TheRPGSite

In d&d and a lot of role playing.  Things don't change.  You go on an adventure and come back to the same stable kingdom you left.
I've been reading a bit of history lately.  In history the default state is War, Coup, Counter Coup, Roits, Revolution & Reprisals.

Pundit mentioned this is because d&d is an American game.  (If I remember correctly.)

Obviously its easier to run a game with a base assumption of political stablity.  You don't have to keep stating up new Dukes for one thing.  The rules don't deal with large battles, or riots well.  The focus is on individual heroics and small groups.  PCs come to play, not watch you talk to yourself.

Anyone have much success running a game in the washing machine of history?

Quote from: Headless;961612In d&d and a lot of role playing.  Things don't change.  You go on an adventure and come back to the same stable kingdom you left.
I've been reading a bit of history lately.  In history the default state is War, Coup, Counter Coup, Roits, Revolution & Reprisals.

Pundit mentioned this is because d&d is an American game.  (If I remember correctly.)

Obviously its easier to run a game with a base assumption of political stablity.  You don't have to keep stating up new Dukes for one thing.  The rules don't deal with large battles, or riots well.  The focus is on individual heroics and small groups.  PCs come to play, not watch you talk to yourself.

Anyone have much success running a game in the washing machine of history?

In my current Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign the PCs have been caught up, since the first adventure (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-first-session-report-future-prep/), in a secret inter-dimensional and interplanetary war taking place during the 17th century. In the last session the King in Yellow created a bridge through space from Carcosa that ended in Europe (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-twenty-third-session/). There have been factions at war with each other, and with the PCs as they found out more and more about what is going on. There has been nothing about static about the setting since we began.

I just posted my first notes about the Classic Traveller setting I want to run (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/hallos-subsector-notes-for-a-setting-for-classic-traveller/).

The notes begin:

QuoteThe subsector I'm working up is part of an empire in decay. The empire's power is slipping away, both politically and economically, as civil wars across different sections of the empire have drained its focus. The influence of the empire on the subsector as a political or social entity is non-existent.

Instead, three noble families which have rules potions of the subsector are now scrambling to exert influence and exploit resources of worlds not yet explored. The families see themselves as both standard-bearers for the rich tradition of the imperial past, but also cut off from its support and making their own way forward as best they can.

On a G+ thread talking about it I wrote:

QuoteWhat I am invested in is setting that are not stable. Unstable environments are rich soil for RPG adventures.

So I'm all for unstable settings -- politically, economically, socially. I want things to not be settled -- because that provides more opportunity for situations and environments that offer adventure.

I really would't want a stable setting if anyone handed it to me. (Which is why GDW's Third Imperium for Traveller never did much for me.)

Half the fun is returning home to find out out things are not as they were, as at the end of Return of the King when we see the Shire again.

I forgot to add about the "episodic" part:

In my LotFP game we have been playing through LotaFP modules and modules of my own design. There is no plot or plan however. The Players follow up on any rumors or breadcrumbs they wish to pursue. They choose when to bug out of a dungeon or go back to some god-forsaken village they had explored weeks earlier. I am not leading them to any climax of my own design. But the adventures are episodic. But there is a "background static" of Bigger Things Going On that the Players have chosen to pursue. This provides a sense of "purpose" the campaign perhaps... but it is all based on Player choices and nothing to do with me leading them anywhere or forcing their hand in any kind of agenda.

Uuhhh.... in both Blackmoor and Greyhawk, the PCs BECAME part of the "movers and shakers," so the background situation was anything but stable.

And, of course, there is the lost "end game" of D&D, where you take a bunch of wargamers, give each one of them a castle, an army, and a treasury and stand back.

So the short answer is this is less an artifact of "D&D" than it is an artifact of TSR shifting their marketing to 14 year old kids who had fuckall notion of history.

I need glasses...I read the title as "Erotic adventures in an immutable status quo"...nevermind.

I tend to set my D&D campaigns at a time in the setting where things are relatively static at the moment, but people are waiting for the other shoe to fall.  Small events are happening that foreshadow larger events to come.  The players can do what they want in that environment.  They may decide not to deal with the larger events, but they can't entirely ignore them, as they provide the backdrop around which they act.

But then I think the tensions of waiting on the coup is more interesting than the coup, and likewise for other big events.

Quote from: Headless;961612In d&d and a lot of role playing.  Things don't change.  You go on an adventure and come back to the same stable kingdom you left.

Um... since when?

That is definitely not the norm for D&D. Things change. Kingdoms rise and fall.

From my Pov, a backdrop of political instability is the ideal context in which to run an adventure game. It feeds character ambition and allows for rapid, dramatic escalation of the stakes. My games have involved such things as coups, rebellions, counter coups, feuds, small battles and border wars.

Yeah, you will need a system or two for resolving large fights and running military campaigns. I think having a background in wargaming helps.

One thing that I have learned is that while most good roleplayers take to political intrique very well, not everyone adapts well to the army game. So you have to keep close tabs on players'interests and this may mean that war and battles stay in the background/off screen and don't become the main event. Whatver happens, keep the focus on the PCs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961625Uuhhh.... in both Blackmoor and Greyhawk, the PCs BECAME part of the "movers and shakers," so the background situation was anything but stable.

And, of course, there is the lost "end game" of D&D, where you take a bunch of wargamers, give each one of them a castle, an army, and a treasury and stand back.

So the short answer is this is less an artifact of "D&D" than it is an artifact of TSR shifting their marketing to 14 year old kids who had fuckall notion of history.

This. Prof. Barker's Tekumel campaign, and mine, for that matter, also had a constant background of wars, intrigues, and disputes, and we managed to get something like thirty-five years of games out of it.

My guess is that one reason for stability in settings may be the use of pre packaged adventures and settings, and people using them in what amounts to very short (almost one-off) games. Just a thought, I don't have a lot of game-play time in that kind of campaign setting...

Our last campaign was set in the middle of Game of Thronesian maneuvering between ambitious nobles. The players took sides, but got waylayed by a big macguffin thing that basically remade the campaign world. Since it was Dungeon World, I didn't have to worry about statting everything. I just made notes on the behind the scenes activities of the various players, and worked using a tentative timelines of what was likely to occur if the PCs did nothing related to it. My NPCs played all sorts of dirty pool with them, to include lying, bribery, backstabbing and extortion. They downright hated the local lord, even though all the huge screwovers done to them by "him" where actually the schemes and advice of said Lord's advisor (who played good cop with the PCs, by painting the Lord as the elephant in the room).

