Forgive me for bringing up this topic in this fashion, but I'm only recently getting back to D&D. I see a lot of talk about inane rules discussions and min-maxing characters, but where is the discussion for the world stuff? I guess my point is, does anybody care about the world background or is it just the same old generic D&D?
Does that stuff matter in this world? Is there a difference from one human to the next or are they "just the boring race?"
I enjoy reading up on the factions. I think they're a good idea, but do the places on the map matter to anyone other than the GM?
jh
Tastes vary. They matter a great deal to me...otherwise I'd just play Unreal (and even there I care about the backstory as much as I can). I think even my most "rulesy" players care about the world to some degree, though I have met (but never played with) some people that don't really seem to.
M
Creative Director
|
Forgive me for bringing up this topic in this fashion, but I'm only recently getting back to D&D. I see a lot of talk about inane rules discussions and min-maxing characters, but where is the discussion for the world stuff? I guess my point is, does anybody care about the world background or is it just the same old generic D&D?
Does that stuff matter in this world? Is there a difference from one human to the next or are they "just the boring race?"
I enjoy reading up on the factions. I think they're a good idea, but do the places on the map matter to anyone other than the GM?
jh
My theory:
Players really REALLY love character optimization and rules and building the best character that they can. They're really into new rules because those are new toys their PCs can use.
GMs, on the other hand, are really into the world itself, the story of the adventures, and the development of NPCs and stuff like that.
Since there are more players than GMs, things just sorta naturally skew toward what players like. And I'm not saying that ALL players are only interested in crunch and toys for their PCs... but in my experience, the players who are more interested in the world and the unfolding story of the campaign are also or have been GMs.
Forgive me for bringing up this topic in this fashion, but I'm only recently getting back to D&D. I see a lot of talk about inane rules discussions and min-maxing characters, but where is the discussion for the world stuff? I guess my point is, does anybody care about the world background or is it just the same old generic D&D?
Does that stuff matter in this world? Is there a difference from one human to the next or are they "just the boring race?"
I enjoy reading up on the factions. I think they're a good idea, but do the places on the map matter to anyone other than the GM?
jh
Hmmm... the lynch mob will probably be along soon :D Yes, they're heavily into the setting, Golarion, on these boards. There are a lot of threads about the setting, the adventure paths and modules set there as well as the products that relate specifically to the setting (which are numerous by the way) as opposed to more generic products. I don't spend much time in these threads because I have a 34 year old homebrew game. A large number of the posters here utilize Golarion as a setting.
There are a number of threads in the homebrew section on various peoples settings as well as conversions to the Pathfinder rules. Judging by your nickname, you've been playing quite a while. I think you'll find these boards have something for everyone.
As a DM, I'm interested in the world I'm building.
My players don't care and for the most part don't notice. Unless specifically reminded about differences between my setting and stock D&D, they default to the usual expectations.
I think there is also a focus on the rules because they are newer. With the Advanced Players Guide playtest recently wrapping up everyone has their brains on the mechanical stuff. If they had a similar organized contest or focus on world building and setting, everyone would be having inane rules discussions and min-maxing that.
But yeah, the Golarion book has some great stuff in it!
I can't assume this is the case for other DMs, but it certainly is for me. I hate feeling unoriginal, so I make all of my setting material on my own and actively avoid additive suggestions, because the creative elements start no longer being 'mine'. The only real thing I pay attention to is critiques, because then I can excise an element and replace it with something better; but even that doesn't happen all too often because I'm not the biggest fan of criticism, so I frequently don't even put it up to be judged.
I Love the background setting, it is as important as the rules that run the system. In fact i'm currently having trouble with a game i'm playing in because of the setting.....(deleted rant about !@#$%8& setting)....... I've done both dm and player, but i talk about rules on the board more than setting because in the end what the boards think about a setting amounts to nothing to me. what i want, and what my players want is far more important. but rules need clarification and i miss stuff. and the board are good for pointing out flaws in gaming statistics.
|
Hey Em (Really hoping you're my old buddy Emirikol from T13K and LFR),
Golarion has some very distinct human "flavors" if you will (Azlanti,Chelaxians, Garundi, Keleshite,Kellid, Mwangi,Taldan,Tian, Ulfan, Varisian, and Vudrani), and the Campaign Setting book gets into them right off the bat. It was produced when Paizo was still writing for 3.5, so some minor changes my be needed if you're upgrading them to Pathfinder RPG.
