actually saying published settings are bad, just that I don't prefer them because I feel straight-jacketed. I still use them occasionally, just putting my own spin on it.

My theory is that every experience of playing in a published setting necessarily involves putting your own spin on.