Quote from: Black Vulmea;770022What makes something a surprise is a recognizable baseline from which it diverges. Nothing by surprises means the game-world could be completely random.

MMmmmmm, yes and no.  "Learn empirically" has a certain type of fun to it, and that's how Greyhawk started.  There were goblins and ogres and giants and a few other mythological critters... and if it was human sized we figured it was "about like a man" and if it was other we figured it was "tough."  But Greyhawk was FULL of "What the fuck is THAT?" and that was a lot of the fun.

For that matter, one of these years I'm going to sit down and totally redo my monster list to include bogles, nackers, and other small creatures and redo the stats on absolutely every other creature.  A pseudomedieval fantasy game that includes living gargoyles is a good idea, but my gargoyles will NOT match the D&D gargoyle.

Q.v. that old Dragon article about "We shout 'November' and the Clickclicks all fall dead."

Quote from: Black VulmeaWhat makes something a surprise is a recognizable baseline from which it diverges. Nothing by surprises means the game-world could be completely random.

This gives me an idea for a campaign premise.

The players are from a stereotypical, generically traditional Tolkienian redux fantasy world full of "the usual" - Elves, Halflings, Dwarves, Humans, Dragons, Orcs, etc.  Nothing special, all very familiar and expected, nothing we haven't seen before many times.

The campaign, though, is built around the discovery of this setting's New World, which is completely batshit insane, high-weird and exotic and surreal, and seems, to the explorers, "completely random" - the stuff they're encountering doesn't fit at all into their world-view.  So they're expecting to find, like, new subraces of Goblins or Elves but instead they discover a civilization of shapeshifters and villages built on the backs of giant reptiles and tribes of angry armadillo-folk and groves of sentient fungi and 100 foot tall golems made entirely of wood... nothing could have a proper archetypal/mythic precedent.  The explorers all use Vancian magic but they find completely unrecognizable forms of magic/psionics on the new continent that utilize totally different systems.  There are no kingdoms, no organized churches, no thieves' guilds.  Mechanically, the NPCs don't even use the same character classes they do.

Could be a really fun kind of game.  There'd be a kernel of "normalcy" in the form of the players themselves, but everything else would be eight-eyed giants and butterfly-gods and vampiric ferns, just an onslaught of unrelenting strangeness.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;770036The kenku flies, which is an option players don't typically get to play around with but frequently ask about in my experience. Why not build the opportunity into the setting? Also, there's something about the Paizo and WotC art for this race that just sparks "sneaky bastard" character ideas that don't feel the same with halflings (although could arguably emerge from goblins

Be VERY wary of giving your players a flying character, unless flying foes are more common.  We have a Kenku AND a plant person in our current campaign (the latter because the player is a snowflake who likes Farscape).  The flying PC changes EVERYTHING when it comes to scouting, combat, and terrain challenges. I'll never allow one again. And the plant character we have is just plain weird (but the player is, too, so I guess to be expected).

In the early '80s, my usual starting point was a pan-dimensional city called Cynosure -- not exactly as in the Grimjack comics, but same basic idea.

A common patron was the Multiversal Trading Co. (from the Arduin Grimoire). That situation was sort of like Larry Niven's Svetz, the "Picnic in Paradise" of Joanna Russ's Alyx, or H. Beam Piper's Paratime and Lord Kalvan.

Quote from: cranebump;770724Be VERY wary of giving your players a flying character, unless flying foes are more common.  We have a Kenku AND a plant person in our current campaign (the latter because the player is a snowflake who likes Farscape).  The flying PC changes EVERYTHING when it comes to scouting, combat, and terrain challenges. I'll never allow one again. And the plant character we have is just plain weird (but the player is, too, so I guess to be expected).

Well I'm planning on handling it the way 3.5 handled raptorans and Pathfinder handles its tengus: You only get to glide until about 5th level (when spellcasters get the Fly spell), at which point you gain time-limited flight (and at the cost of a feat in Pathfinder). In effect it grants the player a casting of the Fly spell.

What rule system did you use?

Quote from: cranebump;770724Be VERY wary of giving your players a flying character, unless flying foes are more common.  We have a Kenku AND a plant person in our current campaign (the latter because the player is a snowflake who likes Farscape).  The flying PC changes EVERYTHING when it comes to scouting, combat, and terrain challenges. I'll never allow one again.

If you know there's going to be flying PCs I don't see why it's such a big deal. They create their own set of complications and dangers because as soon as they're off the ground to any degree they become a target.
Sure they're excellent for scouting... but they're usually out there alone... and there are other flying things that eat flying things. They usually can't carry much so no dropping huge rocks from the sky (and the higher they go the worse the aim/wind buffeting). They can scoot up cliffs and out of pits... but in a setting with flying opponents lots of folks are going to take measures against them. Bad weather and high winds will keep them grounded.
Besides, most fantasy games have magic that will let characters get up into the air... at least for a while... so I don't see it as a huge issue.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;770036I guess I was going to figure it out during the design process or when the players decided it was something they wanted to explore/exploit.

