Worldbuilding

[Carthrat]

I haven't read Eberron, though I have read Faerun, and... I know Faerun does have outright plot hooks and ideas given to you in the margins (just read the 3.0 book, it literally has example plots players can use.)

There are plenty of pre-existing conflicts set up between existing factions, various nations have problems they're dealing with, a lot of stuff is shown or implied and it's generally easy to figure out a way players can get involved. It IS a kitchen-sink of a setting, no mistake, but I can't actually see the functional difference between them based on the arguments presented here, if Eberron contains the same sort of things.

[Carthrat]

However I'd like to bring up another rant on worldbuilding since the thread is open again.

A lot of games have an implied power scale on which characters sit somewhere. In some games the distances don't actually get that far apart (a lot of modern systems where you play normal humans, for example). In other games it is all over the place, like D&D, Exalted, etc. What I think more settings need to do- and don't do- is represent the impact having people all over this spectrum would have.

Generally, the games that handle this the best are the ones that seem to be built around the whole idea of having power. Exalted springs to mind; the entire game is based on you being magnitudes more potent than the general public, and it reflects across the way the entire world has developed. The current ruling caste is simply terrified at the resurgence of the older, stronger caste; you literally can't hold any real power without being one of these guys, or at least having one in your pocket. These guys are so powerful- and use that power- local concerns revolve around them, just as they would revolve around a local natural disaster, or the like. Certainly it's not perfect, Exalted has numerous problems that you must ignore (CLAIRVOYANT STAR NINJA DEATH SQUADS!!1/UNBEATABLE UNDEAD OVERLORDS!!!) but the point is that the whole game is meant to be about powerful people and how the world reacts to them.

I like to compare this to the mass-market D&D settings, because they always seem to imply that the default campaign is a bunch of yahoos going from level 1-20. But in any world where really powerful people exist- and in significant numbers- it is always they who will hold sway over the masses, yet this is never really emphasized in those games. Not to mention the entire conceit of adventurers in the first place- how are there still even dungeons to explore, in sufficient quantities for these guys to do so? And why is it even a sane profession- seriously, you're going out into a world, at tiny levels, where just about everything out there can kick your ass, and this remains true right up into the middle of the game. The world just doesn't seem to encourage the behaviour that the PCs are supposed to get up to in the 'default' style of play, and they require a kind of lenience to survive and thrive. (While I DO think Faerun, for example, has merit as a setting, I don't ever want to run that kind of slow-progress game in it, or any D&D-style world; I've just never seen a setting where it makes any kind of sense.)

But obviously a lot of people have no problem with this. I'm curious, though, how do you go about making a world- rather than an individual situation- where that kind of progress is possible? I guess there's a certain 'PCs are special' thing going, which I actually think is okay, but I don't see the 'adventurer culture' that they all seem to hype having much possibility in itself.

tldr; how do your gameworlds account for the only people of significance also being those of great personal power whilst retaining their integrity

[Ebiris]

This pertains to Glaring Fate and could be seen as somewhat spoilery, but really no more than having read the Faerun book before playing an FR game, so I don't mind if my players read.

The central theme of the setting is Civilisation, the world being heavily inspired by the real world of the 18th century, when nationalism and colonialism were big things. The continent the players are starting on is basically Europe, with numerous powerful nation states and heavy trade/diplomacy between them. The first thing to realise here is that many people acting in concert on the same agenda can have a far more lasting impact on the world than a single powerful visionary - for a crass comparison, look at say the British or Roman Empire next to the Mongol Horde, the former had infrastructure, interdependencies, and an emphasis on cultural unity, while the latter was powerful dudes running amock.

In general, even the extremely powerful individuals have to work within the system to get what they want - if an archmage in nation A suddenly ganks the king/dissolves the senate and summons a horde of demons/undead to bolster his control over the populace in addition to magically compelling the nobles, he's going to instantly become a pariah or even a playpiece as rivals and friends of the nation he just overthrew start trying to fix or take advantage of the new situation, but sooner or later he's going to die and a more sane government will take over, with the rule of the archmage becoming a wacky historical footnote.

What's far more likely for success is that an archmage (or whatever high level type dude) will use his powers as leverage to gain title/standing in the nation of his choice, and through bribery/persuasion/threats rally support among the movers and shakers in the nation while using propaganda to gain public support and then effect whatever changes he deems necessary for his ideal nation with the support of numbers/inertia on his side, so that they become accepted and entrenched to the point that they can spread on their own momentum without the need for an iron grasp.

Basically, numbers and ideas matter more than the personal prowess of any one individual. A level 5 character is just as likely to start a revolution as a level 15 one, so long as the idea has sufficient reasonance to take root.

