The Gaming Den

Have any of the rest of you noticed aspects that often stay the same when you come up with a new RPG setting? I personally find that I always end up with something where an analogue of myself (Middle-class, fairly well educated, nice parents, not an ethnic minority, no incredibly bad luck) can reliably get to the point where it could do awesome adventurer-tier stuff, but only with work and/or some kind of significant sacrifice first. This generally means that I avoid stuff like magic being an exclusive power randomly distributed among the population. When there is something like that, there's almost always a way to replicate or steal it. I also tend to make settings where rain and fog is really common when I take weather into consideration, regardless of how this might effect the ambience of the games, just because I personally think precipitation is pretty neat.

Both of these are examples of the RPG world's role as a fantasy creation causing the creator to shy away from concepts they are uncomfortable with and veer towards ones he/she likes. And I've noticed that it's surprisingly unconscious, in that I only really notice how regularly I keep certain aspects of stories more or less the same when I look back and analyze my work. I'd be interested to hear anyone else has seen something similar in their own design efforts.

Exalted is pretty much the exact opposite of how I would design a setting and phlebtonium. This includes everything from daiklaves to the fucking Exaltation process itself.

I have a deep fixation with post-apocalyptic settings. Even in pure D&Desque fantasy, the remnants of the ancients will become important, as did the means whereby the ancients destroyed themselves. In my superheroic settings, there is almost always a prior group that failed catastrophically and/or a threat of impending armageddon which key characters will time travel back from to prevent or time travel forwards to as a warning. This probably has a lot to do with the books I read between the ages of 11-13 and my internalization of the cold-war fears of the time (The kid in "the day after" looked a lot like me at the time)

I tend to run games where the "heroes" are morally grey at best - and my RPG settings are usually such where that's a decent life choice. If there are forces of pure goodness and light, they are usually snooty rivals of the PCs. This may be my own reaction against moral absolutism.

I also tend to run games where the PCs are expected to be or to become major movers and shakers in the setting. The will be not only saving the princess, but then they will be arranging to marry her off to the chief of the Uruk-Hai as a political maneuver which extorts money from the old King and promises from the Dark Lord. This sort of thing leads to settings which are expected to undergo major changes in the course of a campaign. The changing nature of history just seems more plausible to me, and the PCs being a major force in it just seems to make a more entertaining game experience / story to tell.

I have characters and locales that I re-use.

One is a nation of undead, which was established via good old Tome-style reasoning.

The other nations agree to leave the Grave Isles alone, and the Dead Lords agree not to raise up a huge army of undead and kill absolutely everything they can.

Another is a group of Fiends I statted up using Tome of Fiends rules. I used them for one thing...got pretty fond of them, and use their leader's At-Will Gates to keep them popping up and causing trouble.

There's some other things, too. I like university towns, and cities which feel big enough to deserve the name.

I am pretty much a pessimistic person. So I tend to run worlds where most people (human or slightly different human) and their societies are all incredibly flawed. Peaceful societies tend to be decadent, uncaring, neglectful. Barbarous societies tend to be paranoid, self centered/righteous, prideful. Of course various other types of societies have this problem or that. I never run utopias.

Other than that I let memorable characters that my players have used (and that has survived a campaign) persist in the world in some fashion (legend, living, or legacy).

MGuy wrote:I am pretty much a pessimistic person. So I tend to run worlds where most people (human or slightly different human) and their societies are all incredibly flawed. Peaceful societies tend to be decadent, uncaring, neglectful. Barbarous societies tend to be paranoid, self centered/righteous, prideful. Of course various other types of societies have this problem or that. I never run utopias.

Other than that I let memorable characters that my players have used (and that has survived a campaign) persist in the world in some fashion (legend, living, or legacy).

I'm optimistic. In fact, I ended up having to leave an otherwise good DM because...well, everybody not in the party was a backstabbing so-and-so, and actually doing what they said would get the party in trouble. There were no right answers, and he actually admitted he was striving for a sort of 'latent hopelessness' in his games. Which really kills the fun.

Hate to say it, but I play D&D to have fun. I run D&D to have fun, and I go for a feel of, "Sure, it's dangerous out there. But it's worth exploring, too."

I really like fantasy but I also find a certain appeal in crime noir, westerns and all that between the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution to Sufferage, Prohibition and Civil Rights. So I like to play a game set in a melting pot of all those things but with magic! A social commentary, light hearted parody and dungeon punk all in one.

Magic tends to be something even a lowly peasant has. In game terms, everyone can cast Cantrips. Not being able to cast cantrips is a flaw like being blind and shit.

Other common themes:
- Thier ARE more medieval areas around.
- Fantasy culture counter parts exists but with twists. IE, magic Japan is not an island but a magic forest, isolated by oni, kyuubi and all sort of crap end in 'i'.
- Elven Mafias for every elven subrace.
- A furry race. Each of the Elven Mafias has one working for them.
- An evil emperor that runs a mostly neutral empire that promotes good alligned organizations.
- The undead are people too!
- Only abberations get racial allignment restrictions.

