PDA

View Full Version : How Important is the Setting's History?



OracleofWuffing
2008-12-26, 12:04 PM
I've been looking over a couple of campaign settings, gearing up for what our group hopes to be a period of rapid-sessioning in January. It's been nice finding new mechanics that could incorporate into games easily, but the problem I'm having is that I find the mechanics much more usable than the lengthy history associated with them.

For example, XCrawl- I love the features it gives me as far as teamwork and competitive dungeons go. The ~hundred pages before that, which details the history of the setting, how D&D relates to the contemporary world, and how everybody and their sister is involved in conspiracies... Isn't really all that interesting or relevant to my playstyle.

Faerun? I have no problem incorporating spells, items, and feats from Faerun. In my experience, there are some nifty things in there. But if I'm expected to use more than five pages of the geography chapter for one campaign, I think I'll just have rocks fall on 90% of the continent.

Eberron? Them's some spffiy classes and races there, and I think my group's all for action points and dragonmarks. But, if I tell my players to read into the lay of the land and organizations, I'm going to get a couple thousand boots to my head.

Dragonmech? Sweet. I like giant robots, they like giant robots, everybody likes giant robots in moderation. But, uh, moons... And caves... And, uh... ...Congress?

I mean, I'm not getting ripped off, there's good stuff in here, but I just see myself and my players just picking the mechanics off and handwaving the history. I understand that this is something we are allowed to do and there's nothing wrong with it, but come to think of it, that's kinda what the group is already doing with the original D&D3.5 stuff- the only thing we can tell you about the world is "Kobolds are for smashing, and dragons are big". I can't help but feel that I'm missing something, so I'd like to know how a setting's 1000-year long history has played out in other peoples' experiences, or how much of it should work its way into an actual campaign. How much history and geography do you review before playing?

bosssmiley
2008-12-26, 12:18 PM
Speaking personally, the history of the setting becomes important only when it intersects with what the characters are doing.

Think of the Indiana Jones films: did they bog you down with the minutiae of the long-dead dynasties who'd fought over the current McGuffin? No! they concentrated on the current conflicts and got on with the story. The history was the icing on the cake; not the cake itself.

If the PCs want to go delving into the history of the setting let them do so; it's always a great source of new adventure hooks. But don't let the history get in the way of the adventure. Sketching in one or two eras, but keeping actual details evocatively vague, gives you lots of wiggle room if you want to change things later on.

I tend to read game world history essays and think either "Blah, blah, blah" (if they're badly written) or "Let's go loot this era. Hey guys, temporal roadtrip!" if they seem fun. :smallwink:

Talya
2008-12-26, 12:27 PM
It matters to the extent it matters to the players and DM, really. The deeper the sense of history the better, for me. One of the things i love about FR is the depth of history and detail in the game, which is unmatched. It would take me a decade to add that much into a homebrew campaign setting.

Triaxx
2008-12-26, 12:32 PM
The thing about a history, is that when you are looking for the ancient resting place of the MacGuffin, whether to find it to begin with, or repower the inexplicably powerless thing, nothing is more helpful than having some history to go on. Long dead civilations don't often leave road maps to their long dead cities.

esorscher
2008-12-26, 12:50 PM
To me a setting's history is only important when it ties directly into the plot. Sure, it's nice to know that the Dragons Above and Below fought and raised armies of racial warriors, but why does that matter, unless these armies are currently threatening the world? I suppose it's helpful for items and such, artifacts that are tied to the past, but otherwise, I wouldn't bother my players with the events of the past. They have a hard enough time remembering the name of the king, or the city their in.

This is different from my perspective on the actual world. I'm a history major.

Morty
2008-12-26, 01:34 PM
Well, history is for me the reason to play in a pre-made setting rather than in my own or some sort of vannilia setting made up as DM goes. It might go unmentioned, but it might not. And DM has got answers ready when players do something unexpected.

