I guess this is really what my last
post was all about. So, rather than reply to all the comments on that
post I decided to write this post.
What got me thinking about the whole
thing was the fact that I am knee deep in a new world building
project right now; my working title is "Yassa- Legacy of the
Khans". It's more or less based on the idea that, in a world
much like our own, there arose a Genghis Khan type figure that united
his people and that he and his descendants conquered the entire known
world in their 13th century. The campaign is set in the dawn of their
15th century as the empire has fragmented into rival khanates and
their subject peoples are starting to rebel and reassert themselves.
Many of the local Khans have "gone native" and adopted the
culture and religions of their subjects, causing tensions, and
outright wars, between the various parts of the once unified empire.
I am not as far along on this project as I'd like to be at this
point, but these things happen; it's a pretty ambitious project.
I also am reminded of the various other
world building projects I have done.
I had a Greco-Roman themed world where
all of the Dwarves were male, born to Human families and considered
to be the sons of the God Vulcan. There were no other Demi-Human
races. All of the Humans and Dwarves were native to a single large
island archipelago and they had just developed the maritime
technology to begin their age of exploration. The rest of the world
was populated by bestial Humanoids that were the descendants of
mankind that had been cursed by the gods for lapsing into Evil ways,
Pig-Faced Orcs, Dog-Faced Kobolds, Jackal-Headed Gnolls, etc.
This one lasted one session, and I
didn't even get to DM it. Darryl and I were co-DMing this as a
project, he DMed the first session. Everyone had a good time. A
person who showed up late and didn't play spent 4 hours explaining
why this setting was lame and "regular" D&D would be
better, but if he had to play here, he'd be OK with playing a
Half-Ogre.
One semester of college I developed an
Anglo-Saxon themed world where humanity clung to a fringe of
coastline west of a huge forest, beyond which was a vast steppe land
dominated by a Sauron type dark lord and his Humanoid minions. The
Elves, the only Demi-Human race that had appeared in the campaign
before the end, had fled across the western sea and only a small band
returned on a quest for a magic sword buried in a mound.
Mona and I played this one as a solo
campaign for most of the semester and petered out around finals. I
resurrected the setting a couple of years later for a larger group,
but it didn't last more than a few sessions. Nobody was really
thrilled with having Anglo-Saxon names, they wanted a more "regular"
D&D game.
Then there is the grand-daddy of all of
my world building projects: Garnia. 30+ years in the making, it's
finally getting a serious reworking for eventual public consumption.
That's 30+ years of notes and revisions and retcons and stuff that's
only stuck in my head. I have a whole other blog devoted to it.
Garnia is (mostly, at it's core) a Celtic world where Gauls and
Britons were literally brought to a different world via magical
means. Once they got there, they conquered an Elven empire and then
had to take over their mantle of defending pretty much everything
from the marauding armies of Humanoids. They aren't the only ones
that made the trip, and other creatures made the trip from other
worlds too. Garnia is the closest to a "standard" D&D
world as I have ever created, which makes sense, I started it when I
was a kid and wanted to include all the stuff from my brand new AD&D
Monster Manual.
Garnia has actually absorbed two other
entire world building projects that were based on a similar theme,
one with Romans and one with Vikings. I just placed them on
different, far away, parts of the world.
Garnia has been my default campaign
world for over 30 years, some campaigns have flourished there, some
have died after one session; it's tough to say why. I've run every
edition of D&D, except 4th, and Hackmaster there, plus a Homebrew
system and we're working on another homebrew system now. Hell, I've
even run GURPS there. Once.
I guess the world building is important
to me because it lets me understand more fully how the NPCs are going
to react to any given situation. A
cultural/political/religious/whatever context is important to me as a
DM for figuring out the motives and justifications for actions that
these NPCs or Monsters are going to use. I guess that's worth more to
me to get into character than it is for the minor difficulties of
players having trouble pronouncing exotic names or being expected to
read a couple of emails or a cultural background sheet before we
start.
The comments on my last post were
largely supportive of my deep world building for every campaign I
run, except for one that said I was trying to tell my story instead
of letting the players tell theirs. I guess that might be true to a
certain extent, D&D is interactive group story telling to each
other, but the DM is responsible for the setting, the plot and all of
the non-main characters. You can't really play the game without the
DM's input, because there would be no story to tell.
Just out of curiosity, which of these
worlds sounds the most compelling to you from the brief synopsis?
I like the Anglo-Saxon one. It sounds like a Tolkien meets Middle-Earth type campaign. The premise is engaging... but it can be explained quickly in terms that random players could pick up.
ReplyDeleteIt was really awesome, and I wish everyone had liked the setting as much as I did.
DeleteThey all sound good, but I'm most intrigued by the Anglo-Saxon one, as well. There's a huge mystery potential in answering "what's on the other side of the forest."
ReplyDeleteWhoops; typo: That should have been "Tolkien meets Lost" there.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Welleran, they all sound good! So, it seems you feel frustrated that you put in all this work to create living, breathing, fleshed-out worlds and players seem to want generic D&D. I say, you must remember to find personal satisfaction first. If others acknowledge the depth of your efforts, then all the better. But be prepared for getting as many "meh" reactions along with the "cool setting" compliments. I've experienced the same, and all I can say is that there will always be those who don't fully appreciate what lengths a GM may go to create a rich campaign world. All we GMs can do is, well, FIGHT ON!
ReplyDeleteGenghis Khan is my favorite historical figure so your Yassa project would interest me the most.
ReplyDeleteThe Anglo-Saxon was really cool, but I would miss dwarves, because of my Dwarf Fortress addiction. The "sons of Vulcan" solution from the other world was classy and could be implemented in the Anglo-Saxon one.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, if I get to kill things with an axe, it's all good. Plus, Forgotten Realms kinda sucked for me after I hit my twenties, because all I wanted to do was kill Drizzt and set fire to the Dales out of spite.
I could have framed my previous response better; the result is largely the same, though. If you run something that your players just aren't interested in, even if you think it's fantastic, it's just not going to work. Thus my comment that your, the GMs, story is getting in the way of the players' stories. Ultimately, player's participate because it is their story. Yes, of course it takes participation on both parts, but, again, I attest, if the story is not one in which the players feel that they are a prominent part of, it won't work. Thus, the GM needs to facilitate the player's experience (and world building can do that). I would have liked your game set during The Anarchy; but perhaps I'm saying that because Netflix just added three series of Cadfael.
ReplyDeleteI'm totally with you on wanting a well-developed background to give context and motivation to NPCs and events. Of the settings you describe I really like the Greco-Roman one where dwarves are descendants of Vulcan. Nice to see a well-thought-out rationale for dwarves!
ReplyDeleteThe other setting I like is the one with Saxons and Gauls in it--not because it is the most eclectic D&D-ish one, but because of the Saxons and Gauls. I think its unfortunate a lot of players feel uncomfortable in a setting like that. Maybe ignorance gap, there. I just blogged about using the Dark Ages as a fictional setting, and use Saxon Britain as an example. I think if people were more familiar with the era and peoples they'd be more inclined to give those sort of cultures a whirl.