Recently, while trying to see how well this site shows up using different keyword combinations in Google, Yahoo, MSN, and Lycos (:)), I came across an old, archived thread from WotC that talked about common mistakes in creating and building campaign settings. Now obviously, one should be very careful about calling out any particular "mistakes" one finds in others' campaign settings, for it is a work of art more than anything else, and criticizing a work of art without substantial reasoning can often lead to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. However, we have all seen these little traps that settings have a habit of falling into, and I thought it would be fun to list out some of the prominent ones here. I'll go first, and I'll list mine as simple observations (please note, I do not claim these factually, they are just personal opinions of things in campaign settings that I have noticed, and should be treated as such):
* Medieval Europe is not the only culture and setting that has ever existed, and was not the largest even during its time.
* Very few (read ZERO) "Real World Races and Cultures" exist solely based on one or two personality traits. Example - "Why do your dwarves drink a lot and mine silver all day?" "Duh, they're obviously dwarves!"
* Settings that hinge on one Big Event or one Big Bad Evil guy always face the problem of, "What happens next?" Super Powerful and Active Undefeatable BBEG's have a way of being defeated, which tends to lead to a bit of, "Hey, what do I do next?" However, Super Powerful Undefeatable
INactive BBEG's can be very good for a setting if used properly.
* Just because you're a human doesn't mean your culture is the same as another human's (See point about Medieval Europe).
* New rules should support and reflect the setting, not vice versa.
[/list]
Who's next??
- Just because you are creating a new race it doesn't mean it will be original.
- There's a reason why certain tropes are repeated over and over again - everyone's familiar with them, so if you use them you can concentrate on what makes this world different than explaining every single facet of your societies.
- New rules for a world don't automatically make it better.
* Your creation myth, no matter how good, is only important enough to be the first thing one reads about your setting if it accurately sums up the themes, tone and conflicts of the setting AND provides a gripping introduction. (Seriously, I have been put off reading SO MANY settings just because the first thing I see is yet another creation myth)
* Worshipping one deity does not necessarily preclude acknowledging the existence of others, and even respecting/revering them to a greater or lesser extent.
* Basing a setting (or part of one) on a real-world culture is one thing, cloning said culture is another. There's nothing wrong with adapting a historical period for role-playing purposes, or even adding some fantasy elements reflecting the myths of the times, but at least admit that's what you're doing. If your setting is inspired by ancient Greece, then it should be similar to it, not the same but with the names changed.
I don't really know if this counts, since it falls into the "common tropes" area, but in my mind it's a big mistake:
*Something is "evil" just because it is or is related to one or more of the following: death, darkness, chaos, cold.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw*Something is "evil" just because it is or is related to one or more of the following: death, darkness, chaos, cold.
Heh. In Urbis, I have an outer plane of Death AND Good (http://eruvian.com/locale.asp?localeID=725)...
An expansion on what JH said:
-Your setting doesn't have to break multiple new boundaries to be original; often the things that we have dismissed as too common or overused have been neglected to the point that they're reasonable again.
[blockquote=SilvercatMoonpaw]*Something is "evil" just because it is or is related to one or more of the following: death, darkness, chaos, cold. [/blockquote]
The problem where that exists is a lot of people don't actually take the time to explain why said tropes are the way they are in their setting - I'm guilty of this myself, as I'm pretty sure Haveneast is still lacking for a full explanation.
Quote from: WickedTroll[blockquote=SilvercatMoonpaw]*Something is "evil" just because it is or is related to one or more of the following: death, darkness, chaos, cold. [/blockquote]
The problem where that exists is a lot of people don't actually take the time to explain why said tropes are the way they are in their setting - I'm guilty of this myself, as I'm pretty sure Haveneast is still lacking for a full explanation.
Exactly what I meant. If, for example, you said butterflies were inherently evil then people wouldn't leave you alone until you explained your reasoning. But you can make a creature of living shadow be evil and not explain yourself and I've never heard anyone complain.
- Evil races are ALWAYS ugly or strange-looking
Drow, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins... do I have to go on?
To me the greatest pitfall is not really related to originality or anything like that--it's about story and drama. If players and dms alike can't read a few bits of the setting and think, "cool, I'd love to imagine doing something there!" then it is really just a lot of words. One of the weaknesses of say a game like Earthdawn or Elfquest is that everything really interesting has already happened. The setting is still kind of interesting but in a sort of 'ho hum, let's kind of...wander around...' kind of way.
