What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

[Jhaierr]

What sort of fantasy campaigns do you enjoy the most (and why)?

 

High powered, almost superheroic? Low powered, gritty and deadly? Epic stories? Stories of a band of people just making it in a big city? Almost Earth-like settings? Weird settings? Long, world-spanning quests? Political court intrigue?

 

Obviously we can all love many different types of campaigns, but what are your favorites? What have you enjoyed? What would you love to play (or run) but have never had the opportunity?

[Curufea]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Not an easy question to answer, I've liked all those subgenres of fantasy.

 

Ideally though, I enjoy campaigns that have lives of their own. You bump into NPCs now and then - and they've done stuff while you weren't around. Things happen in the world that have nothing to do with the PCs and may or may not affect the PCs. "There's a war over in nation X so the borders are being closed, smuggling goods is difficult and getting any kind of weapon or armour from there, or quality blacksmithing is problematical"

 

In general though, my favourites involve people and empathy. It isn't "go here, do that, get a chocolate biccy". I like it if there are character to care about. If I go off and do mighty deeds - it should effect people, people should know about it, or care.

 

I don't like the opposite - where it is basically solo choose your own adventure for a party of 5.

 

Consequences, is the thing.

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

All of the above. But my preferences on the details you mention are approximately:

 

Power Level: Low to Moderate beginnings, with slow but constant advancement that lead gradually toward the dizzy heights.

 

Epic-Ness: I prefer a more personal focus, where heroism is a genuine choice. If things get too epic, and the stakes get too big, then increasingly there's a sense of being only one right answer, lest the Entire World fall into ruin or whatever. I like it when there are lots of real choices with real consequences, and in my experience that means a little less epic, a little more intimate.

 

Earthlikeness: I guess my preference is a world that is "earthlike" enough so that I can learn the cultures in quick shorthand and start playing easily, but "weird" enough that further exploration and investment in the campaign begins to showcase the more alien elements. I like a swimming pool with a shallow end and a deep end. Entirely alien worlds aren't my cuppa, but I like a lot of weird to be waiting around the corner, right behind that perfectly ordinary-looking farmhouse

 

Long, world-spanning quests: For that it depends on the group's scheduling. If we can be certain to play weekly or biweekly, then go for long-term world-spanner, since we can keep it fresh in our minds. If we'll only be meeting monthly, on the other hand, self-contained episodes means I don't have to keep detailed notes of the names of NPCs that maybe even the GM didn't remember much, and what DID we do last time? Am I healed? I forget?

 

Political court intrigue?: As long as the GM doesn't mind me approaching it as satire. Plus, I still want to hit something now and then, please.

 

[Kristopher]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Not an easy question to answer, I've liked all those subgenres of fantasy.

 

Ideally though, I enjoy campaigns that have lives of their own. You bump into NPCs now and then - and they've done stuff while you weren't around. Things happen in the world that have nothing to do with the PCs and may or may not affect the PCs. "There's a war over in nation X so the borders are being closed, smuggling goods is difficult and getting any kind of weapon or armour from there, or quality blacksmithing is problematical"

 

In general though, my favourites involve people and empathy. It isn't "go here, do that, get a chocolate biccy". I like it if there are character to care about. If I go off and do mighty deeds - it should effect people, people should know about it, or care.

 

I don't like the opposite - where it is basically solo choose your own adventure for a party of 5.

 

Consequences, is the thing.

 

What he said.

 

The world has to be a living, breathing place, that feels authentic, like you could go visit it, even if it contains fantastic and bizarre elements. And in this case, by world, I mean everything, the people, the cultures, the economies, the farms, the cities and towns, the animals, the plants, everything.

[Gadodel]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

 

Earthlikeness: I guess my preference is a world that is "earthlike" enough so that I can learn the cultures in quick shorthand and start playing easily, but "weird" enough that further exploration and investment in the campaign begins to showcase the more alien elements. I like a lot of weird to be waiting around the corner, right behind that perfectly ordinary-looking farmhouse...

 

Ditto.

 

However, the 'weirdness' has to have a bombastic epicness to it. That is to say, the campaign is character driven; but there is a potential that the whole world can be effected by the outcome of the encounters.

[tkdguy]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I've been more interested in low fantasy these last few years. The last FH session I ran had no magic at all. Even when I developed subsequent (unfinished) campaigns, magic was rare and not all that powerful.