Quote from: Headless;961612In d&d and a lot of role playing.  Things don't change.  You go on an adventure and come back to the same stable kingdom you left.
I've been reading a bit of history lately.  In history the default state is War, Coup, Counter Coup, Roits, Revolution & Reprisals.

Pundit mentioned this is because d&d is an American game.  (If I remember correctly.)

Obviously its easier to run a game with a base assumption of political stablity.  You don't have to keep stating up new Dukes for one thing.  The rules don't deal with large battles, or riots well.  The focus is on individual heroics and small groups.  PCs come to play, not watch you talk to yourself.

Anyone have much success running a game in the washing machine of history?

My sandbox Wilderlands game is a constant roiling turmoil of political shenanigans. Dozens of petty lords (NPC & PC) constantly allying, fighting, betraying, getting overthrown, creating petty kingdoms and failed alliances, etc. Some PCs dream of empire and a new golden age, others just want to be king of the village with an endless supply of lemonade...

Some realms are on their third or fourth ruler in 2 years.

Quote from: Headless;961612In d&d and a lot of role playing.  Things don't change.  You go on an adventure and come back to the same stable kingdom you left.

Sure, if you play with fucking asshats.

As for why PUBLISHED settings are usually stable and without the levers and gears that might shake a setting into chaos I have always assumed it is because the publisher needs a setting that will discourage changing the setting on the part of any Referee or Players. A puvlisher putting out four or eight or twelve products in a setting a year wants to know that the setting is the same setting that the Referee is runnning. You want a setting that is so stable the PCs clearly cannot change it. You don't want any levers lying around the Referee could pull on his own that might change it.... because the next module or setting splatbook might not work anymore if those levers get pulled.

Quote from: Headless;961612In history the default state is War, Coup, Counter Coup, Roits, Revolution & Reprisals.

I think that's because you're looking at the really long view.  In any given 10 year historical time period in a specific geographical area, chances are that things will probably be pretty stable.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;961623I forgot to add about the "episodic" part:

In my LotFP game we have been playing through LotaFP modules and modules of my own design. There is no plot or plan however. The Players follow up on any rumors or breadcrumbs they wish to pursue. They choose when to bug out of a dungeon or go back to some god-forsaken village they had explored weeks earlier. I am not leading them to any climax of my own design. But the adventures are episodic. But there is a "background static" of Bigger Things Going On that the Players have chosen to pursue. This provides a sense of "purpose" the campaign perhaps... but it is all based on Player choices and nothing to do with me leading them anywhere or forcing their hand in any kind of agenda.

Christopher - for a published "unstable" setting inteded to be sandboxy/without any overarchig plot - how would you feel about a table of "World Events" that the GM could roll on from time to time to see what changes in the world at large. Maybe one nation invades another. Some magic artefact is located that shortens daytime to 6 hours a day. The king is assassinated and the royal court in uproar. Serpentmen hidden in a deep jungle finally reveal themselves to teh world at large. And so on? (sorry I edited this)

Quote from: Psikerlord;961655Christopher - for a published "unstable" setting inteded to be sandboxy/without any overarchig plot - how would you feel about a table of "World Events" that the GM could roll on from time to time to see what changes in the world at large. Maybe one nation invades another. Some magic artefact is located that shortens daytime to 6 hours a day. The king is assassinated and the royal court in uproar. Serpentmen hidden in a deep jungle finally reveal themselves to teh world at large. And so on? (sorry I edited this)

So, like the tables in Tony Bath's "Setting up a Wargames Campaign" circa 1972.

Available as part of this collection:

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/society-of-ancients-and-tony-bath-and-john-curry/tony-baths-ancient-wargaming/paperback/product-15463540.html

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961661So, like the tables in Tony Bath's "Setting up a Wargames Campaign" circa 1972.

Available as part of this collection:

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/society-of-ancients-and-tony-bath-and-john-curry/tony-baths-ancient-wargaming/paperback/product-15463540.html

Hmmm quite possibly... if only this was available as a pdf...

In my games, characters never return to their "homes." They say their good-byes to people they will most likely never see again.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;961623In my LotFP game we have been playing through LotaFP modules and modules of my own design. There is no plot or plan however. The Players follow up on any rumors or breadcrumbs they wish to pursue. They choose when to bug out of a dungeon or go back to some god-forsaken village they had explored weeks earlier. I am not leading them to any climax of my own design. But the adventures are episodic. But there is a "background static" of Bigger Things Going On that the Players have chosen to pursue. This provides a sense of "purpose" the campaign perhaps... but it is all based on Player choices and nothing to do with me leading them anywhere or forcing their hand in any kind of agenda.

I do things much the same, usually with the addition of some form of behind-the-scenes faction-level game to mediate the Bigger Things Going On.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;961627I need glasses...I read the title as "Erotic adventures in an immutable status quo"...nevermind.

Your version of the thread would have certainly been interesting.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;961635My guess is that one reason for stability in settings may be the use of pre packaged adventures and settings, and people using them in what amounts to very short (almost one-off) games. Just a thought, I don't have a lot of game-play time in that kind of campaign setting...

That's basically my intuition as well.  "Modules" tend to base a lot of their modularity on being self-contained and not affecting anything in the larger campaign setting.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;961680In my games, characters never return to their "homes." They say their good-byes to people they will most likely never see again.

Is that because of high levels of PC mortality or because they become nomads, endlessly roaming the world and never returning to any place they've been before?

I have to say that I first thought this thread would be about the pros and cons of a West Marches style of game. A Local DM would I know has started such as endeavour, and it seems to be going well, with some pretty full tables (8 players recently) over the past couple of months that he's been running it. But I know one player though who hopes to push back against against the static conceit, once he gets some levels under his belt.  Group tastes vary of course, yadayada, but I think most experienced players look forward to changing the world, or their small part of it, at some point.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961625Uuhhh.... in both Blackmoor and Greyhawk, the PCs BECAME part of the "movers and shakers," so the background situation was anything but stable.