So in other words as far as I'm concerned you could have the most cliched, unoriginal and typical D&D setting or sci fi setting and have a fascinating fun game. At the end of the day its about the adventure/intrigue or whatever floats the boats of those involved. On the other hand you could have a very interesting, unique setting and it could actually be unplayable.
Quote from: IshmaylMedieval Europe is not the only culture and setting that has ever existed, and was not the largest even during its time.
are[/b]medieval Europe. Almost no part of medieval Europe resembled Tolkien's Gondor. Eastern Europe, Russia, Ireland, Spain, and Turkey all had immensely flavorful cultures in "medieval Europe," but their various aspects are rarely represented in typical settings. It's amazing how much just a "_______ is the typical hat worn in the region" sentence can add immense amounts of cultural flavor to a setting.
Quote from: Ishmayl* Just because you're a human doesn't mean your culture is the same as another human's (See point about Medieval Europe).
Word. Even the smallest differences can make huge cultural differences (such as styles of clothing). I played in one campeign where knocking on the door was an abhorration and we had to knock on the doorframe. I, personally, am forever self conscious of where I'm knocking in real life now.
Quote from: HaphazzardWord. Even the smallest differences can make huge cultural differences (such as styles of clothing). I played in one campaign where knocking on the door was an abhorration and we had to knock on the doorframe. I, personally, am forever self conscious of where I'm knocking in real life now.
:D
That is my doing, I am unashamed to admit.
Quote from: Ishmayl* Just because you're a human doesn't mean your culture is the same as another human's (See point about Medieval Europe).
Addendum: And even if you aren't human this still applies.
*The world has a
huge number of different sentient races/species, but humans are the most common and dominant life-form for no apparent reason.
*The only crossbreeds happen with humans.
Tropes are easy. A bit of spin can make a trope clever (Dwarven Samurai... think about it) but it is still a trope. True creativity is a lot of work to put into what is in the end, just a game. Ten thousand times more rewarding to be sure and some thing I still aspire to, but if you just want to play then don't you go for what you know you all know?
Quote from: Wensleydale- Evil races are ALWAYS ugly or strange-looking
Drow, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins... do I have to go on?
Drow are ugly? :?:
I'd call 'em strange-looking.
But aren't they just elves with a different color scheme?
If you talk to my friend... No, no they are not. Talk to me then yes, yes they are.
Who defines the definition of the difference between a 'glossy paint job' and a totally new write up for a common race? Its all very subjective.
Quote from: Tybalt[...] One of the weaknesses of say a game like Earthdawn or Elfquest is that everything really interesting has already happened. The setting is still kind of interesting but in a sort of 'ho hum, let's kind of...wander around...' kind of way.[...]
I
strongly disagree. Saying that everything interesting in ED has already happened because the Plague is over, is like saying that everything interesting in Eberron has already happened because the Great War (or whatever that was called) is over.
There's ALOT of interesting things going on in ED even after the Plague. The elf schism, the Terran Empire, forgotten Cairs, some horrors still wandering Barsaive (like Constructor or Chantal's Demon), and so on.
Anyways... :ontopic:
- breaking stereotypes just for the sake of breaking them (eg, tree-hugging dwarf druid)
- confusing "interesting NPCs" with "freaky NPCs" (eg, a halfling fighter cutting off and collecting the thumbs of everything he kills)
- forcing romances or family ties on PCs to which the player didn't give his consent
- In your quest for originality, don't forget that you will also have to explain your concepts to your players. And they might nod off if you take longer than 15 minutes to explain.
Quote from: Ra-TielQuote from: Tybalt[...] One of the weaknesses of say a game like Earthdawn or Elfquest is that everything really interesting has already happened. The setting is still kind of interesting but in a sort of 'ho hum, let's kind of...wander around...' kind of way.[...]
I strongly disagree. Saying that everything interesting in ED has already happened because the Plague is over, is like saying that everything interesting in Eberron has already happened because the Great War (or whatever that was called) is over.
There's ALOT of interesting things going on in ED even after the Plague. The elf schism, the Terran Empire, forgotten Cairs, some horrors still wandering Barsaive (like Constructor or Chantal's Demon), and so on.
Perhaps it was just me, but while I did see possibilities I found that it just didn't seem to interest either of the groups I tried it with. Maybe it was just my frustration speaking.
