Here's an open question for you guys. When you're starting new PCs in a campaign, especially for a fantasy/sci-fi setting with a different geography than the earth, do you prefer to have the PCs be native to the campaign starting area, or travelers from somewhere else? What do you see as the ups or downs of either approach?
Generally I prefer to have the PCs be new to the area so that they learn about their environs along with the players; other side of the coin is it asks some questions about the other parts of the world where the PCs come from, which can be a good opportunity or extra work depending on how you look at it.
I'm cool either way. Although, I would prefer at least one PC to come from the starting geographical area as a way of mouth-piecing information about the local area; i.e., when the characters decide to speak to the old hermit outside the village, I can say to the native PC, "your character knows that old man Banger is a loony as a bat's penis."
I guess it makes more sense to make starting characters newcomers, to be able to discover the area from your character's eyes, though I do fancy playing people who are natives once I get familiar with the setting and want to play other characters and/or my original PC dies in the course of the game.
Quote from: Drohem;458445"your character knows that old man Banger is a loony as a bat's penis."
Wait til the specialist shows up to inspect said bat penis. Hey, Ron! How's it going, man? How's the brain damage doing these days? :D
Quote from: Drohem;458445I'm cool either way. Although, I would prefer at least one PC to come from the starting geographical area as a way of mouth-piecing information about the local area; i.e., when the characters decide to speak to the old hermit outside the village, I can say to the native PC, "your character knows that old man Banger is a loony as a bat's penis."
Hm. But might it not be more fun to have the players discover information like that as a surprise?
Quote from: Cole;458468Hm. But might it not be more fun to have the players discover information like that as a surprise?
Sure, that was just an example. :)
I guess what I am getting at is that I would like there to be at least one element of the group that is tied to, and somewhat familiar, with the starting area, cultural norms, and people.
Quote from: Drohem;458470I guess what I am getting at is that I would like there to be at least one element of the group that is tied to, and somewhat familiar, with the starting area, cultural norms, and people.
Here's another question for you guys - does your preference change depending on how exotic the setting is?
Quote from: Cole;458473Here's another question for you guys - does your preference change depending on how exotic the setting is?
Not really, no. Or ... maybe the reverse? I mean, if we're talking truly exotic settings like Tékumel or Talislanta or whatnot, then it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to play a native character right off the bat and reading some stuff about the setting to at least have an idea what you're doing, because pretty much everyone at the game table will have no idea what's going on anyways. See what I mean?
Depends partially on the campaign.
When I ran Forgotten Realms, for instance, I had one player who was a fan of the setting...so he was all about Cormyr, King Azoun, etc. (he was a Paladin in service to Azoun)...everyone else? I basically fed them relevant information as they needed it and they took the rest in stride.
I've done them both, in the same setting even. When AD&D was around, I did Ravenloft in the way it seemed it was set up to do - by yanking the characters in for a good scary time, then flinging them back across the Mists to where their girlfriend was yelling about them missing her birthday. Then when Third Edition came out I did what that one focused on, having characters from Ravenloft adventuring in Ravenloft. It was a little bit more claustrophobic, since they had no expectation that when the adventure was over they would be going home. Also I was able to make their brother into a zombie and have their best friend secretly be a cannibal harpy (in addition to humans she ate other harpies). Very memorable. Natives can be tied to the setting in ways that visitors can't be. But visitors feel free-r to experiment and explore around, and to upend the apple cart, since they don't have to worry about the long term consequences.
It depends on how well the PCs know the setting. In the Moragne game starting next week, the PCs are native to Moragne, but not to the area the campaign starts in, so I put together a primer for them on Moragne that covers the basics but they start off with minimal info about the actual location.
Primer's is here so you can see what I mean. (http://www.therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?p=21467#p21467)
Quote from: JDCorley;458511I've done them both, in the same setting even. When AD&D was around, I did Ravenloft in the way it seemed it was set up to do - by yanking the characters in for a good scary time, then flinging them back across the Mists to where their girlfriend was yelling about them missing her birthday. Then when Third Edition came out I did what that one focused on, having characters from Ravenloft adventuring in Ravenloft. It was a little bit more claustrophobic, since they had no expectation that when the adventure was over they would be going home. Also I was able to make their brother into a zombie and have their best friend secretly be a cannibal harpy (in addition to humans she ate other harpies). Very memorable. Natives can be tied to the setting in ways that visitors can't be. But visitors feel free-r to experiment and explore around, and to upend the apple cart, since they don't have to worry about the long term consequences.
