absolutely nothing, say it again, hah!
*my tribute to the great musical gift to the world, “War”
In another thread a sort of disparaging comment was made toward Homebrew Campaign Settings and it made me want to bring this up as a possible topic of conversation.
Mainly I have a pet peeve regarding published Campaign Settings. It’s not that I do not like them, on the contrary, I find most of them very interesting and fun to read about (except the Forgotten Realms, I do not like the Forgotten Realms and wholeheartedly wish they would be, you know, well, Forgotten)
My pet peeve is this.
Why does it seem that some players feel it is necessary to have as much information available to them as possible about a Campaign Setting when it is highly unlikely that their characters would ever know all the things the Player wants to know?
I mean, first off I get that if you are setting your game in a large city, with traders visiting on a daily basis (merchant ships or overland caravans)bringing news of the world in on a regular basis, and a regular citizen might know who the Rulers of the kingdom are, what court life is like, who the movers and the shakers are, okay, sure I would see that in this case the PCs would want access to a good amount of information about the setting, but
If the game is set in a small village (say with a population of less than 1,000 people), then why is it so necessary for the Player to know what all of the different cultures of the setting are like, who are all the gods and heroes of antiquity, and the myriad of other details that the local first level character would simply not know?
Dose anyone want to play in a campaign setting where part of the game is learning about the setting, and by learning I do not mean making Knowledge Skill Check Rolls, but by actually investigating the setting, asking NPCs questions, or exploring?
I could, easily, bore you to death with the details of my homebrew campaign setting (it has been in continuous use for “x” years) but I won’t, not even if you are a player in a campaign I am running set on the world of Hamth, nope, not gonna do it, unless, of course, you ask me a question about it, and then I’ll tell you what your character might reasonably already know, and suggest ways for you to learn more, if that is your desire.
Do you, as a Player, feel it is a better gaming experience if you can familiarize yourself with the setting as deeply as possible before you begin play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
I find it's much easier to simply design my character based on what I'm looking for, then work with the GM to place that character in the world. Then, I can learn about the details I need to make the character come to life.
But I definitely don't need to know everything about everyone.
I know that some people seek out the most bizarre, esoteric piece of the world and build off that, but then you've got a character that doesn't mesh in with the society of the game all that effectively. But that's not my style. Usually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like homebrew settings, I like (some) ready made settings - they save me the time of inventing everything from scratch which has its pluses but they don't satisfy my inner worldshaper as much. Still, there are some established settings that I am fan of... Including Forgotten Realms (I ignore books and have absolutely no problem with removing or altering things that I don't like) and Eberron.
I actually like the 1e Forgotten Realms, back when everything seemed more normal and there was plenty left unsaid. Otherwise, yes, the setting is increasingly inaccurately named.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually wrote an essay about this very sort of thing over on my world-building blog (doing a Q&A for this Sunday if y'all want to get in on that).
When I am crafting a character for a game, I ask the GM "Where are we starting?" and "Can you tell me some things about our neighbors?" and that's about it. That's really all I need to know about building a character who's a native of the opening environs. I only need to know more if I'm playing someone from "Far Away," or "A Stranger In This Land."
The idea that so many campaign settings enable the average character to know pretty much anything about the full and complex history of the game world on a single good die roll has always struck me as odd, honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think a player is best served knowing some important details about the realm before he begins. For instance is it a magic heavy realm? This could be crucial to a player playing a mage as if it is a low magic realm locals might be spooked by what they saw. Those important details could probably best be determined by the GM but they should be known even prior to character creation.
Beyond that I think players can learn much just by playing and experiencing. All that rich ancient history and lore is not needed at the start but is better parsed out in small doses.
I'm not a fan of playing in published Campaign Settings for a few reasons
1 – Because I have not created the realm myself or communally at the table then I’m required to read and memorize details. I admittedly am not good at memorization as I best learn what I live. What knowledge I learn at the table I retain much better than I would had I read the Guide to the Inner Seas 100 times. It’s the way I’m wired. It’s not to say I don’t enjoy reading, I just have poor memory retention when it comes to reading details.
