Quote from: JesterRaiin;905782I envy you guys. And I really mean that - it's not that I'm thinking to myself "HA! HA! LOOK AT ALL THOSE PLEBEIANS WHO ENJOY THIS SILLY STUFF!"

See, you already discuss deeper aspects of the mechanics and argue about stuff that looks quite interesting, while I'm stuck somewhere on pages #20-25 and I can't force myself to read any further. Why? Well...

The greatest difference between Therah and Europe? Diversity! Gender equality! Not magic, not difference in religions, history and even landmass. It's diversity and gender equality. Precious.

GM is once again addressed as "she", even if - I'm quite sure about that - the number of female GMs is quite low, FAR lower than female players and it produces a glitch in my brain each time I see it. Forced inclusivity, much?

I didn't know 7th Sea's setting so I approached it with fresh mind, but I don't like what I'm seeing. First, there's Avalon... Christ almighty, weren't there any other way to introduce the land of faeries or whatever elves inhabits these parts? Speaking of what. Graal? Wait, what? Graal as in "the Grail"? So Jesus lived here? And was crucified too? By whom and why? The crucifixion is a result of long chain of events involving ancient empires, Jewish tradition... It's confusing.

But ok, let's read a bit further. Who are people inhabiting these parts... I see fantasy equivalents of Spaniards, Brits, Germans... Stuck on a different landmass. Why? What for? Wouldn't it be easier to simply use same approach as Warhammer or Dark Albion and simply leave nations where they originally belong?

Ok, I don't get this setting.

...

No, thanks. I don't get this crap. I'd rather play alternative-Earth (as presented by Pundit's Albion), or fantasy influenced by Earth (A Song of Fire & Ice, Warhammer)

Yet I understand this game will be highly popular - and I envy you all who can see past these transgressions and enjoy playing it. Oh well...

With gamers' propensity for customizing any game to suit their tabletop needs, I'm surprised any kind of setting is an issue. I mean, I ran Pendragon in an imaginary England-France/ for Pete's sake.

Quote from: Bren;905816And taking the opportunity costs 1 raise, right?

Yes.

QuoteNow let me see if I followed this. So assuming the player wants/needs to climb the wall, she has two choices: Fast and Quiet or Safe and A Little Noisy.

Fast and Quiet
Climb wall [1 raise], + don’t slip and fall, [1 raise], +opportunity: fast climb [1 raise]. No raises remain so he takes damage [2 wounds].

Safe and A Little Noisy
Climb wall [1 raise], avoid sharp and jagged rocks [2 raises]. No raises remain so “ancient stone crumbles under your weight” [he alerts the guards].

That sounds about right.

QuoteTo expand on your example:

• A character with only 1 raise would be stuck with a slow climb and both consequences or not going up the wall because the stones look too crumbly and jagged.
• A character with 4 raises could make the climb [1 raise], avoid alerting the guards [1 raise]m and avoid damage [2 raises]. But he would not be able to take advantage of the opportunity so his climb is quiet, safe, but slow.
• A character with 6 raises is awesome and can climb the wall, really fast, while making no noise, and taking no damage, right?

Yes. Yes. and Yes.

edit: Well, a character with one raise could still climb the wall, but they would take 2 wounds (jagged rocks) and alert the guards (slip and fall).  

Also, assuming it's a one roll Risk, they could CHOOSE to fail, in which case, they slip, take 2 wounds, alert the guards, and do not make it up the wall, but get a Hero Point for their trouble.  BUT they have to choose to do that before they roll any dice.  It can't be, "I got 1 raise, so I'll fail and take the Hero Point instead."

The only rule is consequences ≠ failure.  So you can't make a consequence of "you fall to your death."  You've spent a raise to do that already.  But consequences can make it harder and opportunities can give you cool stuff.

Now, here's the part that makes this a lot of FUN.  If one of the other players has enough raises, he might be able to turn misfortune into opportunity.  So if one player slips and alerts the guards, player B might take advantage of the opportunity to get up the wall faster and sneak up behind the distracted guards.  It might cost him a raise or 2 depending on his approach (If you attempt to do something that is not covered by your approach, it costs 2 raises instead of 1 to do it.) but that would be a possibility.  In fact, it might be worth it for a player to actively choose to slip and alert the guards to make this happen.  Not all of the players have to take advantage of the opportunity, or suffer the same consequences.  And the consequences serve to build on the tension of the story.