Quote from: TybaltQuote from: Ra-TielI strongly disagree. Saying that everything interesting in ED has already happened because the Plague is over, is like saying that everything interesting in Eberron has already happened because the Great War (or whatever that was called) is over.
There's ALOT of interesting things going on in ED even after the Plague. The elf schism, the Terran Empire, forgotten Cairs, some horrors still wandering Barsaive (like Constructor or Chantal's Demon), and so on.
Perhaps it was just me, but while I did see possibilities I found that it just didn't seem to interest either of the groups I tried it with. Maybe it was just my frustration speaking.
In Earthdawn, the Scourge created a blank slate. All the power groups in the world had been decimated and the political status quo was no more - so there was suddenly room for new people and groups to establish themselves. The time of the horrors is past (though not completely gone) - now everyone is scrambling to make the world anew in their own visions.
And the player characters should be at the forefront of their change. The world is no longer headed towards massive destruction - but where
is it heading? No one knows - but everyone is trying to make their own answers reality.
Quote from: Jürgen Hubert- In your quest for originality, don't forget that you will also have to explain your concepts to your players. And they might nod off if you take longer than 15 minutes to explain.
I like this, but I think I would change the "fifteen" to "five" ;)
Quote from: IshmaylQuote from: Jürgen Hubert- In your quest for originality, don't forget that you will also have to explain your concepts to your players. And they might nod off if you take longer than 15 minutes to explain.
I like this, but I think I would change the "fifteen" to "five" ;)
With my players... more like 3 and the guarantee of free food :P
* There's no need to assume that multi-racial, multi-cultural, cosmopolitan "adventuring parties" are the norm for role-playing adventures.
My new least favorite RPG setting trope is Medieval Stasis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis).
(And I don't care what the troper on that page thinks about Planescape, it's still the worst perpetrator of this. I love Planescape to death, but things have worked in more-or-less the same way in that setting for possibly hundreds of thousands of years, to the point where people hardly even bother with calendars anymore.)
Here's another bullet point for you: Medieval Europe did not last all that long. That doesn't mean that every culture in the world has to always be on the march forward to better and better technology, because that often isn't the case, but practically everything will change. If the history of a setting spans tens of thousands of years of people speaking the same languages and hitting each other with the same +1 swords, my Bad Fantasy Alarm goes off.
Even worse, when post-medieval technology does turn up in a fantasy setting, it's often because of gnomes or other borderline-comedic characters, and the new technology never catches on or progress beyond a certain point. These surprisingly uncreative "inventors" will always invent the same kinds of things, again and again, for thousands of years, with no effect on the setting. It's like these silly little men never tire of tickling the fourth wall.
Quote from: Kindling* Basing a setting (or part of one) on a real-world culture is one thing, cloning said culture is another. There's nothing wrong with adapting a historical period for role-playing purposes, or even adding some fantasy elements reflecting the myths of the times, but at least admit that's what you're doing. If your setting is inspired by ancient Greece, then it should be similar to it, not the same but with the names changed.
I'm confused on how much of this is too much:
Is it ever okay to file the serial numbers (i.e. name) off a real-world idea but keep the rest of it intact?
Is it worse to use something whole-cloth without any in-setting context?
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: IshmaylQuote from: Jürgen Hubert- In your quest for originality, don't forget that you will also have to explain your concepts to your players. And they might nod off if you take longer than 15 minutes to explain.
I like this, but I think I would change the "fifteen" to "five" ;)
With my players... more like 3 and the guarantee of free food :P
Funny, I was just thinking that the listening duration was not a constant but a variable dependent in the quality of the wine that evening.
I agree strongly with what Bill Volk mentioned, that the players find more veracity in a world whose history is not merely a list of dates and conquests, but also an evolution of ides. I specifically have my PC's involved with the rise of guilds challenging the older power groups, as well as the rise of racial integration as a challenging conflict the PC's needed to deal with.
One of my PC's afterwards played briefly (all my groups only play once every three weeks) in another groups in a group where orcs anf ugly things were always bad, and said it was too unrealistic...
Quote from: Bill VolkMy new least favorite RPG setting trope is Medieval Stasis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis).
I wish he would give analysis in his examples. I disagree vehemently about Tamriel being included. The Entire history, I think, spans a scant three hundred or so years.
Quote from: Stargate525Quote from: Bill VolkMy new least favorite RPG setting trope is Medieval Stasis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis).