2 – My favorite thing about RPG’s is communal storytelling. Realm building is a fun thing to do with the players so why would I want to take that fun away from the table?
3 –I do not share the published Campaign Settings sensibilities. For instance (I will use one from Golarin as an example) Golarin is wayyyy to magic rich for me. It has Ye ol’ Magic shops in every town and Magic weapons, armor and items are as common as wineskins. This goes to the heart of the realm mythology and in my opinion it cheapens the hero experience.
Realms published or home-brew are all crafted with great love and care. So I can appreciate the attachment people have towards them. But I respectfully will pass on GM’ing a campaign based on a published Campaign Setting.
I was fortunate to inherit an amazing home brew realm from a very talented and creative friend of mine. We have over many years crafted our own mythologies and lore and it is like a living thing that continues to grow.
-MD
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you're starting as an existing mover and shaker, you really don't need too much information to make your character. What does it matter to your 1st level cleric what the personality quirks of your papacy is, or what factions in the religious capital are currently feuding? It doesn't. What *should* matter to make your 1st level cleric is the names of other priests at the church they received their training, some details about the town they're living in, and whether his religion is considered common or uncommon in the region the game is *starting* in.
Discovering details about your world during play through RP is half of the fun of the game, and the prevalence of super detailed CS docs detracts some from this. Paizo has done a good job of leaving things, even in detailed areas like Varisia, vague enough in published materials that GMs can still improvise without trudging over cannon, and the group can enjoy learning about the world together.
I think that it is awesome that after 37 years, I can finally learn how to play this game, and I mean no sarcasm in that.
I actually wrote an essay about this very sort of thing over on my world-building blog (doing a Q&A for this Sunday if y'all want to get in on that).
Thank you for sharing, that was a good read.
-MD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a person (unrelated to a DM/player issue), I absolutely love reading about new campaign settings. That includes homebrews. I doesn't relate to playing/DMing, except indirectly. I simply like reading about fictional worlds.
I actually wrote an essay about this very sort of thing over on my world-building blog (doing a Q&A for this Sunday if y'all want to get in on that).
Thank you for sharing, that was a good read.
-MD
Why thank you! Honest truth: I'll take any opportunity to talk about Catal Huyuk. ;)
(I also figured the essay was pertinent to the thread, glad to know someone liked it!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think homebrews and published settings have different strengths and weaknesses, but are of equal value.
Having a single reference to set the expectations of both GM and players can really help a game get off the ground. Often times, the designers of official settings try harder than most homebrews to make sure that all aspects of the game mechanics are reflected in the setting. Also, published settings can (depending on your point of reference) be less introspective and megalomaniacal than the homebrew experience.
Those can all be inverted though. Sometimes a homebrew can be mysterious, lopsided, and esoteric, and that's just amazing.
It all depends on what's needed for that campaign and group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually wrote an essay about this very sort of thing over on my world-building blog (doing a Q&A for this Sunday if y'all want to get in on that).
Thank you for sharing, that was a good read.
-MD
Why thank you! Honest truth: I'll take any opportunity to talk about Catal Huyuk. ;)
(I also figured the essay was pertinent to the thread, glad to know someone liked it!)
Good article ... yes I knew about Catal Huyuk (thank you Anthropology degree ;) ). I'll have to dig into the site (your site that is ... I'm not planning on heading to Turkey anytime soon) more when I have more than the moment.
As to the OP, I find more information is better, but you don't need ALL the information. That is, current situations for PC points of origin, recent history for the same and maybe a general overview for major events that would be considered common knowledge would suffice.
After all, if the PCs are all starting in the same village, then you should know what is currently going on, what has happened in the recent past and the big events from before your time (as in stories are still told about them at the tavern or whatever).
If the PCs come from all over the place, then they would have current info for the starting location, recent history from their point of origin and a general overview of major events from their point of origin and maybe from the campaign starting point.