Tom

Quote from: Bren;905818That's a great post. It would make a good blog article.

Hmmmm…I think I'll do that.  I still have a few spots in July that need to be filled.  Hooray for productive spouse/kid-free weekends!

Oh, and in case its unclear or confusing, the GM determines and states what the consequences of any action are.  The players only get to choose which of those they are going to avoid or suffer depending on the number of raises they roll.  At no point do the players get to dictate what the consequences of an action are.  The players do not get to say, "The consequences of climbing the wall for my character might be X, Y, or Z."  And the GM can lay as many consequences in their path as he or she chooses.  2-3 is given as a good benchmark, but a really treacherous Risk might have upwards of 5 consequences.  I just don't want anyone getting the wrong idea and thinking, why wouldn't the players just throw out some really simple consequences that really don't amount to anything, or thinking the players get to usurp the game narrative from the GM when they want to.  7th Sea doesn't work that way.

Now here is where that really stilted probability curve of the dice mechanic comes in handy.  Since you can usually expect the player to roll 1 raise for every two dice in the pool, you have a good idea how many consequences its going to take to make things risky.  If the player has a dice pool of 6, you know you want to throw out 3 consequences if an opportunity is going to mean anything.  But all of the players in a group task (like climbing the wall or running through a burning room) face the same consequences.

Quote from: Blusponge;905815And frankly, if seeing the "GM" referred to as "she" sends you running for statistical models and demographics, that's your own bugbear to deal with.

...and I assure you, I'm not claiming it isn't.

QuoteI STOPPED CARING AND LEARNED TO LOVE DIVERSITY IN RPGS.

That's a nice story. Heartwarming, to say the least. Good job, man!

...and just for the sake of clarity: I have no problem with players'/PCs' skin color, sex, religion, etc, etc, as long as diversity/equality/something isn't forced by the setting or rules. If authors take the time to explain me that I should pay extra attention to the topic, because it's current year or something, then I feel inclined to shave half of my head to the naked skin, dye the rest of my hair green, scream about being triggered (on my .tumblr) and demand for people to sponsor my Patreon project.

...That's... that's proper reaction, right?

Quote from: Bren;905816just like Warhammer Fantasy does

Don't focus on this single thing, Bren.

While I can discuss deep aspects of WHFRP's lore, I'm not experienced with 7th Sea enough (obviously) to make proper comparison. So far, it seems to me that the latter borrows certain key elements and aspects from our world and its history. Their choice dictates that it should be better to simply use our world, rather than use such tricks as changing the names of nations and calling it a day.

Don't get me wrong: I realize it's probably a good game and plenty of people will like it. I'm not one of them.

I'm open to play this game if one of my buddies (preferably the one that backed its KS and borrowed me the book) organizes it, but so far it's not my cup of tea.

QuoteThat's... that's proper reaction, right?

Hey, I can't tell you the answer to that, but I can say aside from some somantics, I think we're on the same page. I want the game setting to maximize my possibilities and the rules support me telling the stories I want to tell.

I don't need the author to preach to me why I'm a horrible person because I'm not X, Y, or Z, just as the author isn't a horrible person for doing so. If I'm running a game you wrote, its MY game from that point on and you can butt out, thank you, unless I ask you something. . And that applies if your name is Gary Gygax, Henry Lopez, or John Wick. And for the record, not a single one of those folks have ever told me I wasn't presenting a setting they created correctly. I wouldn't really know what to say to someone who did.

So, I finally broke down and bought the damn thing. I figured that at the very least I could use the new material in any future remixes I make of the setting, with or without the 2e rules.

Some initial reactions:

- The character advancement system is entirely based around players writing their own multi-step quests, then imposing them on the GM, who has to figure out how to weave all that together with a central narrative while also constantly thinking up roll consequences and other improv the system demands. Just imagine trying to make that work with a group of five PCs or more.  

- Bitterly disappointed in Hexenwerk sorcery. Out of 20 powers, only 4 have any use at all in a campaign that doesn't revolve around undead. Everything else damages, neutralizes, weakens, mitigates, takes control of or otherwise interacts with hostile undead. If you want to play a Hexenwerk sorcerer in a game where hunting undead isn't THE core focus you're shit out of luck aside from the occasional bone the GM might throw you (shades of the ranger's 'favored enemy' from D&D). Add this to the fact that it doesn't really fit with the swashbuckling ethos to begin with and you've got a real dud. Such a waste.