A further check on badass dudes is of course the existence of dragons. On the Europe-analogue continent, dragons are slightly less intelligent than most humanoids, but are exceptionally powerful and very impressionable - a young dragon can decide that a level 0 commoner is its best friend, and will retain great loyalty to that person for life. Naturally all nations have taken advantage of this to induct dragons into their militaries, and while generally put to use as transports and siege weapons, they can equally be used to devour a rabble-rousing archmage.

As a contrast to the scenario above in the first continent, the neighbouring continent which the PCs haven't visited yet (but two of them have their characters hailing from) has an exceptionally stable and vast empire that has existed for several thousand years (the nations on the first continent are merely several hundred years old, as a rule). Dragons act as a check on the powerful here as well, but in a far different manner, as the dragons of this land possess superhuman intellects and long ago took it upon themselves to shepherd the humanoid races. It works out well for them, since dragons lack opposable thumbs for tool use, and animals are too frightened of dragons to be herded, so by supporting humanoids who could grow great fields of crops, and support vast herds of animals, the dragons were providing a massively increased food supply for themselves, allowing their population to expand and freeing them of the burden of hunting.

In this land, the dragons ostensibly work in the civil service for the most part, but the upper echelons are peerless cultural scientists, tirelessly working to create long-lasting socially inherited memes to diffuse throughout the population, creating an overall population that is happy and productive, while discouraging trade and travel with foreign nations to limit the spread of potentially harmful foreign ideas. This doesn't grant them absolute control, because it works on broad strokes rather than every individual, but it creates an overall culture that is extremely resistant to being modified by any upstart revolutionary, no matter how powerful.

The last inhabited continent of the setting is one where powerful individuals truly do rule the roost, being a land of isolated city states and nomadic tribes where generally the strongest individuals rule, because no sufficiently large groups are really working together as on the other continents, and the 'civilised' humanoids have far more competition from powerful and hostile monstrous beings. It's by far the closest to the typical D&D setting model, but is currently being colonised by the Europe analogue and pitting the two different styles in competition without either achieving dominance yet.


With all the above said? It's a game, first and foremost, and I want to give my PCs things to do. But I don't intend to take them all the way to level 20, and for the most part powerful individuals lend their strength to the Nation or Cause to see to its overall progress, because such things are more important than any one man.

[Dracos]

Not that I don't agree with the rat's general argument thrust (Especially in the light of advanced civilizations), but there are a large number of historical precedents of folks dashing off into mostly fatal unknown terrain in hopes of looting/pillaging wealth/better life with a large percentage of them dying.  Most colonization efforts by Britain and the Americas matched to that, with poorly equipped rangers/colonists traveling across and getting killed.  It shifted over time as countries and companies optimized themselves for successful colonization (How to land and kill everything that would say no), but the actual atmosphere of folks heading out into environments where a good deal can kill them for a potential carrot of wealth by forgotten temple, ancient society, indians with fields of gold, isn't really all that ludicrious, even with the notion that many of them die.

Truthfully, the more actually deadly the world is, the more likely adventurers that do manage to survive would be treated with respect rather than as insane pariahs daring death and refusing to take part in society proper.  Historically when travel was particularly risky, travelers and traveling merchants (while perhaps pariahs of their own hometown for leaving at all) would also be the only sensible way to learn about different cultures and trade.  Yes, I know almost zero adventurers fulfill these roles, but still saying the notion is no less absurd than a traveling merchant with his private army would exist and be a welcomed role for folks to take in the world (same as his well trained army to let him survive to trade).

The core of D&D's problem with the 1-20 route is that in order to keep it more 'gamey' two things occur:
1)Progression only happens through play.  Folks are not academy trained to a degree that leaves them on a solid footing to go out there and guard a caravan traveling through the badlands between towns.  Because of this you have towns surrounded by 'just conveniently strong enough' foes more often than something that matches reality more with folks trained safely until they're likely to slaughter their opponents or a war between cities/countries happens and they are forced to fight.  So of course things are irrational if the physics of the world say that you can't get stronger unless you go out and kill some of an infinite set of monsters.

2)For progression at all.  I've never seen progression in a meaningful sense in any Exalted game I've ever played or watched.  You start with a character and you are a mover and shaker.  It's difficult in general to deal with how vast shifts in power are handled on a pure mechanics basis and few worlds really handle it well either.  It's usually a DM side thing on how they want to deal with power within the world.  It's entirely viable to have a Faerun campaign where getting to level 15 means you're a highly respected holy paladin within kingdom's religious order as it is to have one where you're a lord in your own right with vassels and a kingdom and whatnot or riding a dragon around.  Dune took it quite far in Balmuria with playing off the growth in power, but it is a lot of work to reflect that and really that work is best customized to the group being played rather than the world.

Truthfully, I could entirely buy the strongest individuals generally being behind the scenes rulers rather than paperwork pushers (and viably having as giant says in things as our own rich and powerful do).

Anyhow, TL:DR; I agree, but historically people are stupid and travel into deadly situations for little cause, and except for eb, all of us live in countries that were built up off that stupidity.