That pretty much how it was in my campaigns from the get go.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961625And, of course, there is the lost "end game" of D&D, where you take a bunch of wargamers, give each one of them a castle, an army, and a treasury and stand back.

Or mages and a faction in a guild. Or thieves and their gang in a syndicate, a high priest and his temple, and so forth and so on. The list is endless. All you havet do is be willing to let the PCs "trash" your campaign with their plots and plans.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961625So the short answer is this is less an artifact of "D&D" than it is an artifact of TSR shifting their marketing to 14 year old kids who had fuckall notion of history.

Maybe but my experience is that it is more a matter of temperament. Some people don't like other people messing with their shit. A bit of a contradiction when it comes to tabletop roleplaying but then people are people.

What more insidious is organized play.

Quote from: Omega;961629Um... since when?

That is definitely not the norm for D&D. Things change. Kingdoms rise and fall.

Yeah. In all my games there is no such thing as "stability". I always try to raise the stakes (as the conceits of the PC's statures rise to the occasion) to meet the demands of the powerful and the greedy, which inevitably means upsetting the status-quo. I haven't run a "static" setting in... well... decades.

Are you keeping a timetable and an events calendar? Y'know, Gygax did have something to say about Time Keeping and RPGs way back when... :p

Here's a fun trick, without getting too heavy into faction machinations: Scribble up a calendar of major events! Yup, write up each month, roll up some dice (on a table or a map), and go to town. Throw in natural disasters, benevolences, a war or festival, a few for each month... and just set it aside. Have it be like a rumor table resource, NPC people are talking, often with incomplete knowledge, and regardless of PC interference Life Will Go On.
:)

Quote from: chirine ba kal;961635My guess is that one reason for stability in settings may be the use of pre packaged adventures and settings, and people using them in what amounts to very short (almost one-off) games. Just a thought, I don't have a lot of game-play time in that kind of campaign setting...

Quote from: nDervish;961684That's basically my intuition as well.  "Modules" tend to base a lot of their modularity on being self-contained and not affecting anything in the larger campaign setting.

There's also settings to consider. A lot of gamers get very attached to their favorite settings, and throw hissy fits if they get changed in any notable way. See the FR fan teeth-gnashing that happens every time an edition rearranges it, even though this happening every few years has become FR tradition. Myself, I refuse to acknowledge The Module Which Shall Not Be Named that ended with Factions being removed from Sigil. :D Part of it is that a lot of fans like to have common touchstones to memorize and to talk to unfamiliar gamers about, and it's hard to have common touchstones when things are constantly changing. And part of it is the don't mess with my shit attitude that estar mentions -- I've relaxed a lot over the years, and I'd now be happy to play a Planescape campaign where Factions rise and fall. But booting the Factions from Sigil wholesale ruins everything for me -- without the Factions, it's not Sigil or PS anymore.

Quote from: Headless;961612In d&d and a lot of role playing.  Things don't change.  You go on an adventure and come back to the same stable kingdom you left.

This does not reflect any campaign I've ever run or played in.

Can't say I've ever played an RPG, whether sci fi, fantasy, or even super heroes, where the setting remained the same in the way described up in the OP. That would just be weird.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;961743There's also settings to consider. A lot of gamers get very attached to their favorite settings, and throw hissy fits if they get changed in any notable way. See the FR fan teeth-gnashing that happens every time an edition rearranges it, even though this happening every few years has become FR tradition. Myself, I refuse to acknowledge The Module Which Shall Not Be Named that ended with Factions being removed from Sigil. :D Part of it is that a lot of fans like to have common touchstones to memorize and to talk to unfamiliar gamers about, and it's hard to have common touchstones when things are constantly changing. And part of it is the don't mess with my shit attitude that estar mentions -- I've relaxed a lot over the years, and I'd now be happy to play a Planescape campaign where Factions rise and fall. But booting the Factions from Sigil wholesale ruins everything for me -- without the Factions, it's not Sigil or PS anymore.

Eh, there's a significant difference from setting shake ups that are natural progressions of the instability of polities and well, apocalyptic transitions.

FF Time of Troubles is about as far as I would endure a setting apocalypse and even then I prefer to run my campaigns from GreyBox timeline. FF Ancient Age is fun because its apocalypse is an already known quantity and we're just running *mostly* vignettes of mostly forgotten heroes from a forgotten age, less alt history "saving everlasting Rome" or something. FF 4e Spellplague and A Forgotten Named Planescape Module are things that just nuclear winter the setting.

It's an issue of scale about such change, for quantity is a quality is all its own. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;961718Here's a fun trick, without getting too heavy into faction machinations: Scribble up a calendar of major events! Yup, write up each month, roll up some dice (on a table or a map), and go to town. Throw in natural disasters, benevolences, a war or festival, a few for each month... and just set it aside. Have it be like a rumor table resource, NPC people are talking, often with incomplete knowledge, and regardless of PC interference Life Will Go On.
:)

Yep I really like this idea

So every one has said they have dynamic settings.  Could anyone describe?  

What was the change?
What caused it in setting?
What Mechanic did you use to decide it should happen (may not apply)?
How were the PCs involved?
How did they respond?  
How many sessions did it take? This is is big question mark for me. I think there are some radically different game lenghts on this board.

Or if that sounds like home work just hit me with a 'no shit there I was.'

From my blog (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-invincible-overlord-is-dead-long.html)

A couple of months ago my friend Dwayne Gillingham designed a game revolving around the idea of a civil war in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. You play one of five factions, Nobles, Followers of the god Set, Follower of the goddess Mitra, the Merchant, or the Mage's Guild. As the faction leader you attempt to use your influence to control building, recruit armies and NPCs. From that you can either engage in combat, or use intrigue or magic. The game ends when one faction achieves a combined influence of 25.

Once of the long standing plotlines of my Majestic Wilderlands is a civil war between Draco-lindus, a warrior who follows Mitra, and Divolic a Myrmidon (anti-paladin) of Set. They are played by two of my oldest friends, Draco-lindus by Tim Shorts and Divolic by Dwayne Gillingham.

The whole thing been going on for nearly 20 years starting in the mid-90s with the actual civil war erupting in the mid 2000s. It has formed the backdrop of several Majestic Wilderlands campaigns including the two most recent campaigns. The three of us were talking and decided it was time to resolve it and that the perfect game was Dwayne City-State civil war game.