[Gadodel]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I've been more interested in low fantasy these last few years. The last FH session I ran had no magic at all. Even when I developed subsequent (unfinished) campaigns' date=' magic was rare and not all that powerful.[/quote']

Indeed, in the style I like these days; as mentioned above...new critters with unusual abilities or odd technologies have taken the place of magic in the context of exploration or mystery. The fact that I tend to use Dark Champions as the foundation also makes things go from normal to the unexplainable in a flash.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

What he said.

 

The world has to be a living, breathing place, that feels authentic, like you could go visit it, even if it contains fantastic and bizarre elements. And in this case, by world, I mean everything, the people, the cultures, the economies, the farms, the cities and towns, the animals, the plants, everything.

 

Agree with that. I love living worlds and have worked hard over decades to make mine so. I go for epic fantasy with medium magic but lots of hidden or sometimes not so hidden fantastic things going on. I love immortals and Vampires so they're all over my world in a semi-secret war with each other. I like characters to have families and people they care about. Most of my players have played descendants of their former characters at some time or are the son/daughter of a notable NPC.

[stewart]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

i like a low to moderate power level. i started running my FH campaign with a base point of 150, and now i'm wishing that i started at 125 or even 100.

 

 

i also like earth like settings, so when something is described as a castle it's easy to imagine a castle, and then you can add other world details to make it seem like a strange place. one way i do this is to try and use other phrases in character speech than normal ones.

 

as for epic, i think largeness should grow proportionally with the characters. at first, characters have a lot of influence in a small local area, and as they get better and maybe more well known, it starts to expand.

 

i also like low fantasy, or where magic is very mininal, this is not to say it's not influencial, but i don't like wizards walking around and throwing fireballs.

[Lord Fyre]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I seem to run counter to the prevailing preference here.

 

High Power - Bordering on Superheroic.

 

A setting that is more dramatic and heroic then Earth ever was. (I also tend to downplay some gritty elements like bad sanitation, poor hygene, grinding poverty, etc.)

[Teflon Billy]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

High Power - Bordering on Superheroic.

 

Lots of magic, everywhere.

 

TB

[Jhaierr]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I love a world where you feel like the magic and races are something more than a "drop in." Original races and original magic systems. I like low or high-powered as long as there is a good story/plot, but I probably lean more toward high-powered because I like cool action. It all depends on the campaign, though. It all has to fit together.

 

I like magic to feel more like a living, breathing part of the world instead of a list of delineated, game-balanced-via-times-per-day-fiat spells one can cast. (D&D drives me insane with that, but I digress.)

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I probably lean more toward high-powered because I like cool action.

 

Hrm. This echoes something about your original post that struck me as odd ... you moshed "low power" and "gritty/lethal" together as bedfellows (in my experience, they're separate questions, and the amount of cool action depends on the grit/lethality, not on the power). I am, though, still a Fantasy Hero newbie, so I'm not sure if the distinction maps to the Hero system. Are Hero's "toggles" set up in a way that forces (or at least tends to cause) "grit/lethality" and "low powered" to be related in some way? If so, I feel a sudden worry for how much this may multiply the work I need to build my preferred campaign style (which is low-to-moderate-power, but virtually nonexistent grit).

 

In iconic terms, as I like to put it: Han Solo is the once and future protagonist, and I build every campaign (regardless of genre) around that basic notion ...

 

To be clear: I'm not "disagreeing" with anyone's tastes (that'd be silly), but just asking a question that your comment put into my mind. Does Hero marry grit and lethality to low power levels, and if it does, how simple is the divorce procedure?

[Jhaierr]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

... you moshed "low power" and "gritty/lethal" together as bedfellows ...

 

Ah! That wasn't a conscious decision, but that's a good point. Most of the genre examples in Hero seem to group low power and deadlier rules together, so I tend to think of the two as very often coupled together.

 

That reminds me of several discussions I've had with a friend: Would Buffy be a superheroic or heroic campaign? It's the tendency to group lower-powered with grim lethality automatically that makes that decision difficult. (If I were running a Buffy campaign, I would use superheroic rules but not superheroic-level starting character points. It all comes down to: Do I want my players to have to deal with disabling or impairing injuries, hit locations, and whatnot -- or is combat a bit more punchy/fighty and simple?)