People, after all are not blank slates, but we are not efficient storage mediums for vast amounts of information either. PCs should be similar.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. A 1-3 page cultural handout that is more in depth
lol, don't let the door hit you.
-MD
I think the main risk with any published setting is that as time goes by and more people play in those settings they become more familiar with the details and then it's more work for the DM to keep true to the world as the players know it and harder to avoid not showing up the stars of the setting, be they creatures, NPCs or locations. If the campaign world has a cool lost world island with dinosaurs the players may imagine their PCs being there. If the setting has tyrant sorcerer kings, the players may expect that they will someday remove those kings from power and take their place. If all you want is hot wings, you don't get the sampler with the potato skins. You got the sampler because at least some of folks want those potato skins.
That's all from a metagame perspective though. A DM certainly can tell the players up front if they plan to just cherry pick the setting or basically do a homebrew with borrowed material (and should if they do to set expectations).
The main advantage to published settings is cool concepts, great maps, stat blocks for NPCs and monsters and a common user experience - players know that if the DM is using Ravenloft that they're in for some gothic horror. When they tell their friends or share their adventures online other communities can relate to it as well. Here's how we defeated Strahd when we played I6. This is how our Rise of the Runelords campaign went. You don't get that from a homebrew.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to know as much as possible. Because it's interesting.
And it can be used. If I didn't know more about the setting, how could I make a Devil worshiper from Cheliax who doesn't know it's wrong? Or an Inquisitor of Sun Wukong who takes fun so seriously he sucks all the joy out of it?
Many fun character concepts are born from knowing the setting and things in it.
It's hard to make an immigrant from place X to campaign immediate area Y when you don't even know X exists, you know?
I'm not sure where the accusation is directed here. Sometimes it sounds like you're ranting about GM's pushing barrels of world details on their players (which is a bad thing to do when it is unwanted) but you say your pet peeve is players who want GMs to do that.
Does the idea of players wanting to know as much about the world they're in as they can bother you? I don't see why it should. They're interested. I think it's kind of nice when my players ask me a question about the setting they feel rewarded when they get a good answer. If I don't have one, I'll come up with one, and now the setting is just a little bit more developed.
I think the more I know about the setting the better it is for me in terms of creating a character thats integrated into it. I'm a fan of colorful backstories and making a character that fits within a setting, so for me the more I know the better. It might not make me more interesting, but more integrated? Definitely.
If I want to play a cleric, I want to see a comprehensive list of gods so that I can choose which one fits me best. I like having the socio-political layout so that I can choose where I'm from if there are areas with a particular culture or style.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, the other way to do it, Vincent, is to say what sort of culture or style you are looking for and I'll tell you where fulfills it for you. At least for my games character creation is an interactive process between the gm and the player, with him telling me what he's looking to do, and me helping find the places, races and cultures et all that might most fulfill that need and suggesting them, then getting feedback, changing if needed, etcetera. I'd rather have it that way than have someone create a whole cloth which I then look at and say if it fits or not.
As a player I enjoy knowing a lot about a setting, but it isn't strictly necessary. As a DM, I love to know details about a setting that can bring it to life for me, and thus for my players with a little effort. Generic Trading Town is a boring place, you know? And often, other people's view of what the town/area/gods/whatever should be makes it more fresh than yet another one I've cranked out.
Aelf, I couldn't give you that stuff because my world is still in development. And probably will be forever. I don't have that information yet, and might not ever. (That and I don't tend to fret over that level of minutiae. Good grief. I'm running a Kingmaker game and my players don't ask for that level of detail about their own colony.)
As I said in the other thread, the setting that I and my group play in has become a sort of collaborative design project, with all my players at one point or another giving input, suggestions, ideas, and such like in the development of the setting. Almost all my players (minus one or two that just aren't into the design part of things) have left their fingerprints on the setting in one way or another. Often this has included things like Arrssanguinus said, where a player comes up with a concept and I (or other GM running something at the moment) don't have something like that in the setting yet, so it gets added, or something adapted for it, or otherwise adjustments are made so something can fit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aelf, I couldn't give you that stuff because my world is still in development. And probably will be forever. I don't have that information yet, and might not ever. (That and I don't tend to fret over that level of minutiae. Good grief.