That's yet another factor - whether they are native to the setting as a whole or just the locale. The last thing I ran something comparable to Ravenloft, all of the PCs came from quite disparate worlds.
For a couple years now I've been giving some thought to running the PCs as sort of psychic/dream visitors to an otherwise straightforward fantasy setting ala the Dreamlands or (loosely) Worm Ouroboros. I thought it might be interesting if instead of being from the modern world though, if they were basically historical knights and monks and so on in their "real" lives.
If the setting is really weird and the players don't know it, the best way to start the campaign is with them as visitors. If everyone is familiar with the setting, I think starting as natives makes more sense, since they won't have players knowing stuff that a visitor wouldn't know.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;458512It depends on how well the PCs know the setting. In the Moragne game starting next week, the PCs are native to Moragne, but not to the area the campaign starts in, so I put together a primer for them on Moragne that covers the basics but they start off with minimal info about the actual location.
Primer's is here so you can see what I mean. (http://www.therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?p=21467#p21467)
How long would the PCs have been in the campaign area at start? Long enough to start finding their place or fresh off the boat, as it were?
Quote from: Cole;458518How long would the PCs have been in the campaign area at start? Long enough to start finding their place or fresh off the boat, as it were?
I'm getting detailed backgrounds from them this week, so I'll make the judgment then, but my inclination is FOB since they're wandering knights. I've got hooks for them starting from day 1 they're in town.
Quote from: Cole;458444Here's an open question for you guys. When you're starting new PCs in a campaign, especially for a fantasy/sci-fi setting with a different geography than the earth, do you prefer to have the PCs be native to the campaign starting area, or travelers from somewhere else? What do you see as the ups or downs of either approach?
Generally I prefer to have the PCs be new to the area so that they learn about their environs along with the players; other side of the coin is it asks some questions about the other parts of the world where the PCs come from, which can be a good opportunity or extra work depending on how you look at it.
I'm not sure. I'd say I'm strongly biased towards "newcomers", but I have no problem with "native" PCs; then again, my campaigns do move around a lot, and exploration/discovery is a big deal for us, so today's native is tomorrow's newcomer. Not sure if I'm making any sense here.
Even when I run a campaign constrained to a given geographical area (e.g. almost all my World of Darkness games, my aborted "Ill-Met in Luskan" Forgotten Realms campaign), characters may be technically native to the area, but they'll be "newcomers" to the secrets of the setting (e.g. the intrigues of Elysium in Vampire, the monsters hiding among the masses in Hunter, or the ruins of Old Illusk and the cold war between the Five Captains and the Arcane Brotherhood in the FR game).
Quote from: Cole;458473Here's another question for you guys - does your preference change depending on how exotic the setting is?
Exotic settings may take some getting used to, and using "newcomer" PCs whose ignorance mirrors the players' is a cheap but honorable trick. Empire of the Petal Throne is the textbook example.
And of course, taking on a familiar setting, like modern-day Earth or a pseudo-Medieval European fantasy world, with a "newcomer" character (e.g. an alien stranded on Earth, or a modern-day Earth man transported to a fantasy world) is not as important as with "exotic" settings (assuming players are sufficiently genre-savvy), but it's a lot of fun, if the player's up to it. I'm playing a stranded 20th-Century Earth human in a D&D game right now, and loving it. Hell, I think everyone should try it sometime. :)
Oh, I should note that Oathbound was a D&D3 fantasy setting that was highly weird and intentionally unbalanced. The core story was that other fantasy characters were pulled to the world (called the Forge) where they would find themselves evolving as they advanced in power. The Big Powerz of the setting were essentially making demigods in order to save the multiverse from massive uberpowerful evil oblivion type stuff, and enjoying the cosmic-gladiator-style antics of the evil and good mortals growing in power and fighting each other. Pretty great. They recently released a new edition that's more compatible with Pathfinder.
Dungeon World did this too, but not in as detailed/weird a way.
Quote from: JDCorley;458523Oh, I should note that Oathbound was a D&D3 fantasy setting that was highly weird and intentionally unbalanced. The core story was that other fantasy characters were pulled to the world (called the Forge) where they would find themselves evolving as they advanced in power. The Big Powerz of the setting were essentially making demigods in order to save the multiverse from massive uberpowerful evil oblivion type stuff, and enjoying the cosmic-gladiator-style antics of the evil and good mortals growing in power and fighting each other. Pretty great. They recently released a new edition that's more compatible with Pathfinder.