I wish he would give analysis in his examples. I disagree vehemently about Tamriel being included. The Entire history, I think, spans a scant three hundred or so years.
Well hey, that's why TV Tropes is a wiki. Please, edit the page and make it better!
Quote from: Bill VolkMy new least favorite RPG setting trope is Medieval Stasis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis).
<...>
Here's another bullet point for you: Medieval Europe did not last all that long. That doesn't mean that every culture in the world has to always be on the march forward to better and better technology, because that often isn't the case, but practically everything will change. If the history of a setting spans tens of thousands of years of people speaking the same languages and hitting each other with the same +1 swords, my Bad Fantasy Alarm goes off.
Even worse, when post-medieval technology does turn up in a fantasy setting, it's often because of gnomes or other borderline-comedic characters, and the new technology never catches on or progress beyond a certain point. These surprisingly uncreative "inventors" will always invent the same kinds of things, again and again, for thousands of years, with no effect on the setting. It's like these silly little men never tire of tickling the fourth wall.
Heh. In Urbis (http://eruvian.com/locale.asp?localeID=74), people got out of the Middle Ages about 400 years ahead of schedule. And you certainly get the impression that the cycle of innovation isn't over yet (at least, I hope so...)
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Kindling* Basing a setting (or part of one) on a real-world culture is one thing, cloning said culture is another. There's nothing wrong with adapting a historical period for role-playing purposes, or even adding some fantasy elements reflecting the myths of the times, but at least admit that's what you're doing. If your setting is inspired by ancient Greece, then it should be similar to it, not the same but with the names changed.
I'm confused on how much of this is too much:
Is it ever okay to file the serial numbers (i.e. name) off a real-world idea but keep the rest of it intact?
Is it worse to use something whole-cloth without any in-setting context?
I'm not sure I entirely understand your questions. Are you asking whether I think it's worse to keep a real-world historical culture the same but change the names or to just use it, admitting to what it really is? If so, then a) I think my post states my views on that quite clearly and b) what, then, do you mean by in-setting context?
Also, I think there is a third approach, which is to take inspiration from an actual historical culture but then add elements from your own imagination, until it is a fantastical society which bears some noticeable degree of similarity to the original.
I guess what I really have a problem with is people putting out stuff like "Tamasheda: A Fantasy Setting Inspired by Feudal Japan" when it's really just feudal Japan, with different names, not a "fantasy setting" based on it.
If that isn't what you mean, then what DO you mean?
Nevermind. I decided this post wasn't important.
*common - tho this is an aspect of cultural diversity.
how did a language come into being that is spoken by every creature with more than INT 5, that has no variations (except *drumroll* UNDERcommon), a vocabulary large enough to enable speakers to talk about trade, religion, philosophy and that is first language in every culture.
this is one of the things that really annoyed me in RAW dnd. after all, i have trouble understanding people who live 10 kilometers from my home. That's why i always reduce common to a trading pidgin that is basically "you buy sword, sword shiny." and "no kill me, i friend."
I'm not sure what new things I have to bring here, but I will second a couple of the points I saw, and elaborate. I'll put these in context with what I've been working on for my setting, and the pitfalls I realized I fell into and had to dig myself out of.
*Changing things just to change them. This was my biggest problem for the longest time. I made my basic structure and set out to make it. Then to be different, I started making changes. I tried to cover races like dwarves, elves, goblins, and orcs in so much new paint, but after running a few sessions with this I noticed that players kept calling them by their classic names. So I asked myself why I was changing them; I was doing it just to be different. I realized that if it is short like a dwarf, and lives in the ground like a dwarf, it's probably a dwarf.
*Taking realism too far. This is a recent pitfall I've discovered. Most of it had to do with game mechanics for me, but it can also bleed into story and flavor. Believability is what I'm striving for now; I'm placing some psudo-scientific explanations for things (my air-inspired race of Valkyries are winged humanoids that can fly because they have hollow bones and air magic in their veins, even though their wings aren't reasonably large enough to let a 5 foot tall humanoid fly). Using realism to iron out wrinkles and search for holes is good (if flight or teleportation magic are common enough, castles won't really exist unless they can defend against such magic as well, for instance).
*"My setting is (insert real world culture here) with Magic and Monsters". This is dangerous, as it will create inconsistencies. I'm glad to see that settings like Eberron incorporate the fantastic into the world's mundane, but it's easy to forget to make the world cohesive.
Thanks for starting this Ish, good discussion.