KeresM
2008-12-26, 02:19 PM
A setting's history can be the inspiration for zillions of story arcs.

sentaku
2008-12-26, 04:05 PM
It matters to the extent it matters to the players and DM, really. The deeper the sense of history the better, for me. One of the things i love about FR is the depth of history and detail in the game, which is unmatched. It would take me a decade to add that much into a homebrew campaign setting.
I agree, history matters as much as the DM feels that the players should know at a minimum to the plot interesting, have depth, and/or come to a conclusion. It is deepened if the players choose to explore the history further. DM should not however give history lessons just for fun to players who are not interested.

Prometheus
2008-12-26, 04:55 PM
I would hold that someone show pick from all the prewritten campaign settings and have a coherent (recent) history for their campaign setting. I wouldn't go into it in detail unless a character with a knowledge (history) check required the DM to make an opposed knowledge (BS) check, but it is a great plot hook to draw simmering past events into the region's present conflicts. Keep in mind that if you ever want to run a previous campaign world in a different time, what you have said about history in that campaign will either hinder or help you keep the fire going.

Frankly, even when I run a campaign using mostly forgotten realm material, I change all the monsters as I see fit. Suddenly, lizardfolk are desert creatures, some trolls are intelligent and friendly, giants are related to ogres are related to bugbears, and kobolds have dog-heads. It works for me to change things as I see fit.

Raum
2008-12-26, 05:36 PM
I can't help but feel that I'm missing something, so I'd like to know how a setting's 1000-year long history has played out in other peoples' experiences, or how much of it should work its way into an actual campaign. How much history and geography do you review before playing?To me it's the difference between what happened and why it happened. If you don't care about the why you don't need the history or geography.

I prefer to have both as a framework. I don't want it too detailed, I want room to add things. But I also want enough there to spark ideas. This country is going to war because they have few resources. That character is from a city in the borderlands, he has cause to hate raiders. Etc.

Reinboom
2008-12-26, 06:16 PM
My current campaign setting offered the following (simplified here):
~1600 years ago, a dragon hunter and her sorceress companion decided to go slay a breeding dragon mother (noting dragons are 'stupid' in my campaign, firstly), in vengeance for their friend and to protect a town.
Due to the goddess of magic (noting, gods are also unintelligent), cracking out of her shell (the material plane), and a large spell being cast by the sorceress being a perfect cracking point, she ripped magic in to the flesh of the material plane. This gave birth to the 'void crystal' (at the breaking point), having enough power around it to strip the oncoming dragon of its mind, and the dragon slayer of her body. Making them one.
This dragon decided to use this power (after a bit of delay), as well as her slowly growing control over this crystal to unite Esarchai.

~400 years ago, big war, Esarchai splits, becomes Esterra and Triarchai. Cause of split was the dragon queen failing to control the crystal in the war.

~300 years ago explorer starts getting information from the selfexiled dragon queen about the crystals.

~37 years ago War happens. Splits Triarchai in to 3. Cease fire occurs when the eastern country 'nukes' a battlefield to prevent themselves from losing. Discovered, cause of nukes was a split piece of this void crystal.

~3 weeks ago. Party is tricked in to assassinating the lord of the eastern country.

~4 days ago. Party discovers that the "D&D leveling system" is directly tied to the void crystal pieces' auras. By the dragon queen.

With all that information, I believe so far the party has been actually applying it decently well. Especially given the ~300 years ago explorer is now one of the few BBEGs.



So... depends on the setting and the DM.

Also... if the party goes beyond level 14 ish, they need information going back about 5,000 years. Epic? 2,000,000 years becomes important.
These are just the major event notes, too.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-26, 06:20 PM
The history is there to help you come up with plots. Any of it that is irrelevant to the campaign and/or to the characters can and should be ruthlessly ignored. And if the history doesn't cover something that IS relevant to the plot and/or the characters, make it up.