Sounds interesting though I have to admit saving the world/universe is not a favored motif in fantasy gaming for me. How strictly built in is that aspect?
Quote from: JDCorley;458523Dungeon World did this too, but not in as detailed/weird a way.
You mean the one that's based on Apocalypse World? I didn't catch that but I've only seen the fairly brief downloadable PDF - was there a more expansive version?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;458521I'm getting detailed backgrounds from them this week, so I'll make the judgment then, but my inclination is FOB since they're wandering knights. I've got hooks for them starting from day 1 they're in town.
Cool - how do you address the part of the world they hail from in play?
No, Dungeon World was a Fast Forward Games production that was basically a world/ecosystem that was entirely a single gigantic megadungeon. Characters appeared there after they died in other campaigns/situations. It didn't turn out to be as cool as it sounded. There was actually a novel series in the 1980s that had a similar premise, can't remember it very clearly though.
As for Oathbound's "save the multiverse" thing, it really only comes in if you take your characters all the way up to the epic levels that the superbeings in charge of the setting are trying to farm. If you're "merely" level 18 or whatever, it's not relevant.
Quote from: Cole;458516For a couple years now I've been giving some thought to running the PCs as sort of psychic/dream visitors to an otherwise straightforward fantasy setting ala the Dreamlands or (loosely) Worm Ouroboros. I thought it might be interesting if instead of being from the modern world though, if they were basically historical knights and monks and so on in their "real" lives.
That sounds terrific.
Quote from: JDCorley;458528No, Dungeon World was a Fast Forward Games production that was basically a world/ecosystem that was entirely a single gigantic megadungeon. Characters appeared there after they died in other campaigns/situations. It didn't turn out to be as cool as it sounded. There was actually a novel series in the 1980s that had a similar premise, can't remember it very clearly though.
This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_series
GURPS Time Travel had a really interesting psychic projection scenario that was set in the 1920s and in a past time of your choice. You could definitely see a lot of cool ideas in it, especially when changes in one time frame began to affect the other, and also when unscrupulous persons in the present day also developed the same technique and used it for their own benefit.
Quote from: Cole;458534This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_series
Yep, that was it! Pretty uneven, though I liked the main dude.
Quote from: Benoist;458531That sounds terrific.
It's one of those things where I think many players might not buy into the concept, you know, maybe it might come off as a little precious. But I often think "is this a good fit for that concept" when I'm sketching out setting ideas.
Quote from: Cole;458527Cool - how do you address the part of the world they hail from in play?
I try to work it in as we go. If someone does or says something strange, I'll let the PCs know if it's a normal kind of expression or action, or if it's unusual.
I prefer natives. I like to play characters who have roots in the community and gives a damn about what's happening there.
It's certainly easier to have PCs come from outside the setting. However, some games encourage the oposite. Those with backgrounds that give you allies or group contacts or have skills that can get you contacts (liek the Sub-culture skills in Davedevils for example) encourage players to be from the area.
I find that a Player who puts a lot into their background makes a great 'local' you just ask them to help you build the location and build their ideas into it that was they are embedded. When I run an Amber Campaign for example a lot of the players want to do a lot of background so I get them to design castle Amber and the city. I basically take their idea for a tower as their 'quarters' or a tavern they frequent or a museum they founded and build that into the fabric of the city. If they want contact with a noble house then I let them design it then I build it into the game.
Amber is a particualr beast but I am happy to do that with any system. Basically, incorporate the Players ideas into the world which makes them feel like part of the world. In modern games if a guy has lived in Toyko and we are runnign the game in Toyko let them be the local.
Nothing spoils the flow of a game like the guy who is the local PC constantly asking questions about local geography and people. I am happy for the local guy to spin off this stuff, 'I know a tavern where ...' , 'the gaol is just down by the docks ..' etc I have rigth to veto all that of course and I know some folks who regard this as swinery and Story gaming or some such, but I feel if it embeds the PCs in the world and helps create immersion then roll with it.
Natives. The whole "we come from some faraway place" thing is just a cheap excuse for not having to actually play the culture.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;458698Natives. The whole "we come from some faraway place" thing is just a cheap excuse for not having to actually play the culture.
I call bullshit. An outsider interacting with an unfamiliar place is a staple of the adventure genre.
I can do either and usually leave it up to the players. Though for some games being outsiders can be fun.
Quote from: Cole;458700I call bullshit. An outsider interacting with an unfamiliar place is a staple of the adventure genre.