Maxus wrote:

MGuy wrote:I am pretty much a pessimistic person. So I tend to run worlds where most people (human or slightly different human) and their societies are all incredibly flawed. Peaceful societies tend to be decadent, uncaring, neglectful. Barbarous societies tend to be paranoid, self centered/righteous, prideful. Of course various other types of societies have this problem or that. I never run utopias.

Other than that I let memorable characters that my players have used (and that has survived a campaign) persist in the world in some fashion (legend, living, or legacy).

I'm optimistic. In fact, I ended up having to leave an otherwise good DM because...well, everybody not in the party was a backstabbing so-and-so, and actually doing what they said would get the party in trouble. There were no right answers, and he actually admitted he was striving for a sort of 'latent hopelessness' in his games. Which really kills the fun.

Hate to say it, but I play D&D to have fun. I run D&D to have fun, and I go for a feel of, "Sure, it's dangerous out there. But it's worth exploring, too."

Huh? I said the societies I create are flawed. I didn't say anything about individuals within those societies. I didn't even say the societies themselves were full of cut-throat back stabbers. They have different problems. Even "good" people can be incredibly flawed. You can have a fucked up society while still having good caring people within it. Just look at America.

I tend to have the gods be either nonexistent or noninterventionist. Beyond granting spells to clerics they don't really actively come down as avatars or any of that shit.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I tend to have the gods be either nonexistent or noninterventionist. Beyond granting spells to clerics they don't really actively come down as avatars or any of that shit.

win.

I tend to also avoid Dragons, and stuff like Paladins. I end up having enough morally ambiguous situations as it is in my games, paladins only make things harder to resolve, and aren't able to be explained as to why they are in many of the adventuring groups I tend to referee for.

Right now, I'm thinking of how to make a setting that is 'earth', so that I can just seriously look up some crazy geography, and use that in my main material plane; the other planes I'm leaving as-is, since I don't like mucking shit up every fucking time I want people to play. Re-inventing the wheel is bad; re-inventing the Great Wheel, is even worse.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I tend to have the gods be either nonexistent or noninterventionist. Beyond granting spells to clerics they don't really actively come down as avatars or any of that shit.

Ditto here.

Occasionally a cleric or paladin will have a dream that they presume is sent by their god or maybe have a feeling that some in game event is an omen or some sort.

I also tend to houserule the allignment system out. See my attempted Champion class for the end result of my 'Paladin - Allignments = ?' dilemna.

I've done the same with alignments and god/mortal interaction but it is a result of my project so it isn't a recurring theme yet.

My settings never make a distinction between race and culture regardless of how globalized the setting is supposed to be. I should probably work on that.

I have noticed a lot of things stay constant with my settings. They're either modern, steam punk, or some variant.

There's also how I create new settings which never really changes. I'm always starting with maps. Its when the landmasses are taking form that geopolitical ideas come in; Which nation hates who, who has the better tech, which races/elasticities are where. Then cities and trade infrastructure come in which plays off of the general geopolitics. It just continues from there though I never really give a lot of attention to one area. Which is a bit of give and take I suppose. I'm sacrificing the further development of one specific area in favor of all the others. Like a world of mild flavors, but none really stand out.

I consciously use my own mystical understanding of myth, humanity and the universe to create one where those experiences are fundamental truths rather than personal guesstimates.

Physically, I'll echo the mapmakers: I make a world, create landmasses, create terrain, perform a basic terraforming and then use that to fill in the blanks.

Together the elements tend to combine nicely - one gets the idea that there are immutable facts about the setting (the mumbo-jumbo that I never actually spell out for the players) as well as an innate chaos (the random squiggles on a map that determine history for centuries). Players can feel like they're monkeying around at an immediate level with cities and kings and merchant companies as well as a resonant deeper level of gods and heroes and the meaning of existence.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I tend to have the gods be either nonexistent or noninterventionist. Beyond granting spells to clerics they don't really actively come down as avatars or any of that shit.

My campaign's like that, at least for the mortal worlds.

Short form: all the gods used to be in a single plane in Amorphia. They didn't like how dangerous this was, and how fragile their single 'safe place' was, so they started to build one (the mortal plane) with the elemental planes around it as a buffer. They were interrupted by an amorphia maelstrom that broke up their plane. Eventually things stabilized into multiple 'outer planes' (still in amorphia, but much smaller and individually more stable), the elemental planes were still there but dangerous, and the mortal plane was fairly stable and safe (sort of), but not strong enough to tolerate divine presence -- a god coming to earth would cause some serious, serious problems.

They can still work through agents (divine characters, etc.), but can no longer walk the earth themselves.

Keith