 

To address your concerns, I would say that to get what you want (a non-grit, lower-powered campaign), I would use the superheroic rules (e.g., no hit locations, disabling/impairing, encumbrance, bleeding, maybe even paying points for equipment if it makes sense for your campaign) with heroic points (150 or so). That should reduce the lethality, and the grit would just be how you interpret failed rolls, describe things, and run the campaign in general.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I like a wide range, I suppose. I've played and enjoyed games where the characters were like unto gods, and in games where they're riff-raff off the streets.

 

I have been interested in a Valdorian Age game though. I guess I should get my crap together and broadcast it to the local gamers...

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

To address your concerns' date=' I would say that to get what you want (a non-grit, lower-powered campaign), I would use the superheroic rules (e.g., no hit locations, disabling/impairing, encumbrance, bleeding, maybe even paying points for equipment if it makes sense for your campaign) with heroic points (150 or so). That should reduce the lethality, and the grit would just be how you interpret failed rolls, describe things, and run the campaign in general.[/quote']

 

Groovy, that's actually the approah I was looking at, more or less. I think the main risky/confusing thing I'm considering is a hybrid on the gear ... My thought was that normal gear (anything on the price-lists or anything I approve as "mundane" would be purchased with money, but that players could still have the option of point-building unique or enchanted items. I'm not sure what hidden land-mines may lay in that direction.

 

At this point, though, I'm entering a FH game as a player to get that perspective, and once armed with that experience, I figure the GMing decisions later on will come a bit more naturally.

 

(And I agree re Buffy, to the extent that my limited understanding of Hero allows)

[Blue Jogger]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Does Hero marry grit and lethality to low power levels' date=' and if it does, how simple is the divorce procedure? [/quote']

 

I don't think it has to be that way. I started the players out with a 25+25. These were die-hard superheroics who howled at playing 75+50 superheroes, but they took it as a challenge and went for it. Especially when I told them that they were still more powerful compared to the average peasant running down the street with 8 in all stats.

 

Now, they did have a magic pool of roughly 10 to 20 active points with a basic 8 or less skill level (with minuses) in doing magic. This was off the character sheet with the caveat that it was "everyman magic", everybody can do a little magic. The amount of spells prepared was INT/3, so most people had 3 spells prepared at one time and wizards with 23 INT had 8.

 

So the grit factor was easily reduced, you had magic to help you as long as you didn't abuse it. Although some chose to use their points to create magic items that were more reliable, and I had no problem with that.

 

 

The lethality factor was much harder to divorce. Many players expect an almost god-given right to slay anyone who so much as look at them crossed eyed. This has been a very difficult balance, I do make sure that there are "targets of opportunity" who exist for the sole purpose of weapon's practice. On the other hand, if they start causing major trouble for a city, they know that they can't stay in that city for very long.

 

One character (a bearman) almost died in a duel against a samurai. The samurai had clearly lost and the character did the honorable thing and ask for his surrender. Unfortuately, the samurai's anger was too much (failed an ego roll) and did a very dishonorable, one last attempt with surprise and got one very lethal blow in. However, the bearman was not alone and the samurai was quickly downed.

 

The healer rolled an 18, and killed the samurai. Accidentally removing the life-magic that was allowing him to take over 100

STUN from a great sword wielded by a 25+ STR bear with 2 levels of Deadly Blow.

 

Luckily, the healer stablized the bearman, but the player complained bitterly that the samurai was wielding a magic sword that did the same damage that he did. The rest of the party loved it, since it represented a whole subplot of trying to keep the bear from being killed for slaying a samurai.

 

 

In summary, grit, easy to divorce, just don't sweat the small stuff and even low point characters can have a basically grit-free life.

 

Lethality, well... some characters serve as a warning to others.

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

On the other hand' date=' if they start causing major trouble for a city, they know that they can't stay in that city for very long.[/quote']

 

Oh, of course. When I say I like low lethaltity I absolutely do not mean some kind of License to Be Idiots. I just don't want BlueShield the Paladin to be slain by Lone Emaciated Goblin Without a Name.

 

And on the gritty front, I don't want BlueShield the Paladin to die a week later of tetanus because Lone Emaciated Goblin Without a Name had a rusty dagger

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Trans-world fantasy*.

 

Heroes come from earth (or elsewhere) and end up in the fantasy world. It's my favorite subgenre of fantasy (Thomas Covenant, Legion of Videssos, Oz, Narnia, Mordant's Need, Spellsinger, Witch World, Time of the Dark...)

 

I hate Swords and Sorcery, and love high fantasy - so high and "middle" fantasy, with the PCs shaking the world is my preferred game style.

