Have you guys ever made drastic changes to your settings that would constitute a reboot of the entire setting? If so, is there any advice you could give me?
As many of you may know my first setting was about an american city getting thrown into a fantasy world. More specifically getting thrown into Eberron. And for the first two tries at making a setting I began questioning whether I should set it in Eberron. One major tweak I made was that I got rid of all the standard fantasy races and tried to replace them with other types of creatures.
Still in my thoughts I began to reallize that if I'm going to make such a major tweak to my campaign setting, I may as well make an entirely new world for it.
Has anyone ever done anything like this with their settings? And if so, advice?
I do this all the time. Mare Eternus is actually the end result of a whole series of settings with each one carrying certain things over from the previous ones. I think probably the most important thing is to not lose sight of the purpose your setting has. There's nothing wrong with carrying things over but you should be carrying them over because they fit the setting not just because they're cool and you want to keep them. If you're having trouble justifying something in the new setting don't be afraid to drop it and run in a different direction.
Quote from: Nomadic
I do this all the time. Mare Eternus is actually the end result of a whole series of settings with each one carrying certain things over from the previous ones. I think probably the most important thing is to not lose sight of the purpose your setting has. There's nothing wrong with carrying things over but you should be carrying them over because they fit the setting not just because they're cool and you want to keep them. If you're having trouble justifying something in the new setting don't be afraid to drop it and run in a different direction.
Thanks Nomadic! My basic purpose for the US(?) setting at first was to try to make an original setting out of a pre-existing setting that I liked (Eberron) and I happened to have begun reading the 1632 series by Eric Flint. So the idea just sort of came to me. Still now that I have been perusing this site for a long time and even attempting to build another world (Dynama) I think it's time to adapt it to my own world.
Yeah, people reboot and cannibalize settings all the time. I know that my own Avayevnon is in at least its third incarnation/rewrite, and changes every now and then when I think of something new that I want to happen some other way. I say "at least its third" because I started it initially, got critiques that tore it apart, and I rebuilt it from the ground up, then a few years later, I rethought several things, and changed a lot, and came up with a lot of new stuff, and threw out a lot of old stuff. But it has also changed in much smaller (at a time, anyway) ways in between these different versions. It has now swallowed whole another mini-setting I had called "A Sense of Humor" and certain elements from another.
With regard to moving forward, I'd say that Nomadic makes good points, but would expand to say that you just need to keep in mind what you want from the setting in a general sense and in various ways:
What kind of conflicts do you imagine the PCs engaging in? Struggle for survival? Political intrigue and espionage? Epic battles for grand causes?
What is it specifically about Eberron that attracted you? If it's only a few elements, then you might want to start from scratch, and just keep in mind what you liked, and build a more perfect image of the world you want.
What FEEL do you want the world to have? Brutal and gritty, with lots of PC deaths, blood, and loss of limbs? Cinematic adventure, with danger, but where deaths are rare and only occur if it's important? Light-hearted, where none of the PCs die, and its all very playful, sometimes downright silly? There are tons of these, and they all affect the direction you want to take your setting, and what system you want to use. One of Vreeg's rules on settings was to make sure the game system (d20, Fate, Storyteller, GURPS, etc) fits the setting, because eventually the setting WILL fit into the system. So make sure the setting you are using supports the kind of games you want to play, and the stories you want to tell, rather than getting in the way.
Hey Seraphine! Thanks for all the advice. As for what you said I actually was thinking about cannibalizing one of the nations from my Dynama setting and incorporating it in my new world. But I think i should move that discussion to another thread.
Quote from: Newb Again..
Hey Seraphine! Thanks for all the advice. As for what you said I actually was thinking about cannibalizing one of the nations from my Dynama setting and incorporating it in my new world. But I think i should move that discussion to another thread.
Yeah, as long as it fits your idea of the world, then cannibalize away! And DivSet worlds are fine too, if you do it intentionally and thoughtfully.
(DivSet is short for Diverse Setting, and refers to a setting without a unifying theme and esthetic. They have the advantage of being able to provide many different kinds of games, each with their own central idea and focus; and the disadvantage of being really easy to do badly, and be an incoherent bunch of cobbled-together nonsense. Contrast with "
Ethocentric" [NOT eth
no-] worlds that are built around a specific idea or
ethos, like "Life is a series of misfortunes and suffering," or "We all have a purpose in life." )
I can't count how many times I've rebooted Amalga... Jeez.
The biggest thing you have to ask yourself is this: Do I need to reboot this setting or should I just make a new setting?
Old ideas are not unlike a straight jacket. They constrain and bind your imagination by what was. Some times it is better to free yourself from that burden and imagine something wholly new.
Of course that is easier said than done, especially if you are really attached to your old ideas.
I think I mix Nom's and Elemental Elf's approaches a bit. I tend to find I'm running into a wall with a setting, or that it has drifted in a direction I dislike for some reason and usually start on something else to clear my mind. Typically, this new setting starts to converge on where I wanted the old setting, at which point, I'll cannibalize the old one for bits that fit the new one. In this way, I think I've matured a pretty good philosophy on spirits and magic that tends to carry over from one fantasy setting to the next. Other ideas sprout up, and the strong ones get enhanced and developed, while weaker ones fade away. I figure in thirty years, I'll have a seriously awesome setting!