Heck, most published setting don't have that level of detail or minutiae for that matter...
On the other hand, the other way to do it, Vincent, is to say what sort of culture or style you are looking for and I'll tell you where fulfills it for you. At least for my games character creation is an interactive process between the gm and the player, with him telling me what he's looking to do, and me helping find the places, races and cultures et all that might most fulfill that need and suggesting them, then getting feedback, changing if needed, etcetera. I'd rather have it that way than have someone create a whole cloth which I then look at and say if it fits or not.
I don't disagreee. I simply find having things to choose from helps give me inspiration. The more rich I think the world is the more motivated I am to tie myself to it in strongly knit ways. I have a small set of things I gravitate towards generically, but in a specific would I might see something I've never considered much myself but then think. oooh shiney. That could be fun. Gives me something to reach for besides my usual bag of tricks. If you dont want a samurai in persia, sometimes I need to know we're in persia first. And maybe theres something about persia that i'd never want to play something samurai like there... as an example
As that point of view relates to the OP, its true that as a general rule I *dont* prefer playing some uneducated farm boy who knows nothing of what goes on a mere 20 miles from his doorstep.... Nothing wrong with that. As usual. Its a choice. That particular sort of character simply wouldn't 'appeal to me. Generally speaking, a character whos never been interested in the world around him never GOES to the world around him and thus tends to become an npc.
On the other hand, the other way to do it, Vincent, is to say what sort of culture or style you are looking for and I'll tell you where fulfills it for you. At least for my games character creation is an interactive process between the gm and the player, with him telling me what he's looking to do, and me helping find the places, races and cultures et all that might most fulfill that need and suggesting them, then getting feedback, changing if needed, etcetera. I'd rather have it that way than have someone create a whole cloth which I then look at and say if it fits or not.I don't disagreee. I simply find having things to choose from helps give me inspiration. The more rich I think the world is the more motivated I am to tie myself to it in strongly knit ways. I have a small set of things I gravitate towards generically, but in a specific would I might see something I've never considered much myself but then think. oooh shiney. That could be fun. Gives me something to reach for besides my usual bag of tricks. If you dont want a samurai in persia, sometimes I need to know we're in persia first. And maybe theres something about persia that i'd never want to play something samurai like there... as an example
Fair enough ... Usually I'll give general information to start with - the major regions have something like a generic paragraph blurb. Call it white wolf style - which I expand on if someone shows interest. I don't necessarily like just dumping a huge pile of Information on someone's head. But I find that interactive character making better because, at the end of the day, we've worked out how for you to have something as close as possible to what you want while ALSO having it fit into what is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. I adamantly try to fit into what is. For me though that means knowing as much as possible. I prefer to have a decisive role in the collaborative process instead of simply being told. ah, thats what you want? Lets call you a saracen (or whatever) after which I may decide thats not even close to the actual theme I was originally after.
I want to play a noble
Ok. You're a jaunty effite tard.
No. I was hoping for caring, invested noble tired of the aristocracy interested in making a real difference in the world.
Ok, but everyone is going to think of you as an effite tard until they get to know you better.
Uh. ok. I'm not interested in running a noble if thats what its about.
I prefer choosing the nature of my involvement with a world both in race, class and in station. Speaking from personal experience my level of fun is directly proportional to my level of informed choice.