And on Saturday January 16th we finally played it out and what a game it was. Tim of course played the Mitra faction, and Dwayne played the Set faction. I played the Noble faction with the idea that they were trying to get out from under the thumb of the two and to reestablish their authority.
----------------------------------------------------------
You can read the blow by blow on my blog.

Anyway this closed that phase of my campaign and the one I am currently running has jumped ahead 10 years into the aftermath. There is a bunch of other stuff still yet to be resolved that will take center stage.

This is a link to the above translated into a series of maps. (https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8MTNTY0xORGwwSEk)

Starting with this one.

4460 BCCC
[ATTACH=CONFIG]947[/ATTACH]

And end with this one.

4475 BCCC
[ATTACH=CONFIG]948[/ATTACH]

And just to give a sense of how long I been doing this. I ran my first Wilderlands campaign in 1980 and the in-game years was 4433 BCCC. Now it up to 4475 BCCC. Some of the original PCs have grandkids.

I read the turn by turn you linked.  I didn't see the follow on post that was going to explain what it ment in game.

Quote from: Headless;961791So every one has said they have dynamic settings.  Could anyone describe?  

What was the change?
What caused it in setting?
What Mechanic did you use to decide it should happen (may not apply)?
How were the PCs involved?
How did they respond?  
How many sessions did it take? This is is big question mark for me. I think there are some radically different game lenghts on this board.

Or if that sounds like home work just hit me with a 'no shit there I was.'

My most dynamic setting is my Wilderlands 'Barbarian Altanis' sandbox. Obviously far too many changes to list, but the main NPC drivers of change were the Black Sun Network aiming to restore the Empire of Nerath, and the warlord Yusan. The Black Sun successfully established a small Empire of Restored Nerath west of the Castellan mountains in one campaign, defeating the opposing PCs. In later campaigns set east of the mountains in the Ghinarian hills area the Neo-Nerath have been attempting to expand into the area from the west, causing lots of political shenanigans as allegiances shifted. At the same time Yusan was trying to expand from his power base in the Vale to the south, and did conquer a chunk of territory while the PCs were off opposing Neo-Nerath, closing the Black Sun Gate that powered their undead armies. This resulted in Black Sun losing two battles (off-screen) to the Altanian barbarians and the gnomes of Ractuan.
Eventually the PCs raised a coalition, defeated and killed Yusan in an epic battle, led by their own PC warlord Hakeem, who turned out to be Yusan's son.
The defeat of Yusan left a power vacuum, the PCs appointed rulers and/or became rulers themselves. Neo-Nerath has been driven back west of the mountains but is still making probing attacks and plans another offensive. The eastern Nerathi realm of Hara switched allegiance from Black Sun to the PCs' coalition.

The PCs are dynamic and often initiate changes, but they are not the only active entities. Old Vilius of Theber tried to forge a Ghinarian Lords' Alliance against Yusan; he was defeated and killed but Kaldrac of Verius pretty much took it over; currently the Lords' Alliance is a subset of the PCs' coalition which centres around the NPC sorceress Lady Meda of Thusia and includes the Highhaven Amazons, Hara & the Rangers of the Wode, the northern Altanian tribes under Minars Rapak of Seawolf, etc. The continued Black Sun/Neo-Nerath threat holds the coalition together despite internal animosities. The major town of Ahyf had been friendly with Yusan (it benefitted from his slave trade) and remains aloof from this alliance, the dragonborn PC Shieldbiter is planning to conquer Ahyf for his own mini-empire within the coalition.

Last session on Wednesday a group of PCs and Namelin Bronze the NPC lord of Hara overthrew the corrupt rulers of Selatine (the campaign 'starter town'), killed the Wormtongue-esque death priest Macreus of Thracia and replaced Lord Hytirus Vex with his sister Jana, a priestess of Mitra and long term NPC (been around since 2013).

I haven't mentioned the evil wizard Oriax the Lecherous, tower south of Selatine, who at one point took over Selatine before being chased out following the fall of Yusan and fled to an alternate dimension via his magic mirror.

I've run I count 170 sessions in this setting (Barbarian Altanis) - 20 ca 2011 west of the mountains, then Ghinarian hills 10 ca 2013, & the rest 2015-present.

Results of offstage battles etc are generally determined by GM judgement/fiat, possibly rolling a d6 if outcome uncertain, but I generally have a good idea of who has the advantage.

I have not been rolling on a random event table. Generally either stuff happens in game that then snowballs including off-stage events, or off-stage actors' plans come on-stage. There is stuff dating back to earlier games ca 2009 (set further north in the plains west of the City State) when eg the Black Sun acquired the Ilhiedrin Book, repercussions echo down through the years & the campaigns.

I think the main driver is having a lot of NPCs with their own motivations, some of whom are at least as active as the PCs.

Edit: Game has run 4433-4447 BCCC so far, 14 years. Could be significant that it's based on Rob Conley's Wilderlands material! :)

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CpUMXR4qIps/WP8OKHoxIdI/AAAAAAAAGWU/G49Dp8y2b9cMkzbebJXoN8dcsQwXZAhTgCLcB/s640/Ghinarian%252BHills.jpg)

Quote from: Headless;961791So every one has said they have dynamic settings.  Could anyone describe?  

What was the change?
What caused it in setting?
What Mechanic did you use to decide it should happen (may not apply)?
How were the PCs involved?
How did they respond?  
How many sessions did it take? This is is big question mark for me. I think there are some radically different game lenghts on this board.

It varies, but for my current one:  The change is variation in "magical radiation" that is having long-term effects on creature genetics and even the natural world.  As just one example, there is a large, deep vale that produces much more food than it should be able to for an area that far north, because of the unnatural warming effects of the local radiation--radiation that has also altered the creatures that live in the area, predominately dwarves, dark elves, and halflings.  The overall cause (campaign world, not just the vale) is a series of powerful rituals cast centuries ago that were self-reinforcing but are now breaking down.  No mechanics, just cause and effect from the premise of the world.  Characters poking around in things better left untouched are the cause.  NPCs do it, and PCs probably will too.  My players respond with caution, because they are used to me putting dangerous things into the setting.  Time to effect is indeterminate. I'll use the campaign world for multiple campaigns, and depending upon actions, it may take years or may happen in a few sessions from now.