- The new Sanderis sorcery grants a starting character the ability to destroy a city or do "anything" of a similar level in exchange for a growing risk of turning into a villain NPC and a 'favor' (an evil quest that ensures the sorcerer gets to hog the spotlight even more for a while and almost certainly increases his chances of turning into an NPC)... wow. Like, you know how the Deck of Many Things is known for either doing nothing or totally wrecking D&D campaigns? This is a starting character ability that anyone can pick and almost nothing relevant can counter.

- The art is indeed quite pretty.

I think I'm going to regret this purchase.

Sympathies, Shipyard, I absolutely hate it when it happens to me.

I dunno, I kinda like a ruthlessly diverse game book. It inspires me to run it as the worst sort of raciss, sexiss, homophobisss game I can manage.

Which honestly probably isn't very much of any of those three, but rather like writing the great american novel of the century is more fun to imagine than to do.  Like... making my players play the inverse. So the black gay dude has to play a white racist or something, while all the white dudes have to play women of color who are horrifically oppressed, and the girls have to play patriarchs and do all this oppression...


Because hey: its a game, right?

Of course, to do it right, I, as the GM, would have no ability to do anything at all.  Now, how to actually pull it off? Because: Diversity! or Roleplaying! or something.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905868- The character advancement system is entirely based around players writing their own multi-step quests, then imposing them on the GM, who has to figure out how to weave all that together with a central narrative while also constantly thinking up roll consequences and other improv the system demands. Just imagine trying to make that work with a group of five PCs or more.  

You're killing me, Shipyard.  You just took one of my favorite parts of the game and painted it as a big, fat wart.  I have a blog post coming up on this one, but I think there is a lot you can do with this.

Quote- Bitterly disappointed in Hexenwerk sorcery. Out of 20 powers, only 4 have any use at all in a campaign that doesn't revolve around undead. Everything else damages, neutralizes, weakens, mitigates, takes control of or otherwise interacts with hostile undead. If you want to play a Hexenwerk sorcerer in a game where hunting undead isn't THE core focus you're shit out of luck aside from the occasional bone the GM might throw you (shades of the ranger's 'favored enemy' from D&D). Add this to the fact that it doesn't really fit with the swashbuckling ethos to begin with and you've got a real dud. Such a waste.

I really don't want to go for snark here but...how is necromancy revolving around the undead a surprise.  (To be fair, a lot of folks have talked about houseruling Hexenwerk to apply to all monsters, which seems reasonable to me.)

Quote- The new Sanderis sorcery grants a starting character the ability to destroy a city or do "anything" of a similar level in exchange for a growing risk of turning into a villain NPC and a 'favor' (an evil quest that ensures the sorcerer gets to hog the spotlight even more for a while and almost certainly increases his chances of turning into an NPC)... wow. Like, you know how the Deck of Many Things is known for either doing nothing or totally wrecking D&D campaigns? This is a starting character ability that anyone can pick and almost nothing relevant can counter.

Whoa there, Tex.  The *starting* character abilities are the minor favors.  Sure you can ask for a Major favor, but as you've pointed out, those aren't to be taken lightly.  But seeing as the GM sets the parameters of the deal, I fail to see how its so game breaking?  Especially since corruption is likely to be involved.

QuoteI think I'm going to regret this purchase.

...sorry?  I dunno, dude.  I'd suggest giving it a game or two before setting it aside in disappointment.  But then, I've been in your shoes too.  So...

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905868So, I finally broke down and bought the damn thing. I figured that at the very least I could use the new material in any future remixes I make of the setting, with or without the 2e rules.

Some initial reactions:

- The character advancement system is entirely based around players writing their own multi-step quests, then imposing them on the GM, who has to figure out how to weave all that together with a central narrative while also constantly thinking up roll consequences and other improv the system demands. Just imagine trying to make that work with a group of five PCs or more.  

- Bitterly disappointed in Hexenwerk sorcery. Out of 20 powers, only 4 have any use at all in a campaign that doesn't revolve around undead. Everything else damages, neutralizes, weakens, mitigates, takes control of or otherwise interacts with hostile undead. If you want to play a Hexenwerk sorcerer in a game where hunting undead isn't THE core focus you're shit out of luck aside from the occasional bone the GM might throw you (shades of the ranger's 'favored enemy' from D&D). Add this to the fact that it doesn't really fit with the swashbuckling ethos to begin with and you've got a real dud. Such a waste.

