The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: DrizztrocksLook through Campaign Guides, watch some fantasy/sci-fi movies, browse through other settings here, and just try to scrounge up ideas.

Trust me, I do this extensively: I've read a lot of reviews of RPG products soley for the purpose of getting ideas.  I try to find movies and such that I'm willing to watch, it's just not easy.  And I look at other peoples' settings, but they aren't designed for people like me and don't have the sort of elements I'd need to steal.

Quote from: DrizztrocksAnd the main thing is to not be afraid to start posting your ideas. If your to hesitant or are afraid that people won't like them, my advice is simply that it is not ever going to be in any way perfect. If your throw your ideas out there, especially the original ones, they'll catch on pretty quick.

I have absolutely no problem posting an out-there idea.  The problem is getting any feedback.  I don't blame anyone, as I know they have things that keep them busy.  There's just very little reason to post something if I don't think it could get feedback.  So I start threads like this in hopes that something someone says will allows me to figure out what I'm missing.

@Steerpike: well explained.  :band:  

Quote from: Bill VolkThe one thing they will NOT do is angst over the decision like Hamlet did. If they get frustrated, they will blame you, the GM, not the NPCs.

I disagree. I've played (and played with) plenty of players that do this, sometimes to an annoying degree.

Nevertheless, this is a conflict within a specific character (not the setting), and thus more relevant to the literature aspect of the theme discussion. That the players have to take ANY action in response to it is the conflict of the adventure (still not necessarily the setting), which is the conflict an RPG needs. It doesn't matter which course they take, the conflict prompts them to make a choice, which is what matters.

Conflict applies to literature, to settings, and to individuals campaigns within a setting, and it applies differently to each. Each is vaguely relevant to the others, and certainly relevant to discussions of theme, but we have to be careful not to conflate arguments about one with another.

And it is of course, possible, to have a setting with no theme (see Theme Wars, I don't want to devolve this thread any further on that point). It is even possible to have a setting without inherent conflict. It is not likely that a setting without any conflict, however, will be fun to play, since it requires no meaningful choices on the part of the players. In the same vein, a story with no conflict is hard (understatement) to sell to an editor, whether the conflict is inherent in the setting or character-driven (many of the best stories have both--the classic literary bromide is the more conflict, the better for your story).

Quote from: Phoenix('¦'¦'¦the classic literary bromide is the more conflict, the better for your story).

Well now I know why I don't bother with the bookstore's fiction section any more. :?:

Quote from: Bill VolkAnother thing to consider: players will never care about the setting as much as you do. In particular, they'll never remember anyone's names. So don't make them work any harder than they have to.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawYeah, I completely get that: I name a lot of my story characters after colors, I've used words like "tek" and "sonata" as race names.

I just wish he'd given some advice on how to pick the right words. :axe:

Quote from: FurorI think picking memorable and cool names is an art unto itself, I know my pc's get lost like its nobodies business when it comes to names, so most of my lesser characters go by regular, but uncommon first names (Gerard, Lucien, Viktor etc.) or easy stuff like Lord Bant or nicknames like Warspike or Hangnail.

The name-related posts reminded me of my campaign setting.

For some of the upper classes, particularly the Nobles of the Terran Empire, I actually tried to do things the hard way and come up with some fantasyish naming conventions.  Generally, something from the little bit of Latin that I know or would take the time to look up combined with the common name of a mineral.

For the lower classes and criminals, though I just went with a nickname or a name and a nickname with the name being a somewhat recognizable modern day first or last name.  So the crime lords in Terra Prima might have names like Questionable Milton, Old Jenkins, Crazy Morton, and Sane Ned.

[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]So how do you make decisions like that? Because all I can come up with is in that situation you're either stuck and nothing's gonna happen (which would be bad for an RPG), or you make a choice. And the way you put it those aren't the only outcomes.[/blockquote]Fair enough - there probably are other options.  But there isn't an immediately clear solution to the problem - there are only debatable solutions.  You said earlier that if there isn't a clear solution you have to either peaceably debate the situation (which definitely isn't an option considering Claudius as a character, not to mention that it contravenes both of Hamlet's competing moral codes) or ignore it (which is itself a choice).  So yes, of course you have to make a choice - even the choice to do nothing.  But that choice isn't a clear one, its a debatable one, its a necessarily morally gray one.  This, in my mind, makes it an interesting or compelling sort of choice (and a lot of readers and audience members over the centuries agree).  Nonetheless it's a clear case of a "vs." argument - Christian Pacifism vs. Masculinist Chivalry.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: Phoenix('¦'¦'¦the classic literary bromide is the more conflict, the better for your story).