Paizo does an excellent job of creating NPCs of different ethnicities, and the "flavor" comes through. How much or little a DM uses these tools, and how much the players are into it will vary by campaign and style, of course. I think you'll find some good examples in the play by post games here.
Also, traits can be used to give additional flavor and crunch to PCs and NPCs alike. They have already published a number of campaign-related traits, and a few racial traits. Expanding on these could give your campaign's humans the extra zest you're looking for.
Stratton aka Reckless
|
As a player, I really DO like the background of the area or race I am building. I try to get the flavor of it, the nuance. I sometimes mix in some more unique things...my most recent character build is an Ulfen bred Paladin, from Absalom. Since the Ulfen tend to "sing" during battle, and since he worships the Six Empyreal Lords of the Outer Planes, I imagine him breaking into System of a Down's "Aeriels" as he begins the process of lopping off evil-doers limbs.
As a GM, I really get into the flavor of the world...not just the mechanics, but the whole subplots and twists, the theme of an area and the people that inhabit it, what they can expect, how they interact with player characters. So far, with the very little experience I have with Golarion, I am loving it. Something for everyone, a region and terrain for everyone.
Pathfinder is NOT just the same ole story, different name.
|
|
I can't assume this is the case for other DMs, but it certainly is for me. I hate feeling unoriginal, so I make all of my setting material on my own and actively avoid additive suggestions, because the creative elements start no longer being 'mine'. The only real thing I pay attention to is critiques, because then I can excise an element and replace it with something better; but even that doesn't happen all too often because I'm not the biggest fan of criticism, so I frequently don't even put it up to be judged.
I can empathize here, and I am a very big offender of "Prime Material Plane Similar to the Forgotten Realms Setting" make-yer-own kind of gaming.
I dont think there is anything wrong with that, certainly. Often, I prefer that kind of thing, it allows for so much more creativity on the part of the players and the GM. You want a Svirfneblin ranger?? Just gimme a good reason, whereas that concept character would be hard to explain in, say, Absalom or Andoran.
That being the case, I recently have begun exploring the gaming world that Pathfinder has come up with, and while I don't follow it by the letter, I like the setting say of Darkmoon Dale and areas. I like the maps, I like the setting. I changed a few things to suit my campaign story line, sure, and I made the named characters have different personalities as I saw fit...call it poetic license. It was necessary to do as we tried to fit PF to an existing campaign. It was fun, and easily adapted.
Fluff and world building changes from game to game. Mechanics don't.
The reason mechanics are discussed so much more is because they can be brought into any 3.5 or Pathfinder game. When you talk about fluff, you talk about your game. When you talk about mechanics, you talk about the game.
|
I see a lot of talk about inane rules discussions and min-maxing characters, but where is the discussion for the world stuff?
The Pathfinder General forums have some setting specific threads, such as how / where to incorporate syncretism, chatter about the calender, what sort of code a Paladin of Sarenrae might have compared to a paladin of a more lawful diety, etc.
There's a ton of stuff in the archives, as well, plus various threads on where one could 'organically' introduce a certain race or class into the setting (in a thread on the Eberron races, there were a half-dozen *plausible* places one could plug in a Warforged race, for instance, to the point that the real issue was limiting them to just one source!), or threads that go into depth about Geb or Osirion or how to use Ustalav to fit just about any sort of Ravenloft theme desired, etc.
Lately, there's been more of a focus on crunchy stuff, so you might want to Search the Archives to find setting specific discussions, or just start your own thread(s) on the particular feature of the setting you want to discuss. There are fans of most of the countries banging around, and quite a few of the individual dieties, so you'll probably find some relevant discussion, even if you have to start it yourself.