This is all pretty good. I'll keep it in mind when working on my setting today. I've already started work on different cultures within races, including the languages (part of this is already on my setting's thread).
Now I'm off to continue work on my setting.
Racial languages! If this hasn't been said already. Look at the amount of languages we have JUST in Europe, the smallest continent - about twenty different language groups, language isolates, etc - and that's just with humans. I may seem to be somewhat hypocritical here, I'll admit, but there ARE reasons in my setting (there're the Sharuss languages of the Duer, completely independent of the pure-draconic-descended languages that make up the Hariiji block, and with reasons for their differences etc etc). Also, please give at least some languages names - I now cry every time I see 'elven' or 'dwarfish'.
Mistakes that I made and hopefully learned from.
Faiing in love with my plots and getting frustrated with the PC's lack of progress. I used to push things along a lot faster and steer the game a lot more, and it showed in my world-building. Too many illogical clues, makeing stuff so easy to find that it never would have stayed hidden. I've had to create stuff and let go, sometimes for years, while PC's maunder around the world, often coming back to the problem years later.
Scaling the world too much. In creating a world, there are enough challenges if it is well designed, and there is no need to have the NPC's that the PC's meet get more powerful as the players do. PC's enjoy consistent, logical placement and having this logic shot in the head just because the PC's have gotten more powerful is a mistake I hope I've gotten over.
Quote from: WensleydaleRacial languages! If this hasn't been said already. Look at the amount of languages we have JUST in Europe, the smallest continent - about twenty different language groups, language isolates, etc - and that's just with humans. I may seem to be somewhat hypocritical here, I'll admit, but there ARE reasons in my setting (there're the Sharuss languages of the Duer, completely independent of the pure-draconic-descended languages that make up the Hariiji block, and with reasons for their differences etc etc). Also, please give at least some languages names - I now cry every time I see 'elven' or 'dwarfish'.
Your point is good, but I think racial languages can have their place, especially in a small (population-wise), homogeneous race. There's no reason a race needs to be globe-spanning. A race of sentient baboons that inhabits only a single valley in the entire world could be interesting. But they probably have only one language.
I would take the opposite view on naming languages. Don't make up some BS word
unless there's a point to it. It's just one more thing for your audience to forget or choke on.
"Elven" is probably what every non-elf calls the elven language. Now whether elves should call their language this or not will depend on your setting. In order to have/need a name for a language, they had to be exposed to another language at early stages in the languages development. Even then, the language would likely be called by the name of the speakers (i.e. as I know, people in England call their language English). If elves call their language Qilipopfluff is that only a translation of "elven language" in their native tongue? If not, what the hell does it mean and why do they call it that. If it is, why refuse to translate this one word like you do with everything else.
Now, on the other hand, if in the earliest elven history there were already several heterogeneous groups of elves speaking different languages, then they would differentiate these languages based on those groups. If you start making some of those groups drow and eladrin, however, you're suddenly back to basically racial languages such as drow. This would only work if these separate groups basically become cultures of tribes/nations of the same species, then you still only name the languages after those tribes/nations (i.e. German, Dutch, French).
Any kind of grand mythic history that creates a unified (at first) race almost precludes the kind of differentiation we see on Earth.
In the end, the question becomes, with all the time you invested to create all this for all these races, does anyone care? Has it made the experience more fun for your players or readers. If it has, you're probably better at making these things interesting than 99% of DMs and a fair majority of authors. If it hasn't, then you're the only one that benefited (assuming you enjoyed making up words to name all these languages).
I am, of course, in no way saying that language is never important. Just that it's rarely all that interesting to anyone except the person creating it. Or that's been my experience.
Quote from: PhoenixQuote from: WensleydaleRacial languages! If this hasn't been said already. Look at the amount of languages we have JUST in Europe, the smallest continent - about twenty different language groups, language isolates, etc - and that's just with humans. I may seem to be somewhat hypocritical here, I'll admit, but there ARE reasons in my setting (there're the Sharuss languages of the Duer, completely independent of the pure-draconic-descended languages that make up the Hariiji block, and with reasons for their differences etc etc). Also, please give at least some languages names - I now cry every time I see 'elven' or 'dwarfish'.
Your point is good, but I think racial languages can have their place, especially in a small (population-wise), homogeneous race. There's no reason a race needs to be globe-spanning. A race of sentient baboons that inhabits only a single valley in the entire world could be interesting. But they probably have only one language.