But seriously, I think I've heard just about everyone on here talka bout rebooting or cannibalizing one setting or another at some point. Approaches differ, but it's common.
With regard to the original post, I'd ask how important it is that the fantasy setting be Eberron and if so, why Eberron? If the reasons aren't extremely Eberron-specific, I probably have a hundred more questions. If it simply must be Eberron, then yeah, use Eberron.
Quote from: Newb Again..
Have you guys ever made drastic changes to your settings that would constitute a reboot of the entire setting? If so, is there any advice you could give me?
As many of you may know my first setting was about an american city getting thrown into a fantasy world. More specifically getting thrown into Eberron. And for the first two tries at making a setting I began questioning whether I should set it in Eberron. One major tweak I made was that I got rid of all the standard fantasy races and tried to replace them with other types of creatures.
Still in my thoughts I began to reallize that if I'm going to make such a major tweak to my campaign setting, I may as well make an entirely new world for it.
Has anyone ever done anything like this with their settings? And if so, advice?
A few times, especially after college.
Celtricia was orignally much more alignment based, and I had (more of a) a hybrid skill/clas system. The setting was started as I finished High School, and it was never played more than in college, but by the end of that time, much had changed, especially with how I was scaling back 'power gain' and discovering the role that magic had to replace technology in some ways.
Campaigns are repositories, and part of me has wanted to ditch it a few times and start fresh; and I do have a bronze age setting for that. One reason I keep working with the main setting is the level of investiture, and that fact that after the second minor reboot, my underpinnings were what I really worked on, and If I have some real solid advice, it is to rework from the bottom-up, at least in part and as an intellectual exercise.
Quote from: LordVreegOne reason I keep working with the main setting is the level of investiture, and that fact that after the second minor reboot, my underpinnings were what I really worked on, and If I have some real solid advice, it is to rework from the bottom-up, at least in part and as an intellectual exercise.
In the context of a campaign setting, what does it mean to you to work "from the bottom-up?" You mention "underpinnings" but I still don't quite understand your meaning, and I'd like to, because it sounds interesting, and potentially useful. Where do you consider the "bottom" and conversely, which way is "up?"
I restarted both my settings a few times. Modified some important and other less important things. It's part of the creation process, especially with something as "vast" as an imaginary world.
Thanks everyone! I'll continue to read your advice, and try to rebuild the US of Whatever I come up with. But I had a new idea for a setting, and I'm gonna take the advice about starting something else to reinvigorate me.
Sometimes that really is the best thing. I've currently got three settings that I work on, as I get inspiration for each of them. Avayevnon is my oldest, but Cad Goleor is my most active, and is currently my "primary" setting. But sometimes I have to work on Avayevnon or Camulus when I get stuck or frustrated. Sometimes your mind just needs to work a different angle to get the creative juices flowing again.
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: LordVreegOne reason I keep working with the main setting is the level of investiture, and that fact that after the second minor reboot, my underpinnings were what I really worked on, and If I have some real solid advice, it is to rework from the bottom-up, at least in part and as an intellectual exercise.
In the context of a campaign setting, what does it mean to you to work "from the bottom-up?" You mention "underpinnings" but I still don't quite understand your meaning, and I'd like to, because it sounds interesting, and potentially useful. Where do you consider the "bottom" and conversely, which way is "up?"
There are different ways of looking at it, but what I am speaking about is making sure the foundations of the campaign (cosmology, physics engine) make sense in terms of the next level (history and culture and faith) and that those make sense in terms of the current politics and economy and organizations and religion and attitudes that the players interact with.
Examples are how the system for magic would actually affect the economy, what kind of availability would magical items actually have, etc.
So basically, start with the universal laws of the cosmos and work out implications from there?
yes, my friend. In our own, imperfect way, sit and work out the way things might happen and make sure that the players and you feel some level of congruity....
Quote from: LordVreeg
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: LordVreegOne reason I keep working with the main setting is the level of investiture, and that fact that after the second minor reboot, my underpinnings were what I really worked on, and If I have some real solid advice, it is to rework from the bottom-up, at least in part and as an intellectual exercise.
In the context of a campaign setting, what does it mean to you to work "from the bottom-up?" You mention "underpinnings" but I still don't quite understand your meaning, and I'd like to, because it sounds interesting, and potentially useful. Where do you consider the "bottom" and conversely, which way is "up?"
There are different ways of looking at it, but what I am speaking about is making sure the foundations of the campaign (cosmology, physics engine) make sense in terms of the next level (history and culture and faith) and that those make sense in terms of the current politics and economy and organizations and religion and attitudes that the players interact with.
Examples are how the system for magic would actually affect the economy, what kind of availability would magical items actually have, etc.
Thank you for explaining. And I generally agree, though I think a degree of working from a small place outward (once you have established the big picture in a general sense) can be just as useful. Once you establish what the cosmology, physics engine, and the basics of at least one culture and faith, building a specific location can sometimes help flesh out a setting that would otherwise be very vague.