I think you'll find more of that in the pathfinder/general discussion section. Pathfinder RPG is supposed to be setting neutral, so it's talked about alot less. You get some posts every now and then 'I have such and such world, help me make it fit mechanically' but again, that's mechanics. The issue is, we dont really all SHARE a world. So short of doing a full disclosure of my homebrew world (I have a binder full of notes and ideas that would need to be shared), it would be hard to have much of a discussion about my game's background. Rules on the other hand are easy to discuss. We all have the book (or pdf). If i say sneak attack, or power attack, por 5th level ranger, everyone knows what I mean. And we can talk about it. If I start talking about worshiping the Ones, and rituals involving the Champion's Sword, I have to do alot of exposition first.
A concept that always intrigued me, but I never had a chance to confirm it, or explore in detail, is assigning towns and cities stats, in regards to competitive resources, factions, etc. I first heard of it via D20 modern gamma world setting.
I know some people would be loath to bring another mechanic to the game, especially when it crosses overs into fluff, but I thought it may help flesh out towns and cities as living entities.
But back on track, for the reasons stated above, it is easier to debate mechanics, and likes or dislikes, versus disputing how one likes to develop a world.
The other trick is not to get caught in the same themes, which is easier said then done, e.g. always going to a tavern to start an adventure, etc.
To be honest, one reason I don't talk about setting stuff too much is because my settings ARE somewhat often generic, either in the "Totally Not Forgotten Realms" way, or they're more or less quite a few stereotypes mashed together.
My more imaginative settings tend to be done in BESM more then D&D :/
Forgive me for bringing up this topic in this fashion, but I'm only recently getting back to D&D. I see a lot of talk about inane rules discussions and min-maxing characters, but where is the discussion for the world stuff?
In the "Pathfinder Companion" and "Pathfinder Chronicles" subforums, as those are the series that cover the world data and story.
I guess my point is, does anybody care about the world background or is it just the same old generic D&D?Does that stuff matter in this world? Is there a difference from one human to the next or are they "just the boring race?"
I enjoy reading up on the factions. I think they're a good idea, but do the places on the map matter to anyone other than the GM?
Speaking as someone who does not run using Golarion as a setting, I feel very much in the minority here. People bind their knowledge of Golarion into various discussions seemingly all the time from my perspective, and I particularly feel daunted trying to join a PbP because most of them take place in Golarion. As far as I can tell, from an outsider's point of view, the campaign setting is well-loved. You're just not going to find discussion of the campaign setting under the "rules discussion" forum or anything like that.
Now, why am I not personally involved in Golarion? Because I started designing a homebrew world using core 3.5 races back about 7 or so years ago, and I've put a lot of work into it. What little I've read of Golarion sounds fantastic; I've just invested so much time into my homebrew that I'm not going to switch to a new setting and leave all my work behind.
I'm here because I love the Pathfinder rules as an update to 3.5--and because it's an update to 3.5 it my setting works perfectly with it, unlike certain other fantasy games--and I pay attention largely to rules discussions only because no one here is going to be a whit interested in my homebrew world. The setting IS important to me and my players (I hope); I'm just not going to waste my time talking about it here.
|
Creative Director
|
Not all players are interested in crunch and toys. At least 2 of the 3 players in my current RotRL campaign are not really interested in them.
All have been GMs. One has been coming up with theories about the themes of the modules
That supports my point. Players who are interested in the world but not as much as crunch are, in my experience, also GMs or have been GMs.
Players who never GM are the ones, in my experience, who don't really care about the world or storylines and are mostly just interested in crunch and new toys.
As a player I quite enjoy weaving my character into the fabric of the game world. It adds depth and dimension, and gives you a personal view on the world that you don't otherwise have. It makes it possible for the DM to weave your character into the game more intimately, even place elements into it that apply specifically to you ...
|
As the primary GM of my group I am probably the most into the story arcs and litle world tidbits about Golarion around my table. One of our secondary co-GM's is also getting into the campaign setting.