Now, on the other hand, if in the earliest elven history there were already several heterogeneous groups of elves speaking different languages, then they would differentiate these languages based on those groups. If you start making some of those groups drow and eladrin, however, you're suddenly back to basically racial languages such as drow. This would only work if these separate groups basically become cultures of tribes/nations of the same species, then you still only name the languages after those tribes/nations (i.e. German, Dutch, French).
That's what I mean. It makes sense if there is a homogenous group, but NOT, NOT NOT NOT if there're multiple, completely different cultures.
Phoenix brings up a good point. Most of us here are designing settings to play an RPG in. Thus, most everything should be designed from an angle of "will the players interact with it" and "will the players enjoy it" and "will the players remember it". Sure, not everything has to be made for the players, but you're sometimes waisting your time if its an issue they'll never come across.
Like languages. Forgotten Realms has several different kinds of languages. One player in my group actually got really frustrated, because he was given a list of languages but neither the list nor DM was able to tell him which languages were spoken where. His character had a very high intelligence, and just ended up picking up non-human and planar languages since the human languages were so complicated.
What I want to do with languages is create language groups. You'll suffer a -5 penalty to social skill checks if you're talking with someone in the same language group but with a different language; this is an over simplification (I speak English, but I can't understand German speakers at all even though our languages have the same root), but I think it will add believability without making it overly complex.
As for Trade (Common), it will have been the language of the big world-spanning empire that used to exist in my world. Intelligent people (Int 10 or higher) will know Trade, otherwise they'll only know their own language.
Quote from: Kap'n Xeviat...most everything should be designed from an angle of "will the players interact with it" and "will the players enjoy it" and "will the players remember it". Sure, not everything has to be made for the players, but you're sometimes waisting your time if its an issue they'll never come across.
At this very moment I am working on my 4th Edition Campaign Setting. And I have to say that this is some of the best advice anyone could be given. What matters most is how the players react to what is in your world, not your world itself. Some DMs (including myself) get too rapped up in the little details of their world that the players will never come to appreciate. A good example is how many first time DMs will try to take on too much at once. When I built my first world, I tried to develop everything I could. Turned out that the PCs could have cared less who the cousin of the neighboring kingdom is and how goes around claiming to have taken on 13 red dragons on his own. To me this was an interesting NPC; however, my players couldn't could recall his name by the end of the session.
Any, on with the thread...
*Allow players to make use of their abilities, not confine them. If your PC druid preps neutralize poison (or whatever the spell name is), let her use it. Have them run into a couple snakes so that the player feels like she is doing something useful. Additionally, look at your PC's skills and try to incorporate them into the campaign in some way, however insignificant it may be.
Quote from: TombowingsQuote from: Kap'n Xeviat...most everything should be designed from an angle of "will the players interact with it" and "will the players enjoy it" and "will the players remember it". Sure, not everything has to be made for the players, but you're sometimes waisting your time if its an issue they'll never come across.
At this very moment I am working on my 4th Edition Campaign Setting. And I have to say that this is some of the best advice anyone could be given. What matters most is how the players react to what is in your world, not your world itself. Some DMs (including myself) get too rapped up in the little details of their world that the players will never come to appreciate. A good example is how many first time DMs will try to take on too much at once. When I built my first world, I tried to develop everything I could. Turned out that the PCs could have cared less who the cousin of the neighboring kingdom is and how goes around claiming to have taken on 13 red dragons on his own. To me this was an interesting NPC; however, my players couldn't could recall his name by the end of the session.
You're correct, in the most part - of course, there're some players who're fascinated by these details, but few and far between are they. I'm writing my campaign more for fiction purposes at the moment, though... so I suppose I'm not so bothered.
Quote from: WensleydaleYou're correct, in the most part - of course, there're some players who're fascinated by these details, but few and far between are they. I'm writing my campaign more for fiction purposes at the moment, though... so I suppose I'm not so bothered.
What I wrote was completely from my own experiences as a first time DM.
*One more thing, don't give your players too many handouts, they tend to loose them. If you are going to make handouts, try to turn that "handout
s" into "handout." Clear and concise writing will better hold your player's attention.
I used to create grand plots with overarching themes and subplots for each character that had ties with my grand one. I'd create personal nemesis for each and tie them all together in a separate nemesis subplot. I'd create and plant magic items and clues that meant something to a character that connected with their past... on and on. I'd then watch them go in a completely different direction so far away from any element of my grand plot that I'd get stuck halfway though a session not knowing what to do or where to go.
