(if you read this, congrats, you already overcame the first hurdle, my inability to make a short catchy title^^)
Greetings fellow GMs and Players,
over the years I have been exposed to many different settings through cartoons, comics, video and tabletop role playing games (naturally^^).
So naturally I (and I suspect it was very similar for you) always wondered how you could make this cool setting and that cool setting into a playable ttrpg world. (not too difficult to follow thus far, right?^^)
The most practical thing I found reflecting upon this was actually questions. Question which lead to an entire world to be build around them. So without further ado, here is the first question.
What if there are no primary divine spellcasters in the world? (Always assuming the main classes and not the obscure stuff, Inquisitors and alike are considered secondary spellcasters here)
Answer:
-It means that Rangers, Paladins, Inquisitors, Bards, Witches and specific archetypes for certain arcane classes are the primary source of healing.
-It also means that practically all healers are pretty much unmitigated warriors at their core.
-It means that witches are the sole source for resurrections. Interesting in part because they are healers that are really not bound by a faith.
(partial answer, I do not have all that much time and I want to encourage discussion.
I have several more questions like these and you can actually guess them for yourselves. Happy worldbuilding!
Not the end^^
I do my best to not ban anything, because I find so completely counter to the very spirit of a fantasy game. Therefore, I rely on creativity and thematics for how everything ties into the setting.
If I don't have Gods in my setting, but you want to be a Cleric... you get power from your teddy bear, I don't give a $#!+ as long as you play it well... it's no different than a familiar or spirit animal or a God in my opinion... it's all make-believe.
I am extremely restrictive in what races, classes and everything else that are allowed in a game, because the first thing I do when running a game is decide what kind of a story I'm telling.
If I've decided to tell a story about primitive cave-dwelling hunters in the arctic and you want to roll up with a robot cowboy from another planet in another dimension... my table probably isn't for you.
In one of my primary d20 fantasy settings, most people who go by the term "sorcerer" or "warlock" are in fact charlatans who read your palm while they pick your pocket. And everyone knows it... but still treats them with a sort of respect/revulsion combo, because they're superstitious and you just never know.
So in that setting, there just aren't wizards throwing fireballs around. If you want to be a diviner and enchanter or something, we'll talk.
In another, the setting is much more over-the-top, with dragons and magi and talking animals and the like. There's a much more "Starwars Catina" feel in that one.
And in my newest (and most incomplete) setting, inspired by Pendleton Ward... well. Your robot cowboy would actually fit right in.
|
The (homebrew) setting I run games in has gone through numerous different rule systems. I think in part due to this, I don't see classes as a thing that exists in world. Class is a game mechanic for players and doesn't shape anything else for me. I stopped using classes for making npcs a while ago (using monster creation rules for npcs has the added benefit of making them far closer to cr appropriate as well).
PCs are supposed to be unique sorts of characters anyway, so them being able to do things npcs can't and vice versa isn't a problem to me. Also, I want to use some published rules system and not have to re-write the entire thing to fit my setting, so concessions have to be made.
The only things I ban in my game are technology. The Golarion setting is based on late middle ages to renaissance, while mine is based on early middle ages to older periods. So no firearms or clockwork constructs or other newer feeling stuff (it's fantasy, not accuracy that I'm going for).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this kind of thing can work as long as you have buy-in from the players.
We don't really ban things in our games, but we often agree that it might be more fun to play without certain aspects of the game:
Eg. In our Carrion Crown game we agreed no Paladins (because ignoring fear is contrary to the experience we want) and no Clerics (because fighting haunts without channels makes it more challenging).
or we play with a theme:
Eg. Our Kingmaker game we decided on an all divine party to give our group something to hold them together (we were having s little trouble then) and to see what kind of theocracy we'd end up with.
One note though, never underestimage the ability of players to get around your restrictions, eg. If you ban 9th level divine classes so nobody has Raise Dead, and the Paladin takes ULTIMATE MERCY at 5th level then you have noone to blame but yourself.