HOWEVER, while that's gravy for me and him, the rest of the table only cares what there is next to bash and loot. Now short of designing adventures that require them to take copious notes you kind of have to feed most players tiny bits of game info and have ready NPC specialists like sages to fill in the gaps.
Even after nearly 2 decades of GM'ing I still have to remind myself that my backstory will really only ever be know by me. Focus on the encounters and try to add a sprinkling of Golarion Flavor into each one. If a PC bites and wants to study the Desnan carvings in the Tomb of the Varisian Witch they're plundering then you should give them a nice circumstance bonus to damage in the encounter or a bonus to disable a trap or something.
--Pop Vrocks n Coke.
|
|
Players like phat loot. :)
No one wants to suck or have a bad play experience, and to the video game culture, that means blowing stuff up. You can't do that with little numbers. (That's why in 4e being proficient/skilled at something is a bonus instead of a penalty remover.)
In any case, it's the DM's job to get players interest in the world.
But perhaps you're looking for world building discussion. If that's the case, I have to say, most publishers aren't interested in it. Big reason is they don't want to be liable for something that someone would have a case for being "stolen" from them. Second reason is, they want you to buy their worlds. Paizo has Golarion. WOTC has the flavor of the year (this year it's Dark Sun.) But lastly and probably most important, the OGL changed EVERYTHING. Players and DMs alike have the opportunity to get a setting published for the game they love because of the OGL. Who really wants to put up their ideas and have someone else swipe and publish them in their own setting. Again, there's that liability thing, but some small publisher isn't going to know joe stole something he read on some minor forum some where if they come across an awesome setting and decide to publish it as a PDF or actually try to put it in print.
My players love all the world fluff, they have been playing in Andoran and really love the background and history. They are currently very nervous about going into Cheliax this friday. Watching your players lean in when you describe a new location makes the whole game.
Like James Jacobs said it holds true, we are older gamers and have all sat in the DM's chair for one system or another.
I am finding it quite interesting to read each person's take on this question. Personally (as a sometimes player AND GM), I find the min-maxing quite the turnoff, but really love the setting. When creating, then playing, a character, I would almost rather not know what feats, spells, abilities, etc. are coming up with each level advance. I know it sounds strange, but I don't like planning ahead. For me, my char develops more organically as the story unfolds. Also, I LOVE reading about the settings, lore, factions, etc. It really fires my imagination up.
Best,
Soj
Players like phat loot. :)
No one wants to suck or have a bad play experience, and to the video game culture, that means blowing stuff up. You can't do that with little numbers. (That's why in 4e being proficient/skilled at something is a bonus instead of a penalty remover.)
In any case, it's the DM's job to get players interest in the world.
But perhaps you're looking for world building discussion. If that's the case, I have to say, most publishers aren't interested in it. Big reason is they don't want to be liable for something that someone would have a case for being "stolen" from them. Second reason is, they want you to buy their worlds. Paizo has Golarion. WOTC has the flavor of the year (this year it's Dark Sun.) But lastly and probably most important, the OGL changed EVERYTHING. Players and DMs alike have the opportunity to get a setting published for the game they love because of the OGL. Who really wants to put up their ideas and have someone else swipe and publish them in their own setting. Again, there's that liability thing, but some small publisher isn't going to know joe stole something he read on some minor forum some where if they come across an awesome setting and decide to publish it as a PDF or actually try to put it in print.
4E just standardize the skill mechanics to add up bonuses versus subtract, although there are negative modifiers in the game. In regards to the fluff items, like roleplaying and world settings, these are the responsiblity of the DM and players.
While I thrive on a detailed setting, alot of new players, due to a lack of experience or preference, tend to be more combat oriented. But even then, the DM and key players at the table, can add in little tibits to enchance the experience. But this is only as strong or as weak as the players at the table, regardless of the system.
I do see a huge difference in regards to experiences with a dedicated group that is consistently playing and can learn from each other, versus showing up at a public venue where players may change frequently. This makes it even more challenging for the players and DM to provide enough opportunities to cater to each type of individual (combat, roleplaying, etc.)