 

 

* I liked it so much I wrote an article about it way back in DH 11.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

And on the gritty front, I don't want BlueShield the Paladin to die a week later of tetanus because Lone Emaciated Goblin Without a Name had a rusty dagger

 

Working up that degree of grit would take a fair amount of work. You don't need to worry that that'll come about by accident.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Oh, of course. When I say I like low lethaltity I absolutely do not mean some kind of License to Be Idiots. I just don't want BlueShield the Paladin to be slain by Lone Emaciated Goblin Without a Name.

 

And on the gritty front, I don't want BlueShield the Paladin to die a week later of tetanus because Lone Emaciated Goblin Without a Name had a rusty dagger

 

I did have the orc and ..er.. paladin come down with "sand fleas" because they visited the local orc population to... um... prevent the sand orcs from dying out. A little ice magic killed all the fleas and they were fine, but it was the right level of grit. This is easier of the two, because you can always throw out rules on bleeding, impairment and disabling and choose not to have diseases like tetanus or any non-magical fatal disease.

 

Lethality is harder since it requires more interaction with the players. While you can prevent the cautious paladin from being slain by goblin. A foolish paladin can rush into a higher lethality situation and it is up to the GM to either A) play it as it stands or lower the lethality but not so much that the character wins easily. Unfortuately, your players won't like it if you make it obvious that you nerfed the opponents because the paladin decided to rush into a goblin cave without his shield or weapon and somehow surrived without even a scratch.

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Unfortuately' date=' your players won't like it if you make it obvious that you nerfed the opponents because the paladin decided to rush into a goblin cave without his shield or weapon and somehow surrived without even a scratch.[/quote']

 

I wouldn't like it (or ME), either ... I never "nerf" anything; that's why I like to be able to toggle the danger-level within the game's mechanics, before play begins, to establish the desired level of lethality before the dice ever hit the table. And that's why I'm approaching FH with care ...

 

My preference is to do so with existing core-rules system toggles, though naturally I'll homebrew my own if the existing ones don't quite suit my needs ... I'd just rather not have to. I'd rather be worldbuilding or scenario-writing with that hobby-time.

[tancred]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

SJR, my group has just put one FH game on hold and started a Turakian Age fantasy game.

 

Based on both of these, here are two things I've learned.

 

1). Hit locations increase lethality, due to the increased damage conferred by certain locations. The trade-off is that's it's more dramatic (and satisfying to the players) to do extra damage for head or vitals shots.

 

2). You can reduce the lethality by requiring the players to keep track of each wound individually, and allowing each wound to be treated/healed separately.

A follow-on to that is to allow the Paramedics Skill (called Healing in Fantasy Hero) to restore 1 BODY per wound.

This makes combat considerably more survivable, and reduces down-time while the characters heal up (or reduces the need for large quantities of magical healing).

[Markdoc]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Groovy' date=' that's actually the approah I was looking at, more or less. I think the main risky/confusing thing I'm considering is a hybrid on the gear ... My thought was that normal gear (anything on the price-lists or anything I approve as "mundane" would be purchased with money, but that players could still have the option of point-building unique or enchanted items. I'm not sure what hidden land-mines may lay in that direction.[/quote']

 

Few, if any. I do thsi and it works fine. I also allow players to buy martial arts or "signature moves" built as powers (subject to GM's approval).

 

That gives me a game which is low powered (the current game started on 100 points) but also "cool fantasy" since pretty much every character has their own special shtick.

 

cheers, Mark

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

2). You can reduce the lethality by requiring the players to keep track of each wound individually, and allowing each wound to be treated/healed separately.

A follow-on to that is to allow the Paramedics Skill (called Healing in Fantasy Hero) to restore 1 BODY per wound.

 

Groovy, I'll definitely poke at those options; thanks.

 

Few' date=' if any. I do thsi and it works fine.[/quote']

 

Cool. I know Hero is much better at that kind of stuff than a lot of the other universals, so I'm not too worried, just a kind of vague I'll-feel-better-once-I've-had-a-few-sessions-under-my-belt worried (thinking of possible borderline cases where someone wants to design a magic sword with a minor power, for example, where the sword-part might cost more points than the minor-power part, which is an issue that cropped up when our Austin group was playtesting Sidekick).*

 

---------

* Our GM was an experienced Hero hack who knew a couple of spiffy ways to fix it with the full rules, but as part of the playtest he let us try to work it out for ourselves using Sidekick only, and I remember it hurt our widdle bwains