- The new Sanderis sorcery grants a starting character the ability to destroy a city or do "anything" of a similar level in exchange for a growing risk of turning into a villain NPC and a 'favor' (an evil quest that ensures the sorcerer gets to hog the spotlight even more for a while and almost certainly increases his chances of turning into an NPC)... wow. Like, you know how the Deck of Many Things is known for either doing nothing or totally wrecking D&D campaigns? This is a starting character ability that anyone can pick and almost nothing relevant can counter.

- The art is indeed quite pretty.

I think I'm going to regret this purchase.

Yeah, 7th Sea sorcery was always very specialized, but some forms are better than others.  Porte is very specialized, but more useful than Hexenwerk.  And then there's the fact that some forms are just better (or better playtested) than others.  Sanderis is open-ended in a way that most of the other forms are not.

JG

Wow. The more I have read about this KS, the Conan RPG KS, and the Savage Rifts KS, the more grateful I am to have dodged all three of them. The money can be tossed, but who needs this much disappointment?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905782The greatest difference between Therah and Europe? Diversity! Gender equality! Not magic, not difference in religions, history and even landmass. It's diversity and gender equality. Precious.

I'm going Devil's Advocate here.

Wick is selling to an audience looking for Pirates of the Caribbean, not a history sim. Also, he's a darling of the storygame crowd so he's instantly scoring points with core customers. I can't completely argue with an author pandering to fill his pockets.  

But beyond ignoring race and gender, how much does Wick shit SJW juice over his setting?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905782GM is once again addressed as "she",

LMFAO. That's precious. Hopefully he got his wick dipped for that one.

Again, maybe Wick knows he's gonna score hot sweaty convention nookie by going all She-GM as he travels the country promoting 7th Sea 2e.

Men have done far stranger things for sex or social approval.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905782Ok, I don't get this setting.

Your thoughts on the world map was the #1 complaint I remember among 7e 1e fans. Several GMs I knew just switched out for the real Europe map.

There are several online.
http://theloneamigo.deviantart.com/art/Alternate-Europe-Map-for-Theah-102873293

Quote from: Spinachcat;905924Wick is selling to an audience looking for Pirates of the Caribbean, not a history sim. Also, he's a darling of the storygame crowd so he's instantly scoring points with core customers. I can't completely argue with an author pandering to fill his pockets.  

But beyond ignoring race and gender, how much does Wick shit SJW juice over his setting?

Well, I can't say - I stopped reading only a few pages later. Not because there's diversity/equality, mind you, but because there's what I perceive as confusing setting AND diversity/equality, what translates to "I thought way to much about .tumblr audience, while I should focus my creativity on making the setting the best thing ever, signed: the author". I don't like such an approach and since I value my time and have truckloads of other books/games to read...

Still, that's me and only me. It might be that there are absolutely NO pro "political correctness terrorism" injections later on.

QuoteLMFAO

The biggest problem in this is that as a non-native English speaker I get "syntax error" message each time I see it.

It's like:

- the book: "the GM is free to...(this and that)"
- me: ok, reasonable
- the book: "she might..."
- me: wait, who?
- the book: " the GM..."
- me: ummm... ah, I get it now, the Game Master. Who is a female. It's like... Game Mistress? Ok, everyone, let's welcome the image of latex, high heels, "today's safe word is...", and... Oh snap, where were we?
- the book: "I tried to tell you that GM, who is "she" is free to..."
- me: ...latex...

Every-friggin'-time.

In my defense, if asked about "mistress", Google images respond with pictures and photos like this one:



...so I dunno, perhaps it's not that I'm in the minority when I connect "mistress" with sexual themes. You be the judge.

QuoteYour thoughts on the world map was the #1 complaint I remember among 7e 1e fans. Several GMs I knew just switched out for the real Europe map.

So once again, not alone in my complaints. :cool:

I wonder what was the idea behind doing it the way they did.

"Oh, let's twist the coast line a bit, people - who are supposed to spend countless hours playing as Spaniards (who aren't called Spaniards, and therefore it's obvious they are FANTASY Spaniards) - aren't gonna mind"?

Quote from: Blusponge;905900You're killing me, Shipyard.  You just took one of my favorite parts of the game and painted it as a big, fat wart.  I have a blog post coming up on this one, but I think there is a lot you can do with this.