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: LordVreeg
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: LordVreegOne reason I keep working with the main setting is the level of investiture, and that fact that after the second minor reboot, my underpinnings were what I really worked on, and If I have some real solid advice, it is to rework from the bottom-up, at least in part and as an intellectual exercise.
In the context of a campaign setting, what does it mean to you to work "from the bottom-up?" You mention "underpinnings" but I still don't quite understand your meaning, and I'd like to, because it sounds interesting, and potentially useful. Where do you consider the "bottom" and conversely, which way is "up?"
There are different ways of looking at it, but what I am speaking about is making sure the foundations of the campaign (cosmology, physics engine) make sense in terms of the next level (history and culture and faith) and that those make sense in terms of the current politics and economy and organizations and religion and attitudes that the players interact with.
Examples are how the system for magic would actually affect the economy, what kind of availability would magical items actually have, etc.
Thank you for explaining. And I generally agree, though I think a degree of working from a small place outward (once you have established the big picture in a general sense) can be just as useful. Once you establish what the cosmology, physics engine, and the basics of at least one culture and faith, building a specific location can sometimes help flesh out a setting that would otherwise be very vague.
That's a pretty good approach if you want to start gaming in your setting quickly. Otherwise, I suppose either way works equally well.
No disagreement. big picture, make the layers work and the large pieces, and then start with some fiddly bits.
Quote from: LordVreeg
No disagreement. big picture, make the layers work and the large pieces, and then start with some fiddly bits.
Another voiceof agreement here. I tried a totally fiddly-bits beginning recently and the recognition of so many ways things could have gone and the better stories they would have made drives me nuts. If I had taken a bit more time to lay down foundations, I could have fixed a lot of these regrets pre-session.
Quote from: Numinous
Quote from: LordVreeg
No disagreement. big picture, make the layers work and the large pieces, and then start with some fiddly bits.
Another voiceof agreement here. I tried a totally fiddly-bits beginning recently and the recognition of so many ways things could have gone and the better stories they would have made drives me nuts. If I had taken a bit more time to lay down foundations, I could have fixed a lot of these regrets pre-session.
So tell me, how does one "lay down foundations" for a setting at the beginning process?
Quote from: Newb Again..
Quote from: Numinous
Quote from: LordVreeg
No disagreement. big picture, make the layers work and the large pieces, and then start with some fiddly bits.
Another voiceof agreement here. I tried a totally fiddly-bits beginning recently and the recognition of so many ways things could have gone and the better stories they would have made drives me nuts. If I had taken a bit more time to lay down foundations, I could have fixed a lot of these regrets pre-session.
So tell me, how does one "lay down foundations" for a setting at the beginning process?
My method generally goes game type, then theme, followed by religion, which is bound up with cultures and regions, then an area for play.
To use my current world as an example, I started from D&D Next playtest as my game. This tells me that I want combat encounters, magic of two types (Arcane and Divine), and a class-based character system. Then I decided I wanted a Points of Light type world that built on the themes of exploration and the unknown, clash of nature vs. civilization, and a bit of manifest destiny moral struggle. From there I built the religions, two conflicting entities with one featuring a puritanical kind of modesty and monotheism with the other being a type of animism/pagan thing centered around the Horned God kind of figure. This leads directly to a conflict between a bastion of civilization sort of centralized authority to provide the heirarchical basis of the monotheistic tradition, a dystopian world of double-think and hunting heretics. This exists in contrast with border towns rife with lawlessness, struggling to get by in the shadow of another world filled with savage tribes and monstrous terrors in the dark. So, of course, the area designated for play should feature this conflict by bringing the civilized world into direct competition with the wilderness via a motivating force, in this example the greed inspired by the opportunity for profit that comes from resource exploitation. From here, I would start work on the specific game-related details of the area in question.
I hope that helps give you an inside look at the foundation-building, at least how I do it.
I usually start with how supernatural things work and interact - magic, spirits, and so on. I'll then attack some of the more philosphical questions, like what happens when you die, is there a soul, where do souls come from, etc. Once I have a grasp on the truth, I start considering how people living in the world would interpret these things - e.g., religions. Note that the religions rarely get it right. Beyond that, it's just a matter of choosing things like technological advancement, any world-wide historical events, and an area to zoom in on.
Quote from: Newb Again..
Quote from: Numinous
Quote from: LordVreeg
No disagreement. big picture, make the layers work and the large pieces, and then start with some fiddly bits.
Another voiceof agreement here. I tried a totally fiddly-bits beginning recently and the recognition of so many ways things could have gone and the better stories they would have made drives me nuts. If I had taken a bit more time to lay down foundations, I could have fixed a lot of these regrets pre-session.
So tell me, how does one "lay down foundations" for a setting at the beginning process?
Foundations:
1.) What do I want gameplay to be like, when using this material? (i.e., what things should happen during the game?)
1b.) How do I set this material up as a structure that will make possible and encourage that kind of play?
2.) What kind of tone/mood/feel do I want this material to help evoke? (i.e., how does it relate to the senses and cognition of the players?)
2b.) How do I set this material up as a structure that will communicate that tone/mood/feel?