Pitfalls in Campaign Creating and Building

[Ishmayl-Retired]

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??

[Jürgen Hubert]

- 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.

[Kindling]

* 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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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.

[Jürgen Hubert]

*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...

[Hibou]

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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

[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.

[Wensleydale]

- Evil races are ALWAYS ugly or strange-looking

Drow, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins... do I have to go on?

[Tybalt]

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.

[Jharviss]

Medieval 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.  

[Haphazzard]

* 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.

[Stargate525]

Word.  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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

* 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.

[Stargate525]

*The only crossbreeds happen with humans.

[Slapzilla]

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?