But like I said, I like the part of waiting for the hammer to fall more than the event itself.

Headless, in a month, ask the same question from the other end and use the phrase "meta-plot" and enjoy a completely different thread...

Quote from: Tod13;961845Headless, in a month, ask the same question from the other end and use the phrase "meta-plot" and enjoy a completely different thread...

Yes, because it will be about an entirely different subject.

Quote from: S'mon;961821(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CpUMXR4qIps/WP8OKHoxIdI/AAAAAAAAGWU/G49Dp8y2b9cMkzbebJXoN8dcsQwXZAhTgCLcB/s640/Ghinarian%252BHills.jpg)

Nice map. Original?

Quote from: Dumarest;961946Nice map. Original?

That's an extract from the 2005 Wilderlands of High Fantasy by Necromancer Games, specifically the Ghinarian Hills region of Barbarian Altanis, with my additions. WoHF is available pdf on rpgnow, I was lucky enough to get the box set back in the day. I think they want more for the pdf than I paid for hardcopy - http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/2745/Wilderlands-of-High-Fantasy-new?it=1

There's a bundle that looks better value, the Player's Guide especially is a must & has tons of DM info such as monsters -http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/59811/Complete-Wilderlands-BUNDLE

My game worlds are not static. I have a few background plots and schemes going on that the Players may or may not notice, and there are the actions of the PCs as well.

I have seen players act surprised when I allow them to burn down a village, dethrone a king, kill a dragon, or do some other action that will have a large impact on the campaign world situation. Likewise they have been surprised when I actually wrapped up the campaign when a particularly nasty End-of-the-World scheme actually came to fruition. When I told them that was it, the world was gone it got their attention. After that the looming threat of Elric sounding the Horn of Fate and ending the world was taken a bit more seriously in out Stormbringer campaign. That campaign began during the reign of Elric's father and never reached the end of the world, but the countdown clock was always ticking in the background.

I always read the point of D&D as being to reach name level, establish a stronghold and wage war against other strongholds. Sort of the opposite of a static world.

- Davethelost

I always read the point of D&D as being to reach name level, establish a stronghold and wage war against other strongholds. Sort of the opposite of a static world.

So if thats true its still a static world.  You want a seat at the table, a peice of the action.  But the back ground asumption of action doesn't change.  

Your verb is 'wage war.'  Not Conquer.   Conquer invovles change, war doesn't have to.  You want to play the game nit win it.

Sorry I'm reading a lot into verb choice.

Quote from: Headless;961791So every one has said they have dynamic settings.  Could anyone describe?  

What was the change?
What caused it in setting?
What Mechanic did you use to decide it should happen (may not apply)?
How were the PCs involved?
How did they respond?  
How many sessions did it take? This is is big question mark for me. I think there are some radically different game lenghts on this board.

Or if that sounds like home work just hit me with a 'no shit there I was.'

I've done it a few times.

In order:

• Full-scale bloody civil war, with all the post-war consequences.
• Death of a king + ambitious kin + other powerful factions out for revenge, profit or fun
• I can't recommend the Event Tables from Oriental Adventures enough, no matter what the setting or game. I've been using them for 30 years.
• At first they weren't. They were on friendly terms with a certain noble though, and he was on one side, so they more or less stuck by him. Their "home base" was in his domain.
• They went after their friend's enemies. As those enemies became more ruthless, so did the PCs

*
The civil war lasted about three years in game time, maybe six months (gaming every Friday afternoon) in real time.

* One thing that ended up working better than expected was that like most campaigns, if a player couldn't attend their PC simply stayed home. The same was true for various henchmen, hirelings, friendly NPCs and even a few PCs who were left on the back burner (one was a cleric the player just got tired of playing, dropping him for a new PC). So when the main group was away, the enemy decided to raid their home town and raze the place, killing as many people as possible. The main party was not aware of this. So when all the players attended the following week, I announced that before we picked up with the main party where we left off, it was time to check in on their home base. We got out the sheets and cards for all those retainers and fought it out. Luckily for the town, the retainers had maintained scouts and patrols and they were prepared. The retainers launched two spoiling attacks against the enemy, and fought them off at the outskirts of the town, but not before some of the fields were set ablaze. Now the town faced a food shortage and an almost certain return visit from an even stronger raiding party...

I think that what the OP is addressing is what you see in many campaign products, like pre-wars Greyhawk or frankly most TSR products, where there's the impression that significant change doesn't happen in the campaign. Hell, in some cases there's the implication that even technology and culture hasn't advanced in hundreds or thousands of years.
Worse still settings like the Forgotten Realms, where there's the implication in the core regions of explosive change about to happen, but instead the metaplot product-mill essentially keeps pushing everything back to the status-quo over and over again, plus or minus a city or an over-powered NPC. Worse still, villains like the Zhentarim are set up in the initial campaign product as major threats, only to constantly be thwarted to the point that they look comically inept.

On the other hand, ignoring Official Product and looking at individual campaigns, I think that a big mistake that many GMs make is that change in the setting only ever happens because of, in relation to, or in the presence of the PC party. This gives the impression not of a living world but of a totally static world that is only affected by the PCs' actions or at the very least their presence as witnesses.

Now, not every campaign has to involve periods of massive turbulence or the rise or fall of empires.  In Dark Albion I chose a period that was full of significant civil strife and political and social change, but there are periods of English history where not much of that happens.  But even in those periods, there should be individuals or families rising to power or falling to ruin, small or large rebellions, foreign wars that start or end, plagues or famines, pontiffs or lords or kings dying with some frequency, courtly intrigues, natural disasters and more.

The real key is that a lot of this stuff should happen without the PCs involvement. There should be changes that the PCs can hear about or come to observe that they had fuck all to do with. Some of this change should be predictable to a certain extent, and some of it should happen by surprise.  Lords shouldn't always die in epic battles, sometimes they'll just fall off a horse or have an embolism; sometimes at moments that can be quite inconvenient for all concerned. Towns or villages the PCs visited at some point should have small or large changes when the PCs return there, maybe the blacksmith they dealt with last time was killed in a horse-accident, maybe the daughter of the innkeeper is married now, maybe half the market burned down in a freak fire.