Venerable
2008-12-27, 01:05 AM
As a player, I find that more history makes for better characters. For example, in Eberron, your basic Karrnathi character will be a nasty necromancer or fighter. But if I know the history of the Last War, I have a lot more options: a Karrnath patriot dedicated to returning to country to its former glory (and morality), or perhaps a Cannith artificer seeking to replace Karrnath's undead with constructs (simultaneously improving Karrnath's reputation and making a pretty penny for House Cannith). More history = better characters = more plot hooks = more fun.

But that's for a campaign. If you prefer dungeon-crawling, history won't matter much.

Thoughtbot360
2008-12-27, 01:35 AM
"Let's go loot this era. Hey guys, temporal roadtrip!" if they seem fun. :smallwink:

Snake, you can't do that! You'll create a time paradox!

Deth Muncher
2008-12-27, 01:46 AM
Snake, you can't do that! You'll create a time paradox!

Like becoming your own grandfather!

tyckspoon
2008-12-27, 01:48 AM
Snake, you can't do that! You'll create a time paradox!

Screw the rules, I have money time-loot!

Dervag
2008-12-27, 03:01 AM
Speaking personally, the history of the setting becomes important only when it intersects with what the characters are doing.

Think of the Indiana Jones films: did they bog you down with the minutiae of the long-dead dynasties who'd fought over the current McGuffin? No! they concentrated on the current conflicts and got on with the story. The history was the icing on the cake; not the cake itself.Of course, part of the reason they could do that was because they already had well-established villains and sources. You didn't need to know why Nazis were the bad guys*. You already knew that, and so when you saw stereotypical Nazis goosestepping around in Wehrmacht uniforms you knew that they were the villains of the piece. Moreover, you knew Indy wasn't a monster for shooting them in order to keep them from getting ahold of an ancient relic. You knew that it was important that Hitler not get access to the power of the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, because he was, well, Hitler.

The Indiana Jones movies didn't need to give you much backstory, yes. But by using artifacts, locations, and cultures that "really existed"**, they got around the need to provide backstory in a way most DMs can't match.

*Unless, like me, you learned this fact as a child from watching Indiana Jones movies.:smallbiggrin:

**So to speak, in the case of the artifacts.
_________


If the PCs want to go delving into the history of the setting let them do so; it's always a great source of new adventure hooks. But don't let the history get in the way of the adventure. Sketching in one or two eras, but keeping actual details evocatively vague, gives you lots of wiggle room if you want to change things later on.Agreed. The catch is not saying too much, while telling the players enough that they understand what's going on. They need enough information to not do anything really stupid that their characters (who do know the backstory) wouldn't do.

Satyr
2008-12-27, 05:40 AM
Characters are the product od their social and cultural environment. One of the characteristic trait of any good character is the organic insertion in the campaign setting, including the development of the different factions, orgainsations and the interconection between differeent groups. This makes the setting's history and background invaluable, and much more important than any singular character.

Yes, if you foolishly reduce roleplaying to dungeoncrawling, no such finer adjustment is necessary. But why bother with an underachiever aproach like
that?

Besides, the most important trait of a good player is dedication to the game. I think it is obligatory to expect that dedicated players occupy themselves with the setting's details and background. If they lack this minimal willingeness, there should be no place for them in a gaming group with certqain standards.

Athaniar
2008-12-27, 06:48 AM
I myself prefer advanced history, but it should be easy to understand for newcomers ,they shouldn't have to read up on the whole timeline from creation to present if they don't want to. Of course, they'll understand more of the setting if they do, but if they'd rather want to just adventure, then fine.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-27, 10:37 AM
setting history can inspire story ideas. they can also inspire character concepts. I dont ignore much on history of a setting untill it angers me enough to.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-27, 09:43 PM
As a frequent (some would say compulsive :smalltongue:) homebrew setting creator, I must say that a setting's history is essential to creating a coherent world. It is not enough to say "Kingdom A does things this way and Kingdom B does it this way;" human beings like to find patterns and explanations, and if there isn't one it can be quite jarring. And making up things on the spot can result in more harm than help - continuity snarls aren't just for comic books.