So you were going to introduce a major setting conceit without first figuring out how it would affect the players' experience.

This lies at the heart of what I've been talking about through most of this thread.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;770861So you were going to introduce a major setting conceit without first figuring out how it would affect the players' experience.

This lies at the heart of what I've been talking about through most of this thread.

Exactly.

The player experience is what matters.  It is Alpha and Omega.  The things you put in your setting or dungeon or scenario should be put in to improve the players' experience.

Putting in a major feature without thinking through "how does this impact the actual, at the table gameplay" puts the cart before the horse.  It's a symptom of approaching design from a perspective other than "how do I make a fun game."

This tells me that your criteria for including things is something other than "what will make this fun?"  Maybe it's making a neat world.  Maybe it's exercising your creativity.  Maybe it's just doing something different.

And when "fun game" isn't your primary goal, then it should be no surprise that your game ends up "dull and tired."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;770861So you were going to introduce a major setting conceit without first figuring out how it would affect the players' experience.

This lies at the heart of what I've been talking about through most of this thread.

Hence my doubts and analysis paralysis.

But I do think you're slightly undervaluing the effect that a  proven reincarnation/enlightenment-based afterlife would have on NPCs and their societies compared to a "choose your deity(ies) and obey their precepts" one. The conceit also helps explain things like my "dead enlightened people are the main source of benevolent magical effects in the world" conceit, which is intended to make player wizards and clerics feel more unique and special (they would be among the pioneers of new magical styles).

I should also mention the intelligent weapons are also meant to undercut the "everything revolves around spellcasters" feel of standard D&D by changing the source of one of the key non-spellcaster power ups. The weapons steal life force and use it to manufacture more of themselves (and other magic devices), so fighter-types have done just fine without casters for a long time.

But yes, at this time the reincarnation thing is sitting on the chopping block as I contemplate how useful it is.

QuoteAnd when "fun game" isn't your primary goal, then it should be no surprise that your game ends up "dull and tired."

I'm going to spin this off into another, more focused thread to discuss the value of flavor for flavor's sake in games.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;770872I'm going to spin this off into another, more focused thread to discuss the value of flavor for flavor's sake in games.

I'm not sure it's necessary.  Flavor is a good, and useful thing.

Let me try to rephrase it a bit differently.  Sid Meier said that a game is a series of interesting decisions.  A game gets "dull and tired" primarily because the decisions become uninteresting - the optimal path gets known.  Keeping the decisions interesting is the meat of the game.

But meat ain't enough.  You need spice, too, and that's where "flavor" comes in.  And it's a useful thing, but it's secondary.

You're likely going to achieve what you optimize for.  If your primary focus is "flavor", then you'll probably create flavor.  But whether you'll create interesting decisions is debatable.  And vice versa.

*But* - interesting decisions are *harder* than flavor.  And things made for "flavor" can very easily tweak the decisions and make them uninteresting (ie, obviously optimizable), while on the other hand, a series of interesting decisions will generally bring in a flavor *of its own*.  The flavor of "making it through a dungeon in a commando raid" is very different than the flavor of "pitting dungeon factions against each other" is very different from the flavor of "exploring a trap-filled hellhole".

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;770872But I do think you're slightly undervaluing the effect that a  proven reincarnation/enlightenment-based afterlife would have on NPCs and their societies . . .

I don't give a shit how it affects "NPCs and their societies" until I first consider how it affects the players and their characters.

I can run bog-standard 1e AD&D with religious systems based on ancestor worship or nature spirits instead of 'the gods,' without fundamentally changing how the players and their characters interact with the game. Again, that's just reskinning for flavor, like your reskinning magic fountains as 'ascended beings' or whatever.

But you seem to be talking about changing a major conceit, and you've given nothing but cursory thought to how that affects the other people around the table. To me, that's setting-creation-as-masturbation.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;770872I should also mention the intelligent weapons are also meant to undercut the "everything revolves around spellcasters" feel of standard D&D . . .

There's no such thing as "standard D&D" - frex, 3e borked the limitations on magic-users and other spell casters that work just fine in 1e.

You're fixing a problem you have with a version of the game, not a problem everyone has with the game, so don't feed me crap about "standard D&D."


As OG notes upthread, you don't really seem to be listening to the answers other posters are giving you; you seem more interested in validation than criticism. It's not like this is the first time you've asked this question - or some variation on it - and do you remember how that went?

Quote from: Technomancer;713314It doesn't need to be original, but it helps if it is interesting.

Quote from: RunningLaser;713320The older I get, the less I care about that sort of thing.

Quote from: Piestrio;713394In my experience settings that are billed as "novel" are usually a detriment to play.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;713397"Cool" is a lot more important than "original."  And there's a lot to be said for a setting that people can understand without having to learn all sort of new things or needing to adjust their default assumptions.