When some of these events happen, the PCs might be in the area coincidentally, in other cases they may be nowhere near the place. In some cases, the PCs might be affected directly by these events, in some cases the PCs might wish to get involved or interfere with events and thus end up affecting the course of how they develop, in others the PCs might not do anything about these things and they should run their course on their own.

That's how you make a setting into a functioning virtual world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;962772On the other hand, ignoring Official Product and looking at individual campaigns, I think that a big mistake that many GMs make is that change in the setting only ever happens because of, in relation to, or in the presence of the PC party. This gives the impression not of a living world but of a totally static world that is only affected by the PCs' actions or at the very least their presence as witnesses.

Ha, this reminds of TV shows set at high schools and colleges where the same group of students are the student council, the football team, the cheerleaders, the debate team, and everything else that goes on at school. Nothing happens without Brenda Walsh's finger in the pie.

Sometimes it's great to have the pcs discover that someone else killed the bbeg - and won't shut up about it. :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;962772I think that what the OP is addressing is what you see in many campaign products, like pre-wars Greyhawk or frankly most TSR products, where there's the impression that significant change doesn't happen in the campaign. Hell, in some cases there's the implication that even technology and culture hasn't advanced in hundreds or thousands of years.

Worse still settings like the Forgotten Realms, where there's the implication in the core regions of explosive change about to happen, but instead the metaplot product-mill essentially keeps pushing everything back to the status-quo over and over again, plus or minus a city or an over-powered NPC. Worse still, villains like the Zhentarim are set up in the initial campaign product as major threats, only to constantly be thwarted to the point that they look comically inept.

I'm not sure how the designers thought of things, but I always looked at the published worlds as being ruled not by any kind of inertia, but by a rebuilding phase about to explode into extreme change. Most of them have some cataclysmic war or event 50-100 years ago (a generation for a lot of the key players). Most of them have evil, of-course-they-are-going-to-invade-their-neighbors kingdoms sitting right next to weaker, timid kingdoms. Plenty of them have two technologically (or magic equivalent) dissimilar societies somehow right next to each other. That kind of thing only stays stable while people are rebuilding their footings, and either getting ready to go at each other hammer-and-tongs or start equalizing due to trade and such. Other similar things tell me that things aren't a simple status quo. That castle over there, utterly dependent upon its walls, somehow not preparing for the wizard or dragon two hills down that can completely circumvent their defenses or whatever always screamed to me 'they aren't because they don't know it is there, because it wasn't 6 months ago.'

For the published worlds, I always think of what is described in a campaign guidebook or boxed set as a snapshot. 'This is what it looks like on Jun. 1, 1342.' As to the adventures, I guess I'm fine with them not moving forward a specific plotline. If you do that, and each adventure in the product mill moves forward a specific plot point of a larger story, then to keep up, you have to buy and consume each module in the line (in order) to keep up. If you have the cachet (or believe you do) to say that the people whose business you care about will buy each of the your products when they are published (or all in a lump later, but read them in order or something), this might be strategically smart. It might make someone buy #6 of 12 even though they aren't too interested in it specifically because it would help make 1-5 and 7-12 make sense. To the casual buyer, however, it makes the whole line less attractive because you need #6 to make the other 11 as good a product. I'm not sure if TSR thought they had that draw or not, but I do feel that they thought of their adventures like news-stand comic books, with buyer 1 diligently collecting each one in order, buyer 2 picking and choosing which ones they want, buyer 3 pawing through last year's stuff because they came in late in the game, so better to have each adventure be completely self-contained, and not make any far reaching changes to the world. Let that happen between editions, apparently.

TL/DR: The designers are in the same predicament as writers for (let's say) the Simpsons are in. Can't make a large overarching metaplot if you don't think your consumers are going to consume every episode, in-order.

QuoteOn the other hand, ignoring Official Product and looking at individual campaigns, I think that a big mistake that many GMs make is that change in the setting only ever happens because of, in relation to, or in the presence of the PC party. This gives the impression not of a living world but of a totally static world that is only affected by the PCs' actions or at the very least their presence as witnesses.

Agreed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961625And, of course, there is the lost "end game" of D&D, where you take a bunch of wargamers, give each one of them a castle, an army, and a treasury and stand back.

So the short answer is this is less an artifact of "D&D" than it is an artifact of TSR shifting their marketing to 14 year old kids who had fuckall notion of history.

So do you mean when they took out/pushed-to-the-background the keep and castle and followers at name level part, or an earlier development?

I'm running my Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/tag/lamentations-of-the-flame-pricess/). The setting is spun together from the many LotFP modules as well as scenarios of my own design. The game is set in 17th Century Europe. But not only is the Thirty Wars War raging, but an interplanetary war of different realities is being fought across Europe as well.

What was the change?
The King in Yellow and his armies have used horrific magic to build a bridge through space from Carcosa to invade 17th Century Europe.

What caused it in setting?
The Spatial Transference Void on Carcosa mixed with the Liquid Time magic found in a Duvan'Ku temple in the Alps (Death Frost Doom)

What Mechanic did you use to decide it should happen (may not apply)?
It was hand waved. But the McGuffin was precise. The PCs had explored the Duvan'Ku temple and encountered the Liquid Time. They were later chased by agents from Carcosa in Munich looking for the temple. So they knew that the Carcosans wanted something from the temple they had been to. And what they wanted were some of the snow globes they saw filled with the liquid time. Later the PCs would return to the temple and find that a horrible battle had taken place between the armies of the undead (which the PCs had left undisturbed) and Carcosan sorcerers and warriors in alien battle armor. Some of the Carcosans had survived and escaped with the snow globes they needed to alter the Spatial Transference Void and make the journey between Carcosa and Earth permanent and large enough for armies.

How were the PCs involved?
They did not cause these events to happen, though their actions did help the Carcosans find what they were looking for. For many sessions they became more and more aware of alien agents on Earth pursing both them and things they had encountered. But at the same time the PC were not directly involved in any of it and were free to go off and do whatever they wanted.

How did they respond?
They had been seeking a ship that can travel between worlds belonging to a dead trans-dimensional explorer. They have found the ship and have left earth to go the Qelong Valley. They believe their is a powerful source of magic there they can use to shut down the bridge to Carcosa.

Keep in mind: The Players have discussed amongst themselves that they could simply abandon Earth. They have a ship that could travel from world to world. I have no idea what they will end up doing and have no expectations.