It's just one of those things that screams, "Nice and liberating on paper, an exhausting distraction of a chore when you have to do it for five people session after session after session..."

Picture this: As the GM you have prepped to make your 'jolly time in the salons of not-France trying to corner the master thief' campaign as richly detailed as possible. You have put time and effort into getting key locations, scenes and NPCs right. Then the players turn up with the following 'stories' (more or less)...
... A not-Frenchman who needs to return to not-Germany to hunt down and kill the monster that killed his brother during the war.
... A not-Frenchman who needs to organize and lead a peasant revolt.
... A not-Spaniard who needs to sail off and find the treasure of the far-away cannibal island his father never did.
... A not-Russian who needs to learn a final lesson from his missing master somewhere in the icy wilds of his distant country.
... A not-Pole super wizard who needs to get revenge on the emperor's family.

Good luck delivering on these stories in any timely or satisfying manner. And remember, once a story is complete enough new ones appear in the middle of whatever else you're doing. Also, these stories are the replacement for XP, the most important motivator in any RPG, so the players are going to be quite insistent on getting them done pronto. Quite insistent.

Now you could argue the GM has a duty to restrict the XP 'stories' to what will fit his campaign, but then aren't you defeating some of the purpose of this 'brilliant' mechanic? Then you're just narrowing them down to a limited range of "Plots I was probably going to do as GM anyway". What's the point then?

Quote from: Blusponge;905900I really don't want to go for snark here but…how is necromancy revolving around the undead a surprise.

You would have a point if these were active, flexible powers revolving around the use of undead.
But read what I wrote again, then look in the book and read the Hexenwerk powers one by one. The problem is that 16 out of 20 abilities are mainly REACTIVE.
- This ability helps you deal more damage to undead... that are attacking you.
- This ability instantly kills undead... that are attacking you.
- This ability poisons undead... that are attacking you.
- This ability makes sure a corpse does not come back to life... and attack you.
- This ability heals a wound! But only a wound inflicted by an undead creature... that, of course, was attacking you.
- This ability takes control of undead for a short time... probably to stop them from attacking you and make them attack something else that is attacking you.

Etc. The trouble is unless you are spending sessions actively seeking out zombies and ghosts to react to with these powers, they are dead (heh!) options. You will soon wish you had picked something else whenever the campaign centers around, oh I don't know, masked balls, carriage chases, duels on rooftops, seduction scenes, ship-to-ship combat, intrigue against cardinals... Again, why is there a "battle zombie hordes on a frequent basis" character type in the middle of the swashbuckling Europe game? John Wick apparently removed most of the magic plate armor of Dracheneisen from not-Germany because it was a pandering out-of-genre imposition on his vision of the setting in 1st ed... then replaced it with this!?

Quote from: Blusponge;905900Whoa there, Tex.  The *starting* character abilities are the minor favors.  Sure you can ask for a Major favor, but as you've pointed out, those aren't to be taken lightly.  But seeing as the GM sets the parameters of the deal, I fail to see how its so game breaking?  Especially since corruption is likely to be involved.

Let's be realistic. When a player takes Sanderis, this Polish super magic, four times out of five it will be for the allure of having a nuclear button / Wish spell at his disposal right from the get go. The really nice 'minor' favors (which are often stronger and more flexible than what several other sorceries offer) are just awesome icing on the cake.

Go back up this post and look at the example stories I provided. Notice the not-Polish super wizard who needs to get revenge against the emperor's family? He is going to be sorely tempted to solve this problem (and more importantly get his character advancement) by unleashing an ultra-tornado or invincible fire godzilla on the setting. Or perhaps put the emperor in an inescapable coma that cannot be prevented without even having to look at him. Now remember, he could hit that nuke/wish button at any time, up-ending the world and all those stories you were trying to cater to in the process, then forcing you to deal with a new 'quest' for that player to pay back his wish. At least that one the GM gets to dictate.

So what if there's a small chance of turning into a villain NPC, thereby throwing yet another huge wrench into any attempt to maintain some semblance of a coherent campaign? Lots of players live for that kind of brush with raw power, that kind of risk, that kind of attention. It's an "everyone look at me!" button. What a great gaming story that will make later, forgetting how the campaign fell apart shortly afterward due to GM burn-out.

And again, what does Dr. Manhattan have to do with swashbuckling as most people understand it!?