For me, history is most important for deciding what the rules/traditions of a kingdom are, how churches and other organizations are set up, and local attitudes towards any number of phenomenon. And this is just as a DM! Eventually, your players will try to figure out why something is the way it is and you'd better have an answer ready.

Lycar
2008-12-27, 11:25 PM
One of the things i love about FR is the depth of history and detail in the game, which is unmatched.

Not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Eye#English) quite (http://www.koenigreich-albernia.de/index.php?lang=e&path=irdisch/&content=gruss_e&content_suffix=php) 'unmached' I dare say. :smallwink:

But it never hurts to have multiple sources of inspiration for your own homebrewed world.

Agonizing about the 'big five' of PHB character classes being too powerfull? Just make it so that magic is strongly controlled by society. Powerful mages have a lot harder time taking over the world when they are opposed by equally powerful mages who are happy and contend to serve 'king & country'.

Heck, you could go so far as to say that 'black' magic isn't available to your heroic adventurers... if your setting has the right history.

So the history of the setting is, among other things, the reason/justification for whatever houserules you want to bring to the table.

Maybe indeed Fighters are graduates from regular 'Fighter' academies, diploma and all. And just maybe they are, by law, the only ones allowed to bear two handed melee weapons. And heavy armour.

With the possible exception of the Paladins of the Gods of War and Light & Justice maybe. But those are clergy and therefore exempt from the rules of kings.

Oh and the god of Light & Justice takes a distinct displeasure towards the practice of magic, branding it an abomiantion. So no cleric in the traditional sense for that campaign setting.

Compensate by making Cure spells availabe to 'white' wizards. Bards can do it too after all.

No, this is no longer your stereotypical D&D setting. It is quite different. Because it has the appropriate history. You don't need to abandon D20 to do different things. You need to put some efforts into what spells you allow certain magic academies to have access to though. If magic is highly regulated, the 2 or so spells a wizard may pick on level-up have to be on an approved list of spells the academy actually teaches/has access to.

History is so much more then just background decoration, it sets the tone and the rules.

So, how important is the setting's history? As important as you make it: Totally meaningless if all you ever do is having random encounters in randomized dungeons and vitally important if you want to play an actual '(epic) story' that just happens to involve the occasional combat.

Lycar

Narmoth
2008-12-28, 05:53 AM
I did something similar as Lycar suggest. I outlawed all wizard magic, and enforced licensing on weapons in the capital to make it really hard for the players. Unfortunately, it led to fewer players wanting to play wizards (that got a mana system giving more spells to compensate) :smallfrown:

OracleofWuffing
2008-12-28, 02:40 PM
Well, uh, this is by far my most successful topic made on any given internet message board, so I'm feeling obligated to reply. Before doing so, I'd like to do one big general thanks all around to everyone.


Think of the Indiana Jones films: did they bog you down with the minutiae of the long-dead dynasties who'd fought over the current McGuffin? No!
I'll, uh, take your word for it.


"Hey guys, temporal roadtrip!"
...And I think I have my next plot hook.


A setting's history can be the inspiration for zillions of story arcs.
I think that goes without saying... But a plate of pasta can also be the inspiration for zillions of story arcs, plus it's more filling. If inspiration is all you're using a setting's history for, it really isn't important. Pretty much any source of inspiration is interchangeable, at least on principle.


Also... if the party goes beyond level 14 ish, they need information going back about 5,000 years. Epic? 2,000,000 years becomes important.
Please pardon my lack of high-level play, but, why? Or is this just one of those things which one doesn't understand until one experiences it firsthand?


Yes, if you foolishly reduce roleplaying to dungeoncrawling, no such finer adjustment is necessary. But why bother with an underachiever aproach like that?
Please be careful with those words, they are sharper than they appear... You say this as though creating a dungeon requires no work on the DM side whatsoever.

One might follow an approach like that because the playing characters, in game, are identified as adventurers, and I feel that adventurers should be going on adventures. If I understand the game correctly, adventures are usually represented in D&D through various encounters and creatively selected uses of skill checks. I may be in the wrong here- I'm the greenhorn- but I feel that dungeon crawling is an efficient way of stringing these elements together in a coherently unfolding pattern.