Then start them out in their own society first, so that they have a context and aren't just utter outsiders played without any emulative framework.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;458843Then start them out in their own society first, so that they have a context and aren't just utter outsiders played without any emulative framework.
Why is that necessary? If the GM wants to run a campaign in Oz, how many sessions do the PCs have to spend in Kansas for the game not to be a "cop-out?"
I am not saying it's always going to be a bad idea to do so - if the GM is going to run a campaign where the PCs are roman soldiers about to be sent to Britain it might be
enjoyable to have a session or two and Rome and play out the journey to Britain but I don't think it is a cheat not to do so.
Does it make a difference if the place where the campaign starts and the place the PCs come from are more or less culturally similar? What if we have a baseline Basic D&D setup where there is a village next to a large dungeon. If the PCs are new in town, they can meet the NPCs at the same time the players do, hear the local legends about the dungeon in "real time," etc. Is it still necessarily that they have their prequel session in 14th Century English Village A 50 miles away before they travel to face the dungeon next to 14th Century English Village B?
Quote from: Cole;458700I call bullshit. An outsider interacting with an unfamiliar place is a staple of the adventure genre.
By saying the word "genre" you have given yourself away as a swinish story infiltrator! Repent! Drink poison and sign a confession!
(Of course you are 100 percent right.)
Quote from: JDCorley;458995By saying the word "genre" you have given yourself away as a swinish story infiltrator! Repent! Drink poison and sign a confession!
(Of course you are 100 percent right.)
If you're going to troll, you'll have to wrestle Aos for it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;458843Then start them out in their own society first, so that they have a context and aren't just utter outsiders played without any emulative framework.
RPGPundit
What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Just like you extrapolate on your own personality and/or the personality of others to role play characters you are not, you extrapolate on what you know about your character's origins to come up with an implicit or explicit cultural frame of mind for him, even when you don't even realize it. I.e. if you come from 'Aegypt', chances are you'll be thinking about Epypt anywhere in the Akhenaton-Tut-Ramses time frame and come up with a character that vaguely reminds you and/or others of that. Even if we're just talking about a clan living in the hills in a fort with a wood fence or something, you need actually very little to get a mental picture of your character and role play from there.
So this notion that you just *have to* start a character in his region of origin otherwise "there's no emulative framework" does not make any sense whatsoever.
Quote from: Cole;458999If you're going to troll, you'll have to wrestle Aos for it.
Actually, in this thread, he'll have wrestle the pundit first.
Quote from: Aos;459007Actually, in this thread, he'll have wrestle the pundit first.
Cue the infamous Strek Trek fight music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AphxyjrH4SE)!
Quote from: RPGPundit;458843Then start them out in their own society first, so that they have a context and aren't just utter outsiders played without any emulative framework.
RPGPundit
Well, this is assuming that the GM has not provided any emulative framework for cultures and societies outside the starting region. If a sufficient framework for outside cultures has been provided, then I don't see any necessary reason to limit characters to the starting geographical region.
Quote from: Aos;459007Actually, in this thread, he'll have wrestle the pundit first.
They can line up.
Meanwhile, Aos, do you have any reflections on the subject vis a vis Metal Earth?
I am equally fond of doing things either way. However, human PCs are pretty much going to be outsiders, because they are nearly extinct in the regions I've detailed. I'm also open to having characters drop in from another time or place like Den, John Carter or Dorothy. I agree that it allows the player to learn the setting along with character. In fact i might even suggest that if it is a setting that you plan on reusing, or you game has a high mortality rate, that you make everyone's first character an outsider and wait until they learn the basics about the setting before they play an insider.
It depends on how involved the player is going to be. If they are willing to read the setting material, I like insiders. Also, as GM, I won't let player characters do something that their characters wouldn't do without telling them.
Player says, "I run the red light."
GM says, "On Earth 323, traffic violations are punishable by death."
Player says, "Oh, I guess I won't run the red light."
Quote from: Cole;458986Why is that necessary? If the GM wants to run a campaign in Oz, how many sessions do the PCs have to spend in Kansas for the game not to be a "cop-out?"
I am not saying it's always going to be a bad idea to do so - if the GM is going to run a campaign where the PCs are roman soldiers about to be sent to Britain it might be enjoyable to have a session or two and Rome and play out the journey to Britain but I don't think it is a cheat not to do so.