Quote from: Blusponge;905900…sorry?  I dunno, dude.  I'd suggest giving it a game or two before setting it aside in disappointment.  But then, I've been in your shoes too.  So...

I'm going to read more and think about it, but we're not off to a good start.

By the way, I've seen you writing about this game in more than one venue, and you're often one of its first defenders despite your own skepticism. As you've said, it's "outside of your comfort zone". Do you worry that perhaps you are a bit emotionally invested in this 2nd edition working and that's affecting how you perceive it?

Would not this....

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905868S- The character advancement system is entirely based around players writing their own multi-step quests, then imposing them on the GM, who has to figure out how to weave all that together with a central narrative while also constantly thinking up roll consequences and other improv the system demands. Just imagine trying to make that work with a group of five PCs or more.

...be the intended solution to this...

QuoteIf you want to play a Hexenwerk sorcerer in a game where hunting undead isn't THE core focus you're shit out of luck aside from the occasional bone the GM might throw you (shades of the ranger's 'favored enemy' from D&D).

QuoteAdd this to the fact that it doesn't really fit with the swashbuckling ethos to begin with and you've got a real dud. Such a waste.

I can tell you've never seen Captain Kronos – Vampire Hunter.

Quote... wow. Like, you know how the Deck of Many Things is known for either doing nothing or totally wrecking D&D campaigns?

Huh. I did not know that. Back in the day the Deck of Many Things seemed really random and gonzo, but that fits campaigns like the one run by Zak who plays with porn stars or some of the things Pundit runs. I prefer a lot less of the gonzo in my games, but tastes do differ.

I'm sorry you were disappointed with your purchase. Truly.

Me, I haven't bought it. If I'm going to run a pastiche (and so far I'm not), it seems easy to invent the setting myself. I don't get all the enthusiasm for 7th Sea, but then I don't get the enthusiasm for lots of games people like...yes FATE, World of Darkness, and Warhammer I'm thinking of you. But I'm perfectly happy to steal stuff from 7th Sea that I like. The nice thing about pastiche is that I can back translate it to the real world to use in my preferred swashbuckling setting. And Tom/Blusponge often writes about something I can use in my setting.

Quote- The art is indeed quite pretty.

Yes it is pretty. I've stolen and used several pieces from the old 7th Sea. I'm sure I'll grab some from the new as well.

Quote from: Spinachcat;905924Wick is selling to an audience looking for Pirates of the Caribbean, not a history sim.

I think you nailed the appeal.

QuoteYour thoughts on the world map was the #1 complaint I remember among 7e 1e fans. Several GMs I knew just switched out for the real Europe map.

It always seemed odd to me that in a game called, 7th Sea, the core game map showed only parts of 2 seas.

QuoteThere are several online.
http://theloneamigo.deviantart.com/art/Alternate-Europe-Map-for-Theah-102873293

Yeah, a map like that would be more appealing to me. But then I'd end up wanting to use real mountain ranges, and rivers, and lakes and stuff and now I'm having to do research and be accurate and stuff just like with the  not pastiche historically fictional real world I am running. Pastiche is nice and appeals both to my creativity and my laziness because I could put anything I want and can halfway explain anywhere I want to put it and that is way easier and less time consuming than understanding real geography. Which is why guys like Robert E. Howard did pastiche.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905930Picture this: As the GM you have prepped to make your 'jolly time in the salons of not-France trying to corner the master thief' campaign as richly detailed as possible. You have put time and effort into getting key locations, scenes and NPCs right. Then the players turn up with the following 'stories' (more or less)...
... A not-Frenchman who needs to return to not-Germany to hunt down and kill the monster that killed his brother during the war.
... A not-Frenchman who needs to organize and lead a peasant revolt.
... A not-Spaniard who needs to sail off and find the treasure of the far-away cannibal island his father never did.
... A not-Russian who needs to learn a final lesson from his missing master somewhere in the icy wilds of his distant country.
... A not-Pole super wizard who needs to get revenge on the emperor's family.

I agree.

A GM who does extensive setting prep creating a richly detailed but narrowly focused campaign with specific key locations, scenes and NPCs without talking to his players who then allows or even encourages those players to show up with five independently created narrowly focused campaign ideas, and who then tries to quickly integrate those five foci with his one focus all by himself is asking for headaches.

:confused: So maybe don't try to do both those things in the same campaign?