I then learned to listen to the players and discover what the characters were interested in, and then learned to follow them. I'd toss in seemingly random esoterica for mood or atmosphere filler and one of the players would get all interested in a book about the planes and I then knew that planar travel might be in the near future. Perhaps mention of a goblin raiding party got the players all excited. Let the goblin hunting begin! Sure does keep a DM up on tiptoes, but that's part of the fun too!
Quote from: WensleydaleYou're correct, in the most part - of course, there're some players who're fascinated by these details, but few and far between are they. I'm writing my campaign more for fiction purposes at the moment, though... so I suppose I'm not so bothered.
If you're writing, you have to do work and research that won't come up. But you only have to do so much of it, of course.
I would still say the same thing generally holds. If you spend a lot of time working on something that your
readers don't see, unless it majorly affects something they do, it's not important except as a hobby to entertain yourself.
Certainly when writing, I do lots of background research and development. But usually the idea is that what I'm doing, while it won't appear directly in any given story, will influence one or more stories less directly.
And yeah, if you have a player that enjoys language (or whatever) then you're not wasting your time, because you are doing it for a reason. So it's great (I guess) if you find players that like that kind of thing.
Major pitfall:
-Making every place sound like it's somewhere near Hell, or is just generally a dark and horrible place. The dark forest, the mountains of dhoom (why oh why, Robert Jordan?), and what have you... Many places in fantasy settings just sound like they are ripped off from bad horror novels. Okay, it's not always bad; some places are bad places and therefore deserve a dark and foreboding name. But generally, it's taken much too far, i think.
Quote from: Crippled CrowMajor pitfall:
-Making every place sound like it's somewhere near Hell, or is just generally a dark and horrible place. The dark forest, the mountains of dhoom (why oh why, Robert Jordan?), and what have you... Many places in fantasy settings just sound like they are ripped off from bad horror novels. Okay, it's not always bad; some places are bad places and therefore deserve a dark and foreboding name. But generally, it's taken much too far, i think.
What about when your whole world is actually horrible? What about when the whole PURPOSE and POINT of the world is that it is vile and terrifying and hellish?
That said, I do actually agree with you about cheesy names such as the "dark forest" or whatever... but I do have a region in my own setting called the Dead Mountains, so perhaps I have fallen prey to this myself?
Phoenix elaborated on what I said nicely. It is very important to write as much as your player (or reader) would like. If you're writing primarily for yourself, then by all means go all out.
Well, if everything is horrible, then nothing is really that horrible by comparison, since everything else is just as horrible. But yes, in a dark campaign, you should of course use dark names in most cases, i'm just saying it's overdone much of the time (which was also your point). And well, if you can only name one place, then you've hardly fallen prey to it, and there is usually a good reason for the Dead adjective = )
I don't think the ominous names are overdone; features such as mountains and forests are named by the inhabitants of the world, and if I were Joe Commoner in a world full of the supernatural and came across a forest from which few return alive, I'm going to call that place the Forest of Doom and Despair or something like that.
^^ Agreed. I think that anyplace which is named by locals (and not by the government) will take on names based on emotions and mythologies. If people have been hearing spooky sounds and seeing spooky lights coming from a forest south of their village for the last generation, then they're going to refer to it originally as "That there spooky forest." Eventually, they'll shorten it to "the Spooky Forest," and when they draw maps, the maps will say "Spooky Forest," and the name will catch on. I see no problems with those names.
Indeed. The Ironback Mountains in UR are so named because the locals have found massive deposits of iron ore there. UR is actually interesting in this regard as the land was originally settled by two different nations and thus has it's language roots in two separate languages that have split into others and merged in some places.
On one hand you have obviously English based stuff (like the Ironbacks) and on the other you have things like the Raimeil River which in a funny yet classic example of language mixing translates into River River.
On this notion I have to ask why so often people are so set on following one language for naming everything in an area. In the real world it isn't like this. Especially not where cultures mix (take a look at the names of American cities). If we look at many of these campaigns that are like this we see massive cultural mixing without mixed naming conventions. Cities of elves and men and halflings etc all together and living in one place. Yet, the cities and surrounding landmarks will often follow the same style of names all around. Then when you go into say an elf only city you will have it with a very elven name. You would think a mixed culture would bring in more outside influence than that.