I understand that history can be helpful to people who want a nice background to their characters, but it is also helpful to not follow the history and subvert the tradition. For example, the studious elven wizard is just as viable a character (setting-wise) as the crazy wilderness elf (Wildrunner). If you come up with an interesting character or story whether you follow a preset history or not, it might be preferable (due to time constraints, RL limitations, etc) to not look that far into history.


If they lack this minimal willingeness, there should be no place for them in a gaming group with certqain standards.
Please understand, I'm following the "Beggars can't be choosers" adage here. If I reject players because they don't read 100 pages of history and bring their reading notes to the table, then I'm not going to be playing D&D. I'm aware of the other options, play by post, maptool, openRPG, what have you, but I'm also aware that a fair share of people who play with such methods also agree that it's fundamentally different than playing in person.

I think it would be far more beneficial to consider ways of encouraging deeper backstories- both on the DM and player side- than saying, "No, you didn't read paragraph 2, page 231 of the right book, rocks fall, try harder next time." At least, for my specific angles.


As-
Oracle Hunter posting in an Oracle of Wuffing topic! Ominous foreshadowing!


Eventually, your players will try to figure out why something is the way it is and you'd better have an answer ready.
Might you have any tips as far as speeding up that eventuality? I know that I might (and with my luck, probably will) be in such a situation sometime down the road, but as things are, I just haven't witnessed that curiousity from my players yet, and I don't feel that I have that curiousity when I am a playing character, as well.

---

There are two general trains of thoughts going on in response to my question, so I'll just summarise and respond to them here.

History is important determining the whereabouts/whatabouts of items.
I think Triaxx sait it best, "when you are looking for the ancient resting place of the MacGuffin, whether to find it to begin with, or repower the inexplicably powerless thing, nothing is more helpful than having some history to go on." The issue I have here is that you're looking at a skyscraper and cleaning one window- sure, the one scrap of history was really important to concluding the 10,000-year civil war, but that scrap was just half a paragraph in a chapter that was otherwise unnecessary. That kinda cheapens the whole historical context thing.

History is there to avoid painting oneself in a corner.
It's important to have the answers when players ask questions about places, and it's even more important to have the right answers. The problem is getting the players to ask about the situation in the first place, without doing something silly like handing them all scripts.

Kantolin
2008-12-28, 03:09 PM
If you ask me, something else about having more history means you have to ad hoc less. I know a lot of people who ad hoc extremely well, but the more information you have beforehand, the more detailed and explained it tends to be. This fact also helps with immersion - if the DM can go, 'Why, that comes from the tower at Ravensong!', it helps a bit more than 'Uh... I dunno, east.'

Also, history can help people become immersed in the world. Historical organizations, artifacts/items, people, and events can spark someone's interest - resulting in them integrating themselves with said history. I personally tend to do that no matter how deep the history - find something that the DM has pointed out and harp on it.

Now, that said. You may not need everything for your game, even about a setting. A good friend of mine loves the forgotten realms, but he usually runs games from one particular area or another: When he runs a game from the Dales, you usually don't need to know anything about anywhere else.

In general, you need to know something about the area (Unless it's strictly a dungeon crawl), but you may not need to know every ounce of a 1000 year history. Of course, most RPG books (Forgotten realms being an example, White Wolf's Exalted being a second) skim from interesting point to interesting point, so hey. I think in large part it depends on your group, DM, and the expectations of both - some people I know loathe anything resembling a background.