How many sessions did it take? This is is big question mark for me. I think there are some radically different game lenghts on this board.
The invasion of Earth by Carcosa took place in the 23rd session.

I think some GMs operate from a faulty assumption that because the published setting doesn't list ongoing large-scale struggles, then they couldn't or shouldn't add them in as they play. As originally published, Greyhawk might have good guy countries like Furyondy being hostile to villains like Iuz and The Horned Society without the countries engaged in open warfare. That doesn't mean the DM running the campaign can't turn things up to 11, whether by DM fiat or because of the actions of the PCs. Personally, I prefer it that way. Maybe I don't want to do the whole Epic Struggle Between Good & Ee-ville thing, yet again. Maybe this time the PCs could be like James Bond, and actively try to prevent open warfare.

I thought we had a thread about this a few months back. Deja vu? Glitch in the matrix?

I bake setting change into the campaign from inception because I give each faction a goal they work toward. If the PCs don't intervene, there is a D6 roll to see what happens. The Oriental Adventures AD&D 1e book has this cool system for setting up calendars of events and it inspired me to add random chaos into static settings and I've done it ever since. The Traveller Encounter charts were also a huge influence when I used them as news stories. AKA, I'd roll up encounters and the PCs heard about them on Starport TVs.

I usually run short arc campaigns so I focus on a very heated locale, throw the PCs in the middle and let the chaos commence. I am working on a short campaign and it has 9 key locales and 4 factions in conflict. The PCs will ally or not with a faction and may or may not engage with all the factions, but nevertheless stuff will happen each session in the background that even I won't know in advance (as the D6 rolls will tell me what's happening).

But this method leads to chaos and madness in the setting. No everyone wants that. I've had players who felt the chaos in the background made it hard for them to plan long term and felt they were cheated from being the only movers and shakers in the setting which is the default for many groups. However, most of my players appreciate the feeling of the world being alive and unpredictable.

If you use this method, be sure to tell the players that news bits from the setting background are NOT attempts to steer the PCs into a railroad. A couple years back, I had a player who was sure rumors and news bits were demands from me for the PCs to change their plans.

I use d6s and d8s a lot too to guide my adjudication. Generally low = bad/worse, high = good/better. So a high d6 result might mean a PC-allied faction won a battle, a low d8 result means bad weather or maybe a deteriorating political situation.

All this kind of stuff is why I put a much longer FUTURE timeline in Dark Albion than a past-history section.  It wasn't to force the GM running it to slavishly stick to it or anything, but to give them a wealth of events that could be happening and around the world for the PCs to either be involved in or just to hear about.

Also, real history is great for this. Because unlike most novels or TVs shows, in real history stuff just happens that derails everything. People don't die in "fictionally appropriate moments", sometimes they just fall off a horse or whatever. One of the key points of making a virtual world really work is that its shouldn't usually seem like fiction (unless you're intentionally and directly emulating fiction).

Quote from: RPGPundit;963827All this kind of stuff is why I put a much longer FUTURE timeline in Dark Albion than a past-history section.  It wasn't to force the GM running it to slavishly stick to it or anything, but to give them a wealth of events that could be happening and around the world for the PCs to either be involved in or just to hear about.

Also, real history is great for this. Because unlike most novels or TVs shows, in real history stuff just happens that derails everything. People don't die in "fictionally appropriate moments", sometimes they just fall off a horse or whatever. One of the key points of making a virtual world really work is that its shouldn't usually seem like fiction (unless you're intentionally and directly emulating fiction).

I generally prefer some kind of events generating random table rather than a pre-written timeline, which has the risk of feeling metaplotty. Depends on the setting though - if it's heavy on Fate as a theme, like eg Pendragon, then sure a timeline will work well. I think I would probably not use a timeline for a Game of Thrones campaign even though the TV show has one, because it would not fit with the sense of cosmic randomness & chaos I get from that setting. I would have notes like "X will try to assassinate Y", but I'd usually roll a d6 to see if the attempt succeeded (typically anything from 2+ to 6 needed, depending on relative power/competency.)

Quote from: S'mon;963854I generally prefer some kind of events generating random table rather than a pre-written timeline, which has the risk of feeling metaplotty. Depends on the setting though - if it's heavy on Fate as a theme, like eg Pendragon, then sure a timeline will work well. I think I would probably not use a timeline for a Game of Thrones campaign even though the TV show has one, because it would not fit with the sense of cosmic randomness & chaos I get from that setting. I would have notes like "X will try to assassinate Y", but I'd usually roll a d6 to see if the attempt succeeded (typically anything from 2+ to 6 needed, depending on relative power/competency.)

There are also random event tables in Dark Albion. There's random event tables for territories in the Noble House management rules. There's also random tables for local events in cities.

Quote from: RPGPundit;964206There are also random event tables in Dark Albion. There's random event tables for territories in the Noble House management rules. There's also random tables for local events in cities.

Yeah, I was thinking though about the Great Events of the World rather than local stuff. It's like the difference between playing a plotted CRPG and playing a Total War game, nominally set at a particular point in history but diverging thereafter, even without player input. I really like that feel when I play the Total War series and it's generally what I go for in my RPGs.

Just thinking about Game of Thrones again, since I have the ASoIAF game (& your Dark Albion stuff might be useful, or better than the official RPG) but I struggle with the idea of PCs playing essentially smallfolk in the shadow of the book/TV metaplot. To free it up I really think it needs to have future events NOT fated to occur. Usually the best way to do that is dice rolls or similar randomiser I think. But I can imagine going with something like a declaration "Following the death of King Robert Baratheon, Hand of the King Eddard Stark has arrested Queen Cersei on charge of Treason and declared himself Lord Protector, plunging the Realm into Civil War..." - that would then force everyone into accepting the historical timeline was not in play.

Or thinking of Dark Albion, have you seen The Black Adder? In episode 1 of the original series, Richard's forces inflict a crushing defeat on Henry Tudor at Bosworth Field, but Richard himself dies in the battle and a new dynasty takes power.