Well now I know why I don't bother with the bookstore's fiction section any more. :?:

pheonix is right, though. a story without conflict is boring, because if the characters all have or easily get what they want, what's the point of reading about them? sure there are exemptions to that, interesting travelogues for example, but those are not suitable for a plot, or you'll end up with hours of GM description punctuated by "we go east now." "we'll stay here a bit", etc.
to take a classic literary example that did it wrong: Effi Briest, a mind numbingly long book of a girl that marries some old dude, has an affair with a soldier, the old dude kills souljaboy and divorces her. the only interesting part is the one leading up to the duel, which itself is told in two sentences: "they walk up to each other an shoot. the major dies." this is about half as long as it takes the author to describe a teapot.
the reason why conflict is even more important in rpgs is because conflicts are a hero's raison d'être. it's what sets them apart from the background npcs.
if you want to get more feedback, try to start your posts with a short explanation of what you want to achieve with the idea, then we can give you feedback on how well you did. ;)
i realise that with your abundance of aliens, using human names is not possible, but that would be easiest. the WFRP character set has hundreds of names in it, neatly ordered by culture and in randomised tables. it's worth its weight in gold for naming npcs on the fly.
general advice on naming would be: keep it short, keep it simple. i see that in your last posts you gave your races some well to remember names, so imo you're on the right track. :)

@Scholar: My point about conflicts and books wasn't that I need no conflict but that too many books load themselves down with conflict to a point at which it's impossible for me to digest.  What Phoenix said just makes it clear why books continue this trend.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw@Scholar: My point about conflicts and books wasn't that I need no conflict but that too many books load themselves down with conflict to a point at which it's impossible for me to digest.  What Phoenix said just makes it clear why books continue this trend.

then we'll have to agree to disagree. i like lots of conflicts in literature (though not just in the sense of armed conflict). :)

Quote from: Scholarthen we'll have to agree to disagree. i like lots of conflicts in literature (though not just in the sense of armed conflict). :)

I'm not sure there's even anything to disagree about: I don't want all books to have less conflict, I just want enough books for me.  I think there's enough room on the book shelves for both our tastes.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThat's no different: neither has an answer that is "right" i.e. agreed upon by all or objectively right.  Both sides should realize this and not get worked up about it any more than spirited debate, otherwise they would be wasting something valuable on an issue that they both know will not be resolved peacefully.

This hardly ever happens in Real Life, however. In most real-world conflicts, both sides have some legitimate grievances against the other.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIf there are individuals who want to resolve the issue without peace then we have developed a situation with a clear "wrong" because imposing one's views upon another is always wrong.

What if people with such views exist on both sides - along with people who want to resolve the situation peacefully?

Once the violence starts, the "hawks" of neither side will step down easily...

WWI is a good example of this. While Germany and Austria technically started the war, all sides were eager for it - and all sides believed that the conflict would be over quickly. And there are numerous other tragedies in history like it.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSo here's how I work it out:
An issue with no clear answer: Either ignore it or peacefully debate it.
If someone has moved beyond peaceful debate: Stop whoever it is.  If you cannot stop them and the conflict does not affect you then leave it alone to be resolved by the participants (or until everyone is dead).

All great conflicts see numerous innocent bystanders suffer. Can the player characters really be so callous and ignore their suffering?

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIf no one has a clear answer why is anyone fighting about it?

Because each side is convinced that its answer is the correct one.

The backstory of Exalted is fairly instructive, as the setting teems with factions that believe that they (and they alone) are right - and they all have some arguments in their favor.

Back at the Dawn of Time, the Primordials created the Gods to maintain the existence of the world while they pursued lives of leisure within it. The Gods resented their subordinate position, and imbued humans with some of their power to kill or imprison the Primordials. The mightiest among the Exalted, the Solar Exalted, were given the world to rule, while the Gods retreated to the Heavens (for the most part).