seedjar
2008-12-28, 04:11 PM
For me, having books is easier than BSing and notetaking with enough accuracy to satisfy my players' curiosities. I think it's just a simple balance that way; how much can you get away with in your group? If you were running a gag game for your drinking buddies, the expectations would be different than if your group was composed of your bookish 10-year-old son and his schoolmates. (Depending on who you drink with, of course.)
In any case, I liked having the background content of Eberron at hand for my campaign. It was kind of a cheat, in that I didn't feel pressured to inundate my players with details. Some players wanted continuous activity and didn't like lulls in the game, and since I don't either, it was very liberating to not have to constantly explain the pretext to everything at length. It let me spend more time designing scenarios, such as the tactics of the fights or the development of PC and NPC interactions. "Today you've arrived at <blank>! Does your character care what that is? If so, it's there in the index of that book! Now, after a trip down the boardwalk you meet your contact at a nearby pub..."
That's a little simplification, but you get the idea. My group was a mixed bag and everyone wanted different information. It worked into a good party dynamic, but was very demanding, so having any players quietly reading was always a blessing while the rest grilled me with questions.
Another thing I appreciated was that I could assemble little intermediate plot movements and events without having to really "call on my muse" or whatever. Games go according to players and the events don't always fit the DM's 'vision.' It's nice to just have arbitrary facts and information to build upon - I suppose it's something like the difference in animating a character versus the entire scene with background, foreground, characters and all. (Or perhaps, minis on a gametable vs. mom's kitchen floor and the codex? That one doesn't seem as good.)
~Joe

Prometheus
2008-12-28, 07:12 PM
I think there was a part of the emphasis to plot-hooks that was missed or that the posters didn't communicate. A later plot-hook or plot-point that traces itself to a former piece of information can create a strong sense of verisimilitude in the D&D world as well as preparation on part of the DM. Which makes a better mystery novel, one in which the answer is completely random and out of the blue or one in which the clever mind could have worked out via attention to detail and the less clever mind is hit with the sudden realization when the answer is revealed. Okay, so that is a loaded question, but some history makes for a good story. Precedent confirms that much. I'm not advocating a huge backstory everyone has to read before playing, but if you drop the occasional descriptive hint about the history over the course of the campaign, you have to have continuity.

seedjar
2008-12-28, 09:31 PM
I've got to say, my favorite part to having detailed books handy was shocking powergamers with obscure but important bits of information. Like when your "gaming veteran" DM friend blows all his paladin's daily powers on his last smite of the day, only to discover that this chromatic dragon isn't evil, just cranky. That look of dismay, fading into "you got me, this time" acceptance was probably the high point of my DMing career (thus far.)
When you write your own material, you're bound to look like you're out for cheap shots. When you have a book to fall back on, players have nothing to blame but their ignorance. It sounds so cold that way... I've always felt it's a little more sporting that way, though.
~Joe

horseboy
2008-12-28, 11:01 PM
It matters to the extent it matters to the players and DM, really. The deeper the sense of history the better, for me.


Characters are the product od their social and cultural environment. One of the characteristic trait of any good character is the organic insertion in the campaign setting, including the development of the different factions, organizations and the interconnection between different groups. This makes the setting's history and background invaluable, and much more important than any singular character.

+1 These, thought I'll put Barsaive up against a Realm any day. :smallamused:
Settings and history are really the first two things I look at. Do they inspire me? Cause I've done "Random generic kingdom #23" bajillions of times. It gets old after a while. The more inspiration I can get from these two the more crap I'm willing to over look with mechanics.

KevLar
2008-12-29, 02:29 AM
Even in a basic dungeon crawl, a very rough sketch of the world history (and geography) is nice, so that the setting doesn't seem like a mishmash of random elements but something concrete and coherent. (Of course, if your game style pays no heed whatsoever to things like that, you can very well ignore it altogether and work with encounters, monsters and current characters.)

A more detailed history of the place offers two advantages:
1) Plot hooks
2) Texture. Texture is very important, to me at least. It's the little things that matter.

I can design a random inn and improvise. No big deal, and the game won't seem "bad" if I don't pay attention to a simple inn, right? OR, I can design an inn built in the middle of the road which leads from the town of Aegia to the harbor of Rethel.
Now, I happen to know that Aegia is a small and poor town with few merchants and a lot of farmers. I know that it was much more wealthy in the past, but a couple of generations ago it became the center of an uprising against the the current Royal House. I know that the uprising was crushed and the town was half-destroyed, so that now the citizens can barely make a living. I know that they haven't forgotten.
And I happen to know that Rethel is where the ships set sail for the high seas, ships full of veteran sailors or wealthy heirs looking for adventure, but mostly men from the lowlands who can't support their families any other way.