On the other hand, the other way to do it, Vincent, is to say what sort of culture or style you are looking for and I'll tell you where fulfills it for you. At least for my games character creation is an interactive process between the gm and the player, with him telling me what he's looking to do, and me helping find the places, races and cultures et all that might most fulfill that need and suggesting them, then getting feedback, changing if needed, etcetera. I'd rather have it that way than have someone create a whole cloth which I then look at and say if it fits or not.I don't disagreee. I simply find having things to choose from helps give me inspiration. The more rich I think the world is the more motivated I am to tie myself to it in strongly knit ways. I have a small set of things I gravitate towards generically, but in a specific would I might see something I've never considered much myself but then think. oooh shiney. That could be fun. Gives me something to reach for besides my usual bag of tricks. If you dont want a samurai in persia, sometimes I need to know we're in persia first. And maybe theres something about persia that i'd never want to play something samurai like there... as an example
As that point of view relates to the OP, its true that as a general rule I *dont* prefer playing some uneducated farm boy who knows nothing of what goes on a mere 20 miles from his doorstep.... Nothing wrong with that. As usual. Its a choice. That particular sort of character simply wouldn't 'appeal to me. Generally speaking, a character whos never been interested in the world around him never GOES to the world around him and thus tends to become an npc.
And as that came out in the character conversation, more detail would come out. In fact, in my main world I'm pretty sure I have pegged several concepts, locations and deities that you would probably enjoy playing/worshipping.
Campaign Settings are indeed a good idea
in fact, Golarion takes multiple settings and fuses them in a way they are localized by country, but are still compatible with the more localized countries
my issue with Golarion, is not the excessive focus on a few specific countries within the inner sea, but the fact they neglect many other countries and campaign settings to focus on those set few.
Varisia, Taldor, Andoran, Cheliax, and Absalom gets lots of love already, but we have no primary hardcovers for Casmaron, Tian Xia, Arcadia, or even specific niche countries within the inner sea.
Yep. I adamantly try to fit into what is. For me though that means knowing as much as possible. I prefer to have a decisive role in the collaborative process instead of simply being told. ah, thats what you want? Lets call you a saracen (or whatever)
It would be more like "you want to play a nomadic horseman? Those would come most likely from here, here or here. Here's the information. You want a Mage? You definitely AREN'T from here. If you are a paladin, here is the existing paladin order. You want something priestly, here are the existing gods, and how their worship differs in different countries. If you want a halfling, there are existing populations here, here and here - however, there are some individuals all over.
Main difference being I like going over it in concert before any creation is committed so that questions can be asked and any misconceptions can be corrected on the spot rather than having to backtrack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The opposite end of the spectrum leaves me feeling like the whale and potted plant formerly known as a missles over magrathea.
Whats this? I think I'll call it ground. I wonder if it will be friends with me?
Oh no. Not again.
As an example I really enjoyed choosing the favored son of sandpoint trait in RotRL with Amieko as my friend. As a result when I saw that amieko has abandoned property in Magnimar I felt like as amieko's friend surely I'd know about it, and knowing that we're headed to magnimar I'd have asked her if I could stay at her place both with respect to having a roof over my head and also to check up on the property as a favor to her.
That really helped me feel integrated plotwise and settingwise and added an element to the adventure path that I felt I had a role in generating. Then finding out mayor deverin's family owns a bar in magnimar as well? Those are questions as a player I'd never have asked or cared to ask, but they make sense for my character to know and add immersion and awesome at the same time.
Mayor Deverin! As an adventurer is there any word I may pass along to your family? I'll be happy to do so!
On the other hand, the other way to do it, Vincent, is to say what sort of culture or style you are looking for and I'll tell you where fulfills it for you. At least for my games character creation is an interactive process between the gm and the player, with him telling me what he's looking to do, and me helping find the places, races and cultures et all that might most fulfill that need and suggesting them, then getting feedback, changing if needed, etcetera. I'd rather have it that way than have someone create a whole cloth which I then look at and say if it fits or not.Kind of like Vincent said, knowing things about the races and cultures of the world can inspire me to think of something cool that I never would have asked about without that spark to start with.
Which is what the blurbs are for. However, trying to present the entire world file would be ... Heh. I freely admit its not professionally edited. So I usually do a series of synopsis of major regions, including the major players and racial and cultural divisions in areas and the like, at least to start with. The tour guide version. If something looks interesting ...I'll delve deeper and put that together for you.