I tend to prefer agreeing on a theme more than banning, but the effectiveness of that agreement probably deoends a bit on your group.
If there were no more primary divine casters in the world:
1. Why are the gods so weak in this setting?
2. Has it always been this way or was there some religious schism?
3. Does this also work for the bad guys?
4. Can powerful divine magic items be created?
5. Are there divine artifacts?
6. How does this lack of divine power with unfettered arcane power affect everyday NPCs? Do they lack faith in the gods?As a GM I want to answer all of these questions. As a player though...
A setting will only be as engaging as the player(s) who inhabit it. You can make up reams of background but if the player shrugs and says "I can't play a cleric? Ok, I'll play a witch" you may have world built in vain.
It might swing the other extreme though. A little while ago I got to be a player in a brief game where the PCs were soldiers on the edge of a contested borderland. The kingdom was run by paladins with the kingdom supposedly in a permanent conflict with neighboring orc tribes.
When the GM rolled out the map I immediately began questioning. Why were there miles of open lowland between forts on the borderland? Who lives in the forest that borders both us and the orcs? Why are there so many small, unwalled villages in the gaps between these couple of forts over here? Why, if the borderland itself is just a wide, open plain, does our kingdom even suffer the orcs?
At one point my GM just glared at me and I stopped asking so many questions. As the game got started though, it turned out that some of my questions were directly related to the opening plot. The game began with a small horde of orcs using the forest on the border of both our lands to get past the patrols, get into our paladin-run kingdom, and commit terrible raids.
** spoiler omitted **...
You hit the nail right on the head.^^
How you answer these questions informs the world in interesting ways.Sorry to read about the rail roading. :(
Naturally, the best world (building) is indeed ultimately only as good as the GM and players that play it. Good ideas are, of course, not enough and it requires these odd things called self discipline and good communication to implement them well. (Who would have thought that you need a degree of discipline to enjoy yourself? Will the wonders ever cease?^^)
Another obvious thing, I deliberately ask the questions as training exercises to see where they take the astute readers of the Paizo forums, knowing that they will find different yet equally insightful answers.^^
But on the the next thought experiments (yes, several this time^^):
First the easy one:
What if there were no primary spell casters at all?
There is a (cartoon) setting like that and it is the world of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe^^ (particularly the 2000's reboot where everybody, even the mages, is buff)
Here is the harder one:
Assuming a standard fantasy world with only the core races, what if there were no humans?
Enjoy coming up with interesting answers! (Comments and discussions about early mentioned ideas are naturally still welcome^^)
Removing full spellcasters in what is otherwise a standard PF world where you'll face medusae etc. means you need to have a quick think about where stone to flesh & similar will come from. It's unlikely to be from within the party.
Making teleport and other high-level sorc/wizard spells much rarer is probably a plus I admit.
|
I will read in more detail later, in case I missed something. But just to check real quick on the "no primary casters" thing; What would you consider Evil-lyn, the Sorceress, and Orko to be if not pure casters? I love the show, and the question; just couldn't help snagging on the exceptions. "Buff" doesn't automatically preclude one from being a caster.
Evil-Lyn could be an occultist, or maybe an adept or maybe a weird bard archetype. Staff magus possibly?
Sorceress would just be a creature, maybe a fey or outsider with spell like abilities
(if you read this, congrats, you already overcame the first hurdle, my inability to make a short catchy title^^)
Greetings fellow GMs and Players,
over the years I have been exposed to many different settings through cartoons, comics, video and tabletop role playing games (naturally^^).
So naturally I (and I suspect it was very similar for you) always wondered how you could make this cool setting and that cool setting into a playable ttrpg world. (not too difficult to follow thus far, right?^^)
The most practical thing I found reflecting upon this was actually questions. Question which lead to an entire world to be build around them. So without further ado, here is the first question.