Quote from: S'mon;963854I generally prefer some kind of events generating random table rather than a pre-written timeline, which has the risk of feeling metaplotty. Depends on the setting though - if it's heavy on Fate as a theme, like eg Pendragon, then sure a timeline will work well. I think I would probably not use a timeline for a Game of Thrones campaign even though the TV show has one, because it would not fit with the sense of cosmic randomness & chaos I get from that setting. I would have notes like "X will try to assassinate Y", but I'd usually roll a d6 to see if the attempt succeeded (typically anything from 2+ to 6 needed, depending on relative power/competency.)

I use the yearly and monthly random events charts to lay down the outline for what should happen three campaign years ahead of time. This makes it easier to prepare in advance (like stats for armies if there's a war) and gives me something to feed to the PCs if they use fortune-telling or some other divination: I can glance at my cheat sheet and tell them the stars are badly aligned for a great noble if, for example, I rolled "death of lord".

HOWEVER, these results are not set in stone*. The dice might have told me that Kingdom A will launch a major incursion into Kingdom B next spring, but the PCs could stop it before it gets going -whether they meant to do it or not. Maybe they robbed a powerful marcher lord in Kingdom B, causing that kingdom's forces along the border to be alerted and in doing so, ruining the invasion plans of Kingdom A, whose plot depended on catching Kingdom B unaware. You can have a lot of fun with this as a GM and your players will be impressed, even if they know you planned it ahead of time, rather than being a master of improvisation.

* The best part of Return of the Jedi is where the Emperor, after spending much of the movie cackling about how he has foreseen his great victory, blah, blah, blah gets body-slammed to his death by his chief henchman.

Quote from: S'mon;964247Yeah, I was thinking though about the Great Events of the World rather than local stuff. It's like the difference between playing a plotted CRPG and playing a Total War game, nominally set at a particular point in history but diverging thereafter, even without player input. I really like that feel when I play the Total War series and it's generally what I go for in my RPGs.

Just thinking about Game of Thrones again, since I have the ASoIAF game (& your Dark Albion stuff might be useful, or better than the official RPG) but I struggle with the idea of PCs playing essentially smallfolk in the shadow of the book/TV metaplot. To free it up I really think it needs to have future events NOT fated to occur. Usually the best way to do that is dice rolls or similar randomiser I think. But I can imagine going with something like a declaration "Following the death of King Robert Baratheon, Hand of the King Eddard Stark has arrested Queen Cersei on charge of Treason and declared himself Lord Protector, plunging the Realm into Civil War..." - that would then force everyone into accepting the historical timeline was not in play.

Or thinking of Dark Albion, have you seen The Black Adder? In episode 1 of the original series, Richard's forces inflict a crushing defeat on Henry Tudor at Bosworth Field, but Richard himself dies in the battle and a new dynasty takes power.

Here's the thing: being an OSR game, social class is (by default) randomly determined in Albion. So it's unlikely that the PCs will have anyone sufficiently high up in class to be a major player. That's not what the timeline is for, really. It's specifically to allow for that sense of a 'virtual world', a world where shit happens that has fuck all to do with the PCs. Of course, they might be involved with some of it, or have some of it interfere with what they're involved in, and then it can go whatever way the PCs make it go.

But of course a GM could run a "nobles" game of Albion, where one, some or all of the PCs were members of important noble houses. And OBVIOUSLY in that campaign the PCs should have the ability to (within reason) affect historical events (and suffer the consequences of the ways they get involved too).

Quote from: RPGPundit;964597Here's the thing: being an OSR game, social class is (by default) randomly determined in Albion. So it's unlikely that the PCs will have anyone sufficiently high up in class to be a major player. That's not what the timeline is for, really. It's specifically to allow for that sense of a 'virtual world', a world where shit happens that has fuck all to do with the PCs. Of course, they might be involved with some of it, or have some of it interfere with what they're involved in, and then it can go whatever way the PCs make it go.

But of course a GM could run a "nobles" game of Albion, where one, some or all of the PCs were members of important noble houses. And OBVIOUSLY in that campaign the PCs should have the ability to (within reason) affect historical events (and suffer the consequences of the ways they get involved too).

Thanks, you make a good distinction. My only concern with an historical timeline smallfolk game is people googling it. I even feel this way a bit about GMing WW2.

Who said we're bound by the timeline in Dark Albion if we want to chuck it? After all, it's not like evil frogs really took over France or mystery elves were lurking in the hinterlands.  I look at timelines as "here's an idea of what may happen next," but don't find them binding or restrictive. Dark Albion veers off from reality anyway, so who cares what really happened in the Lancaster-York days?

Quote from: Dumarest;964656Who said we're bound by the timeline in Dark Albion if we want to chuck it? After all, it's not like evil frogs really took over France or mystery elves were lurking in the hinterlands.  I look at timelines as "here's an idea of what may happen next," but don't find them binding or restrictive. Dark Albion veers off from reality anyway, so who cares what really happened in the Lancaster-York days?

Yes, absolutely right!

Quote from: S'mon;964634Thanks, you make a good distinction. My only concern with an historical timeline smallfolk game is people googling it. I even feel this way a bit about GMing WW2.

You know, I run TONS of historical games, and this really isn't a big deal. Most of my players realize that its probably more interesting for them NOT to know what's going to happen, and for those who already do or who do bother to look it up, they do so more out of interest, and don't tend to metagame with it. The few times someone has, it was blatantly obvious and everyone called them on it.

Meanwhile, a good Historical-game GM will make a point of avoiding making the historical events so all-consumingly central that it controls the whole game. An important thing to remember when running an historical game is that like any other game, "plot" should be secondary to setting and to characters.  Fill the game with fascinating NPCs, both historical and invented, and make sure that's a central part of the play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;965010You know, I run TONS of historical games, and this really isn't a big deal. Most of my players realize that its probably more interesting for them NOT to know what's going to happen, and for those who already do or who do bother to look it up, they do so more out of interest, and don't tend to metagame with it. The few times someone has, it was blatantly obvious and everyone called them on it.

Meanwhile, a good Historical-game GM will make a point of avoiding making the historical events so all-consumingly central that it controls the whole game. An important thing to remember when running an historical game is that like any other game, "plot" should be secondary to setting and to characters.  Fill the game with fascinating NPCs, both historical and invented, and make sure that's a central part of the play.

Good advice, thanks. NPC-centric play always seems to work best for me.

Quote from: S'mon;965036Good advice, thanks. NPC-centric play always seems to work best for me.

The "Cast of Thousands" is a big key to effective world creation.