Quote from: Old Geezer;713417The vast majority of people just want to play the fucking game.

Also, your originality is not as original as you think.

Quote from: therealjcm;713429Players care about a fun game. Time spent chasing originality is always better spent putting in more fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;713556Just because something is original does not mean that it is good.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;713561Personality is more important to me than originality.

Quote from: Kiero;714067I don't give a toss about originality for it's own sake, the only thing I care about is that it's good.

Quote from: Simlasa;714201Having an imaginative/creative GM is much more important to me than how 'original' a setting is. Someone creative can make the old stuff new again... while a hack can suck the flavor out of anything.

Quote from: S'mon;714213I'd go so far as to say that for RPG purposes, originality tends to be a negative. It's a good thing when players can immediately grasp the setting by reference to established genre tropes, such as Sword & Planet, Space Opera, Superheroes, etc. Broadly speaking, the more derivative the better.

Quote from: Soylent Green;713352Mostly I want a setting to be accessible. The quicker the characters feel at home in it, the sooner the game get's good.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;714089A couple of my gaming friends have asked why I'm uninterested in developing settings. For them, setting development is what it's all about, whereas I'm happy to run games in pre-made settings. For me, it's all about originality of situations, and that doesn't require setting originality . . .

And I think the root of the problem's you're having are also found in that thread.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;713671A metaphor that was offered to me in a conversation on this subject:

The GM is a musician, the adventure is a piece of music, and the campaign setting is the instrument.

Personally I think that's a horrible metaphor. It ignores the dynamic relationship between the referee and the players, relegating the latter to an audience to be entertained.

Since repeating the same arguments you first heard seven months ago doesn't seem to be helping, let's try a different tack - tell me about a successful campaign that you've run.

To go with a musical metaphor, I'd say the DM is more like the conductor and maybe a bit like the composer, the players are clearly the musicians, and the game is the actual music.

Creating music that's well structured and musically sound is clearly priority 1.  But just because the classical pieces are great doesn't mean there's no room for rock and roll.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;771019Since repeating the same arguments you first heard seven months ago doesn't seem to be helping, let's try a different tack - tell me about a successful campaign that you've run.

Touché.

My last 4e (essentials) campaign. Deadline was coming up, so I gave up on making an elaborate heartfelt setting halfway through* and just made a quick standard sandbox one, albeit with an American countryside flavor and lots of inspiration from old Saturday morning cartoons. No funky races, no funky cosmology, no funky mechanics, but my preferences did shape things (de-emphasized undead, emphasized elementals, etc.). The players generated a large amount of the setting information through their actions.

It was a blast for everyone. Far more successful than my recent 7th Sea campaign patterned off the Brothers Grimm movie (which the players requested).

* I didn't want to "misuse my favorite ideas" if it wasn't perfect was my reasoning at the time.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;771019But you seem to be talking about changing a major conceit, and you've given nothing but cursory thought to how that affects the other people around the table.

I'm posting my doubts about it on a message board for blunt criticism. I'm considering binning most of the project and recycling the better material in a premade setting partly because of that criticism. I think that's more than cursory thought.

Quote from: Black VulmeaThere's no such thing as "standard D&D" - frex, 3e borked the limitations on magic-users and other spell casters that work just fine in 1e.

You misunderstand, I was referring to the way that the standard assumption is that spellcasters make the magic items non-spellcasters often need to wield reality bending effects, so in the end it's still all about the spellcasters. It just felt like something I wanted to tinker with for flavor reasons, wouldn't really affect the players unless they wanted to make something of it. I could just as easily bypass it by saying gods make all the magic items or whatever.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;771061I'm posting my doubts about it on a message board for blunt criticism. I'm considering binning most of the project and recycling the better material in a premade setting partly because of that criticism. I think that's more than cursory thought.

Actually, I think the point here is that you were going to make a major change to resurrection/reincarnation in your setting without thinking about the impact on actual play.

Nobody is suggesting binning the setting.  The only thing anyone is saying is "hey, if you're going to make a change like that, think through how it impacts the play experience."

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;771061You misunderstand, I was referring to the way that the standard assumption is that spellcasters make the magic items non-spellcasters often need to wield reality bending effects, so in the end it's still all about the spellcasters. It just felt like something I wanted to tinker with for flavor reasons, wouldn't really affect the players unless they wanted to make something of it. I could just as easily bypass it by saying gods make all the magic items or whatever.

But... this is what's bothering a lot of us.  It reads like "I don't really have a good idea for how magic items appear, I just want it to be not the way it usually happens."

Which is a recipe for a bad game, honestly.  "Changing shit just for the sake of changing shit" I cannot un-recommend heartily enough.  If you say "It would be cool if magic items were actually god shit, literally," well, that's different, but the difference is you STARTED with the idea, rather than "Change X for the sake of change."