What if there are no primary divine spellcasters in the world? (Always assuming the main classes and not the obscure stuff, Inquisitors and alike are considered secondary spellcasters here)
Answer:
-It means that Rangers, Paladins, Inquisitors, Bards, Witches and specific archetypes for certain arcane classes are the primary source of healing.
-It also means that practically all healers are pretty much unmitigated warriors at their core.
-It means that witches are the sole source for resurrections. Interesting in part because they are healers that are really not bound by a faith.
(partial answer, I do not have all that much time and I want to encourage discussion.I have several more questions like these and you can actually guess them for yourselves. Happy worldbuilding!
Not the end^^
I can appreciate this discussion. I have been banging this around in my head as I am running a World of Xoth setting at the moment and enjoying it (Conan-like Sword and Sorcery setting). The only magic in the setting is Arcane (no divine magic) and magic is really limited in class scope. I think you could take a concept like this and expand on it so that you had Arcane and Nature magic...both different and giving you some more spell casting options.
Here is a link: Player's Guide to World of Xoth
The guide might give you a lot of good ideas on world building development from a Sword & Sorcery aspect. I like the way they create characters especially in a world with Human only or a very small race pool.
Jack
-Here some of my personal thoughts on a world without primary spellcasters:
The monsters still get their spells and spell like abilities so long as they are part of their natural abilities and not some trick they got by taking levels in a class.
(I actually thing that it valorizes these monsters as only they have these unique spells/spell like abilities. (That a wizard or cleric can just cast a spell and also have something that is supposed to mostly unique to certain creatures is kind of disappointing))
Furthermore, using magic might be very taxing on the body, so only someone in peek physical condition might actually be tough enough to use it, so you can explain that way why every mage would have to be buff to be able to (semi-safely) use magic.
(Warhammer Fantasy actually does that)
-Dragonlance/Krynn starts off as a cleric/divine magic free setting.
-Evil-Lyn could easily be played as an oratory-based bard. She is shown to be very convincing and highly knowledgeable to boot. (I like Evil-Lyn, she is a smart, intense and complex as well.)
-Skeletor could be a staff based magus after he respec-ed from that acid in the face and rebuilding thing. (which is also why he has a skull for a face)
-Personally, I have always seen the PCs' classes as what their training and life experiences manifest as. Few classes other than Druid would actually describe themselves by their class names. (A musical bard, might still describe themself as a bard, but an oratory bard can easily describe themself as a teacher and scholar.)
-More on the No hoomies front:
Humans are usually the intermediate race between all the other races. Without Humans, either another race steps in and does all the contact stuff (I say halflings, they are easy going, get along with most people and live practically everywhere).
If there is no intermediate race, that means that contact between the races is quite limited, which offers a lot of options for campaigns, role play and general shenanigans^^)
Here a nice idea on how to spice up our clerics:
Allow any cleric (almost) any domain independent of their deity.
That way domains reflect the clerics personality more rather than just being a mini version of their deity.
Even if you don't restrict what classes can be chosen, setting can be conveyed by a list of common or "iconic" classes.
I do not disagree :)
A big part is how you approach common answers to big problems that were removed with the class.
Something like a permanent negative level from a Wight(Possible at level 2) goes from being a 7th level answer to a 10th level one which can mess with the pacing of your campaign.
Cool discussion! My 2 cents, limited to my own table and my own homebrew setting:
--Classes: I ditched all primary spellcasters (+summoner) and never looked back. I agree that you have to go all in (so I as the DM don't get to use wizards, or 7th - 9th level spells, etc), and I personally found it simplified the game and made all the great pathfinder classes (bard, magus, inquisitor, alchemist, etc etc) all the more fun to play.
--Races: ifrit, oread, sylph, and undine only. To counteract the limited race selection, I am 1) generous with trading out of race abilities like "fire affinity" and 2) I also allow some of the subraces (frost undine, etc) to get more ability score variety.
I find both of these restrictions have, in their own way, allowed players to be creative within these boundaries.