As an example I really enjoyed choosing the favored son of sandpoint trait in RotRL with Amieko as my friend. As a result when I saw that amieko has abandoned property in Magnimar I felt like as amieko's friend surely I'd know about it, and knowing that we're headed to magnimar I'd have asked her if I could stay at her place both with respect to having a roof over my head and also to check up on the property as a favor to her.
That really helped me feel integrated plotwise and settingwise and added an element to the adventure path that I felt I had a role in generating. Then finding out mayor deverin's family owns a bar in magnimar as well? Those are questions as a player I'd never have asked or cared to ask, but they make sense for my character to know and add immersion and awesome at the same time.
Yup. Love including that sort of stuff. If there are going to be plot important npcs, definitely going to have that sort of detail thrown in there.
I only mention it in this case because our gm hadn't bothered to read any of that information so it was actually me who had to tell him about amiekos and mayor deverin's presence in magnimar, so me knowing it was super important in this particular instance. Taking it upon myself to learn about the world made for a very genuine new set of options and interactions and experiences that I otherwise would not have had.
The drawback clearly is that I know a lot more about magnimar than not just my gm but also my character and I can see how a player who metagames as a habit or addiction even things he *shouldn't* know wouldnt be a good player to give that kind of knowledge to and drawing the line about what he would and wouldn't know is a pretty gray area. I can see both sides of the coin but definitely think my research adds to the experience than takes away from it.
I only mention it in this case because our gm hadn't bothered to read any of that information so it was actually me who had to tell him about amiekos and mayor deverin's presence in magnimar, so me knowing it was super important in this particular instance. Taking it upon myself to learn about the world made for a very genuine new set of options and interactions and experiences that I otherwise would not have had.
I honestly don't think I'd have as much trouble with you as a layer as it might seem from some of our post exchanges in certain other threads. Just sayin'.
But there are often two ways I'll start; one is- it's this world, you guys pitch characters, tell me where you are from et al, then I look at what we have and choose what dangling plot hooks to engage and cast your way and work out the starting situation ...
Or I start with a starting situation and region, go much more in detail in that region, and tell people the general theme so they can create characters that would get involved in it. Had good luck with both methods.
Edit;
And yes it depends on the players greatly. Some, I know I can dump a ton of Info on and they will go to town on it and handle it great. Some just get intimidated.
Yep. I adamantly try to fit into what is. For me though that means knowing as much as possible. I prefer to have a decisive role in the collaborative process instead of simply being told. ah, thats what you want? Lets call you a saracen (or whatever) after which I may decide thats not even close to the actual theme I was originally after.
I want to play a noble
Ok. You're a jaunty effite tard.
No. I was hoping for caring, invested noble tired of the aristocracy interested in making a real difference in the world.
Ok, but everyone is going to think of you as an effite tard until they get to know you better.
Uh. ok. I'm not interested in running a noble if thats what its about.I prefer choosing the nature of my involvement with a world both in race, class and in station. Speaking from personal experience my level of fun is directly proportional to my level of choice.
i agree with this
some people want to play nontraditional rangers, it's a good idea to be more specific
"i want to play a fetchling ninja"
"so you want to play a japanese schoolgirl in black pajamas with a pair of wakazashi?"
"not that kind of ninja, i was considering a shadow tainted legitimate female chelexian noble scion whom was so low on the family heirarchy, that she was sent to the draft of a group of imperial intelligence agents and assassins called the Hellstalkers, studied a fighting style based off the hellcat's light abilities, and wields a curved sabre called a Bezekira Fang through a houseruled variation of the dervish dance feat called Duelists Performance. the Bezekira Fang is identical to a wakazashi on a mechanical level, and uses the same proficiency."
"so, does she wear black pajamas?"
"No, she wears Ustalavian Noble's Garb."
"why is she a fetchling?"
"she was born in a conjurer's study after an unusual night involving a strong connection to the plane of shadow her mother's brother had created as part of an experiment."
"if she became a hellstalker? why...
Which is why the question session. If the initial assumption is wrong, then the next question is ... Ok, so what is it you really want then? Describe it a bit more. I want to understand what you are looking for, both so we can make sure you get to realize that character and so I can understand what sort of things might engage that characters interest.
because of that, i tend to give fairly elaborate descriptions off the bat and fill in as needed,
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the other side of the coin.