Does it make a difference if the place where the campaign starts and the place the PCs come from are more or less culturally similar? What if we have a baseline Basic D&D setup where there is a village next to a large dungeon. If the PCs are new in town, they can meet the NPCs at the same time the players do, hear the local legends about the dungeon in "real time," etc. Is it still necessarily that they have their prequel session in 14th Century English Village A 50 miles away before they travel to face the dungeon next to 14th Century English Village B?
Of course not, don't be silly. My point is that often the whole "you are guys from a bog-standard fantasy setting, but we start out in this weird alien culture you don't actually need to know anything about" is the gaming equivalent of "tl;dr"; the GM being too lazy to want to explain the cultural context and the players being too lazy to learn about it; so they just want to be Greyhawk characters in Tekumel or whatever. It is too often a way for player characters to avoid having to follow cultural mores.
RPGPundit
I give up. The serial assumptions are too much to bear. It would require a ten pages back and forth to go over this, and I just don't feel like doing the paddling myself.
Quote from: RPGPundit;459091Of course not, don't be silly. My point is that often the whole "you are guys from a bog-standard fantasy setting, but we start out in this weird alien culture you don't actually need to know anything about" is the gaming equivalent of "tl;dr"; the GM being too lazy to want to explain the cultural context and the players being too lazy to learn about it; so they just want to be Greyhawk characters in Tekumel or whatever. It is too often a way for player characters to avoid having to follow cultural mores.
I am not that familiar with Tekumel itself but isnt the starting premise of Empire of the Petal Throne that you are barbarians fresh off the boat? I don't really see why "From Greyhawk, In Tekumel" is all that different from "From Kansas, In Oz." If the point of campaign is to travel around in a weird alien culture, why is it
better to have learn about through a homework assignment than just find out about it through play, as the PCs do? Or doeswhether it's okay or not depends on if everyone is pure in their hearts about their intention?
Quote from: Benoist;459097I give up. The serial assumptions are too much to bear. It would require a ten pages back and forth to go over this, and I just don't feel like doing the paddling myself.
Serial assumptions? I don't understand.
Quote from: Cole;459100Serial assumptions? I don't understand.
Pundit is making a whole series of assumptions about the setting being played, the reasons behind the choices to play the campaign and introduce characters this or that way. And from there he draws a series of conclusions (i.e. it's laziness). This is what I call the "serial assumptions". It'd take ten pages to go through it and honestly, I don't really want to bother, because it's obviously very silly, and I suspect he already knows better than this. So it's pointless.
Quote from: Benoist;459106Pundit is making a whole series of assumptions about the setting being played, the reasons behind the choices to play the campaign and introduce characters this or that way. And from there he draws a series of conclusions (i.e. it's laziness). This is what I call the "serial assumptions". It'd take ten pages to go through it and honestly, I don't really want to bother, because it's obviously very silly, and I suspect he already knows better than this. So it's pointless.
Sorry to hear.
For my part, I have tried to phrase the question as broadly as possible so that people could look at a bunch of related topics - whether it's PCs are in the next village vs. PCs are in oz; and the difference between.
Quote from: Cole;459111Sorry to hear.
It's not about the thread as a whole, or you. I'm sorry if I come off as cranky right now. I'm sick since this afternoon, and my patience is wearing thin. I'm happy to go on talking, if you want to. I just won't address Pundit's 'argument'.
My players are lazy bastards.
Quote from: Benoist;459119It's not about the thread as a whole, or you. I'm sorry if I come off as cranky right now. I'm sick since this afternoon, and my patience is wearing thin. I'm happy to go on talking, if you want to. I just won't address Pundit's 'argument'.
It's okay. Don't worry about it.
Quote from: Aos;459124My players are lazy bastards.
What impact does that have on how you present them with setting?
Quote from: Cole;459138It's okay. Don't worry about it.
What impact does that have on how you present them with setting?
I use cartoons.
For my Earth Zero supers game: a fucking (chemically enhanced) marathon of
Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes, Followed by, "Kind of like that, mashed with Hellboy comics, and old Jack Kirby stuff," and we were off.
The Metal Earth is actually kind of easier because there has been some independent interest and they've both read stuff and asked a lot of questions. Really, though, that is a first and I'm not sure what got them going.
Also, I do a lot of (rushed and half assed) drawings of stuff, which i introduce during the course of play. I almost wish I'd never stated on that though, because although they really appreciate it, they also expect it and are disappointed when I don't come through (I'm working on some drawings for Monday's ICONS game between posts tonight).