So now I know that the inn is frequently visited by young men who leave their homes in the valley, to seek their fortune on the sea. I know that this may be their last night on dry land, and they will be exited or emotional. I know that the inn is bustling with people who tell tales of brave skippers, giant squids, but also rebels on the mountain and ruthless soldiers from the days of the uprising. I know that if a state official appears, most patrons will be disproportionally intimidated - but some may scoff at him and even start a fight.

In short, if I know the history, I know everything. Of course, I could improvise on the fly all of the above too, without having already decided the history of the setting (which is exactly what I did for the purpose of this example :smalltongue:). But knowing all about it in advance helps me make the setting coherent and meaningful, protects me from mistakes (like saying something that contradicts an earlier statement), and makes the world seem more real. Even if the players never learn about that battle 398 years ago, it's important because the DM knows it and can extrapolate all sorts of things about the area and the people. Little things as an NPC's quirk and big things like an entire quest. Which are all (and this is the big deal here) coherent in relation to each other.


Characters are the product od their social and cultural environment. One of the characteristic trait of any good character is the organic insertion in the campaign setting, including the development of the different factions, orgainsations and the interconection between differeent groups. This makes the setting's history and background invaluable, and much more important than any singular character.
While I agree - completely - with you, I don't think that the players are obliged to study hundreds of pages of world history in order to make a fitting character, especially when their characters wouldn't know what happened 5000 years ago anyway. What the players need to know (and the DM needs to detail, with as much texture as possible) is the world as their characters see it. :smallsmile:

AslanCross
2008-12-29, 05:12 AM
I think history is very important, but only to the extent where it's relevant to the plot. Eberron and FR have very rich timelines, for example, but are the PCs going to care about the Lords of Dust if they're currently consumed in tracking down a serial killer through Sharn? (Unless the Dusties are responsible in some way, of course.)

It also helps reduce metagaming when the players aren't intimately familiar with the campaign setting history. It helps prevent the following from happening: in a campaign against the Daelkyr and the Mind Flayers just know what they're up against, so they'll stock up on byeshk weapons. Just because the player knows it, even if the PC doesn't.

Satyr
2008-12-29, 05:53 AM
I'll put Barsaive up against a Realm any day.

The realms? Barsaive? Aventurien? They are all pretty flat. I take medieval Europe or the modern world over any of those every day. LOffers both more details and more strangeness.


Settings and history are really the first two things I look at. Do they inspire me? Cause I've done "Random generic kingdom #23" bajillions of times. It gets old after a while. The more inspiration I can get from these two the more crap I'm willing to over look with mechanics.

Exactly. The selling point of any RPG for me is an enthralling and interesting background. Mechanics can always be replaced through one of the good systems, if they are bad, but a good background is invaluable.


I don't think that the players are obliged to study hundreds of pages of world history in order to make a fitting character, especially when their characters wouldn't know what happened 5000 years ago anyway.

The history alone is only a part of it; the overall background, atmosphere ond lifestyle of a campaign setting is the important stuff, the historical llevel is only a part of it. No, a player does not need to know the names of the three dozens kings who ruled the Big Sunken Empire, any more than a Musketeer at the court of Louis XIV needs to know the names of the Karolingans; but in the very moment the Karolingians become important for a campaign, those names become relevant and its suddenly extremely helpful and it is always cool to have Karolingans or their equivalent.

horseboy
2008-12-29, 06:55 PM
The realms? Barsaive? Aventurien? They are all pretty flat. I take medieval Europe or the modern world over any of those every day. LOffers both more details and more strangeness.
That depends on how good your geography (http://www.rpg-resource.org.uk/images/articles/2519/barsaive-map.jpg) is. Though it is more "post apocalypse" than pure "medieval".