Let's say we're having a campaign that takes place in Medieval England. Now yes, I can pull out my Earth Gazetteer, and talk about the nomadic empire of Genghis Khan, the samurai of Japan, Arab traders vying for mercantile superiority over the Indian Ocean. I can talk about the Aztec Empire, of Great Zimbabwe, the caste system in India.
But we're in Medieval England. You're not going to be playing any of those characters.
I could then describe Russian Tsars. The wars between Prussia and Sweden. The fall of the Byzantine Empire. The rise of the Habsburgs. The maddening confusion of dominions that make up the Holy Roman Empire. Lots of lovely hooks.
But you're not going to be playing any of those, either.
Part of the risk I see in opening up the whole world to the PCs is that you end up with players rushing to the far-flung corners of the world to design and create their characters, but then handwaving why they happen to gather at one point. Add in mechanics to the choices, and the rush to find the hidden exploit gem reaches a crescendo (which is why I worry about too many races). So, when I start my War of the Roses campaign, and end up with a samurai, an Aztec war-priest, and a Mongol raider as my PCs, I know it's time to dial it back. Cool as those characters are, they aren't thematically appropriate.
Why does it seem that some players feel it is necessary to have as much information available to them as possible about a Campaign Setting when it is highly unlikely that their characters would ever know all the things the Player wants to know?
I mean, first off I get that if you are setting your game in a large city, with traders visiting on a daily basis (merchant ships or overland caravans)bringing news of the world in on a regular basis, and a regular citizen might know who the Rulers of the kingdom are, what court life is like, who the movers and the shakers are, okay, sure I would see that in this case the PCs would want access to a good amount of information about the setting, but
If the game is set in a small village (say with a population of less than 1,000 people), then why is it so necessary for the Player to know what all of the different cultures of the setting are like, who are all the gods and heroes of antiquity, and the myriad of other details that the local first level character would simply not know?
Dose anyone want to play in a campaign setting where part of the game is learning about the setting, and by learning I do not mean making Knowledge Skill Check Rolls, but by actually investigating the setting, asking NPCs questions, or exploring?
I could, easily, bore you to death with the details of my homebrew campaign setting (it has been in continuous use for “x” years) but I won’t, not even if you are a player in a campaign I am running set on the world of Hamth, nope, not gonna do it, unless, of course, you ask me a question about it, and then I’ll tell you what your character might reasonably already know, and suggest ways for you to learn more, if that is your desire.
Do you, as a Player, feel it is a better gaming experience if you can familiarize yourself with the setting as deeply as possible before you begin play?
I prefer having more in-depth and broader knowledge as a player than my character has because I'm better able to play a character from that world if I have some context in which to sit my backstory. I'm not going to pretend that my 1st level Varisian fighter is going to know anything about Vudra, but I suspect I'm better able to portray his response to Vudran elements he meets for the first time since I (as the player) have a better understanding of what he is encountering from the sourcebooks than I would glean from purely the DM description.
.Similarly, I like getting maps of the world, the village, the local area, the geopolitical situation even though my character has probably never seen a map and definitely hasnt visited all those places. The extra info is a tool for me, the player, to portray the character - it generally includes information the character doesnt have, but that's a routine part of playing a character anyhow (my 1st level PCs dont know anywhere near as much about monster abilities, spells, magic items, etcetera that I do either. Ignoring the stuff my character doesnt know isnt that much of an effort).
Here's the other side of the coin.
Let's say we're having a campaign that takes place in Medieval England. Now yes, I can pull out my Earth Gazetteer, and talk about the nomadic empire of Genghis Khan, the samurai of Japan, Arab traders vying for mercantile superiority over the Indian Ocean. I can talk about the Aztec Empire, of Great Zimbabwe, the caste system in India.
But we're in Medieval England. You're not going to be playing any of those characters.