Unfortunately, over the millenia most Solars became mad from their power. This caused another group of Exalted - the Sidereals - to attempt to look into the far future, and they discovered that there was a real chance that the Solars would eventually destroy the world in their madness. They could attempt to reform the Solars, but this would be risky. So they took the "safer" route and conspired with the weakest (but most numerous) type of Exalted - the Dragon-Blooded - to kill all the Solars and drive the mates of the Solars (the Lunar Exalted) into exile to the fringes of the world. The world was much diminished in the fighting, but it continued to exist. The Dragon-Blooded ruled the world, while the Sidereals retreated to the Shadows and the Lunars licked their wounds.

Now, 1,500 years later, the souls of the Solars are suddenly reborn and are beginning to reclaim their power. At the same time, other factions have begun to appear that either try to destroy or conquer the world for themselves. But each type of Exalted has different ideas about what should be done.

Solars: "Yes, our previous incarnations went too far - but we have learned from our mistakes. And only we are able to restore the world to its former splendor - or defeat the many threats to it which are now gathering at the fringes of the world. With our leadership, the world will prosper again and rise from this Age of Sorrows!"

Lunars: "The Solars made the whole world dependent on themselves - with the result that it all came crashing down once they were defeated. We are trying to create new societies, where ordinary mortals can find their own strength and defend themselves from threats, instead of becoming well-fed slaves to mad god-kings!"

Dragon-Blooded: "It was us who defeated the Solars in their madness, and one of us who saved the world in its greatest need! We have shown that we can rule and protect the world, and we must prevail against the returning Solars to guard the future of the world!"

Sidereals: "The Solars never heeded our warnings when their actions posed danger to the world. Will their new incarnations do any better? Unlikely. Only we have the vision and foresight to guide the world through its perilous future, for only we can perceive the strands of fate!"

All of these have good points. So, who among is right?

That's something the player characters have to decide among themselves...

Exalted is a good example of a setting where the conflict isn't frustrating. Players can be just about anyone in the setting, and they are encouraged to get into character and take a side without feeling any guilt about it. You might start a new campaign where the players mercilessly kill their own characters from a previous campaign. That can be fun! To a degree, it's okay to be an asshole and to take on the prejudices of your character. And PCs in Exalted are generally quite powerful. They have a good chance of getting their way in the end, whatever that way might happen to be, and changing the world to suit them.

The biggest perception gap seems to be between thinking you're right and actually being right.  I don't understand why anyone ever thinks they're right, that sort of confidence is illogical to me: if you can make even one mistake you are always capable of making a mistake in anything you do.  Logic tells me that you should always posit to yourself that what you are doing has a very real chance of being wrong.  You should always have doubt.

This is why I see all such conflicts of confidence as stupid: to me no one is ever right enough to justify the actions I see sides taking.

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating to deal with over this issue.

So, SCMP, you're saying that you never think your right? You always remember you have a serious chance of being wrong?

Also, since when have people *ever* acted logically? Never is when :p

Quote from: LlumSo, SCMP, you're saying that you never think your right?

I make mistakes trying.

Quote from: LlumYou always remember you have a serious chance of being wrong?

I try to.  I at least try to avoid becoming a fanatic.

Quote from: LlumAlso, since when have people *ever* acted logically? Never is when :p

They act logically, otherwise they wouldn't be predictable.  They just don't vet their own logic for why.  And I can't figure out how that works.

Quote from: Jürgen HubertIn most real-world conflicts, both sides have some legitimate grievances against the other.

But why is that worth fighting over?

Quote from: Jürgen HubertWhat if people with such views exist on both sides - along with people who want to resolve the situation peacefully?

In that case the peaceful people should work against the non-peaceful people or they'll never get anything done.

Quote from: Jürgen HubertAll great conflicts see numerous innocent bystanders suffer. Can the player characters really be so callous and ignore their suffering?

If there are innocent bystanders suffering then neither of the sides causing the mess is right and both should be stopped.

Quote from: Jürgen HubertBecause each side is convinced that its answer is the correct one.

Why is that worth fighting over?

In terms of violent/oppressive conflict what I'm seeing is that there's the angle of simply stopping all violence and/or oppression, and the angle of choosing a side to join.  Any other type of conflict doesn't result in the sort of environment worth a game.  Correct?
What's still confusing is the second angle and motivation: What prompts people to decide violence/oppression over a more peaceful method?  Is it always that each side think's it "right" and you can just slap any label you want on each one?