I could then describe Russian Tsars. The wars between Prussia and Sweden. The fall of the Byzantine Empire. The rise of the Habsburgs. The maddening confusion of dominions that make up the Holy Roman Empire. Lots of lovely hooks.
But you're not going to be playing any of those, either.
Part of the risk I see in opening up the whole world to the PCs is that you end up with players rushing to the far-flung corners of the world to design and create their characters, but then handwaving why they happen to gather at one point. Add in mechanics to the choices, and the rush to find the hidden exploit gem reaches a crescendo (which is why I worry about too many races). So, when I start my War of the Roses campaign, and end up with a samurai, an Aztec war-priest, and a Mongol raider as my PCs, I know it's time to dial it back. Cool as those characters are, they aren't thematically appropriate.
Maybe I misunderstood the OP, but I didnt think he was referring to adopting an "anything goes" approach. I like knowing about all those cool places, but I'm happy to be told "you're all from Cheliax" or whatever. I like playing in heavily restricted campaigns, but I still enjoy knowing about the wider context, even if it's not all usable.
On the other hand, the other way to do it, Vincent, is to say what sort of culture or style you are looking for and I'll tell you where fulfills it for you. At least for my games character creation is an interactive process between the gm and the player, with him telling me what he's looking to do, and me helping find the places, races and cultures et all that might most fulfill that need and suggesting them, then getting feedback, changing if needed, etcetera. I'd rather have it that way than have someone create a whole cloth which I then look at and say if it fits or not.
I may be the odd man out, but I don't create characters that way, it just feels odd to me.
That feels like working top down instead of bottom up...coming up with a concept before you're sure whether it's one that's possible or viable. I work better when I have all the options on the table from the start, and can pick from among those to create my character. I end up coming up with more interesting characters that way in most cases.
By concept in this case I'm truly talking vague. Sort of like "I always wanted to play an elvish swashbuckler type". Or "I want to do a career mercenary". Or "I have an idea for a paladin of a god of law and order". By concept it would generally mean "something generic that can be encompassed as a sentence as a starting point."
And it's also not generally a 'cold read' - you do have the blurbs and general stuff, it's just in the conversation you mine down a whole lot deeper and get more rich details in whatever areas you were interested in, things you might have missed that I think might be interesting for what you are trying would be mentioned, etcetera. It's almost more like a fitting session for your clothes than picking you out a shirt.
For me, it's simply about consistency.
I like that if I go to a friend's house and play in their game, and if they go to a friend's house and play in another game, we're all playing in basically the same world. That means, if you play regularly, and in more than one group, you inevitably become far more knowledgable about that setting, and being able to take that knowledge to the next game vastly improves immersion.
While I do enjoy the unbridled creativity of a homebrew setting, it makes it a lot harder to keep up with what's going on when you have to effectively "start over" every time you start a new game.
And I say all this despite having run homebrew settings for the vast majority of my game mastering career. I am a relatively new convert to this philosophy of running published settings, but it only seems to become more enjoyable the more I assimilate my fellow DMs to do the same.
ONE OF US.
ONE OF US.
I don't really see to much an issue with knowing a lot about a campaign setting. I am usually able to separate character I play versus metaknowledge of the universe.
For a homebrew, I don't think I would want a setting bible, but I would certainly want enough information to be able to decide what character I might want to play.
Part of the risk I see in opening up the whole world to the PCs is that you end up with players rushing to the far-flung corners of the world to design and create their characters, but then handwaving why they happen to gather at one point. Add in mechanics to the choices, and the rush to find the hidden exploit gem reaches a crescendo (which is why I worry about too many races). So, when I start my War of the Roses campaign, and end up with a samurai, an Aztec war-priest, and a Mongol raider as my PCs, I know it's time to dial it back. Cool as those characters are, they aren't thematically appropriate.
Unlimited access to the whole world may be problematic, but even a Briton in a War of the Roses campaign may have traveled in France, the Holy Roman Empire, Italy! or the Vatican, been on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, or even heard of the voyages of Henry the Navigator. Information may have traveled pretty far, even if direct experience is more limited.