Campaign Setting Speculation

[Entsuropi]

It also happens to be a massive fantasy cliche I've yet to read a single series where there wasn't at least one siege where the heroes defended. Be nice to see the heroes conducting a siege of their own for once.

[Mr_Pleasington]

But its one of the few massive fantasy cliches that does not make the jump to gaming very often.

Its very underused...usually for lack of a good mass combat ruleset.

[Entsuropi]

Actually I think the main problem with RPing a siege is that A) It's hard for characters to exert much personal effect and B) Sieges are 9 parts dull waiting, 1 part frenzied assault. Hard to get the balance right, I suspect.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

the biggest problem with it being IN one single castle is. "why the heck don't we just leave this stupid place?" A city is one thing, but one structure? way too boring. I think it's possible that there are GMs who could pull off a 4 or 5 session campaign in one castle, but it still wouldn't be among the best campaigns.

[42]

Well, it would lose some of the epic-ness being set in one place. But then, what makes something epic?

The only thing that I can think of that comes close to what I'm thinking of is Undermountain. In theory, you could run an entire campaign in Undermountain.

I think there are lots of possible reasons why a characters wouldn't leave. They either can't leave, or all of their objectives need to be accomplished in one place, or probably both.

The only thing that really appeals to me in a strongly localized campaing, is the amount of depth you could have. Something that world-traveling often lacks.

The castle siege idea actually has some merit. Just don't deal with mass combat, because it is boring and not very RPGish. Dealing with the small encounter that happen during a siege is more interesting and easier to roleplay. Throw in things like traitors, spies, secret rooms, divine visitations, dimensional rifts, time-travel, and the like...

[Eagle Prince]

A campaign all in Undermountain would be fun I think.  Like your carrier is just dungeon delving into Undermountain or similiar massive dungeon in search of fame and fortune.  Reminds me of RPGs like Hack, Moraf's Revenge, and those other weird 80s crpgs.  You still get new areas as you go down deeper and deeper, or if it is all in a city like uncovering a new low-profile guild or checking out the city sewers for the first time, stuff like that.  Castle Greyhawk is sorta like that too, you could just keep adventuring down in the dungeons forever.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I suppose you could do something like The Prisoner, but even that show took place on an entire island, something much more city sized than a single castle size. Still, it sounds like you're talking about a pretty massive castle, instead of the ones I've actually seen, so possibly. But what reasons *can't* they leave, other than they're in a cell or it's under seige. The former is far too restrictive unless there's a massive complex of cells in the dungeon, so they just throw the prisoners in and lock the main door. The latter doesn't necessarily inhibit leaving. After all, one of the great plot points of a seige is smuggling the messenger beyond the lines -- who better to be that messenger than the PCs? If their objectives are all in the same place, it sounds a bit too much like railroading the adventurers. They can't decide an objective is not one they want to meet and instead they want to go court the comely wench in town? Or perhaps get supplies not available there in the castle? So, yeah, even if you dreamed up a really solid reason to make there NO WAY to leave the castle, I think your players will itch to leave anyway.

[Entsuropi]

It'll feel a lot like a computer game - 'you have left the map boundries' if you absolutely stop people from leaving.

It's common for ships and spaceships to be their own adventure locations, but there it's something the players are constantly coming and going from, rather than the only location. So your players could come to know that ship really well, and if it's sufficiently big you could have adventures on it, but they will want to get off it from time to time.

This is the problem Deep Space 9 had. The first season was mostly on the station, and from the second season onwards they spent much less time on the station. There is just only so much you can realistically do in one location.

[Fellfrosch]

I think you're assuming too much to say that the stuff outside the castle is inherently more interesting than the stuff inside the castle. You don't have to restrict them, you just put all the cool stuff in the castle itself and make sure that the characters are appropriate to the campaign: barbarians and rangers would hate being cooped up in a castle, but court nobles would have no compelling reason to leave. If the adventure is about princes and courtesans and interpolitical intrigue, and all of the resources and contacts and villains are right there, I don't see why you'd want to go anywhere else.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't think you've taken into account the amount of restriction. If everything in the campaign happened in one day, yeah, they'd have no reason. But we're talking about remaining in one building. Not even court intrigue typically takes place in one castle. They visit other courts, they go ride their horses, look at their lands, et al.

I don't think it was said that the stuff outside was "inherantly more interesting" than the stuff inside. Just that in an extended campaign, there will be many many reasons to need to leave the single building, and not allowing that is contrived, forced, and I would imagine irritating.

[Entsuropi]

And players usually love to indulge wanderlust in their characters.

[MPlease]

But the trick for running a single-location campaign isn't to "not allow" the characters to go out, but to make them not want to go out.

My snotty, politically coniving courtier is not going to want to go outside. There are peasants out there! Heaven forbid one of them has any contact with her. Horses smell, and servants are there to take care of her lands. I don't think she's seen them in a couple years at the very least, and anyone worthwhile to know will come visit her right where she is. The only thing that would inspire her to leave the comforts of her palace would be a royal summons.

Get the idea? As long as the characters are right for the campaign, it can work. If you're the GM, just watch your players carefully during character creation. If it isn't in the character's personality or nature to wander off, why would they?

[Mr_Pleasington]

But you forget one of the first laws of GMing...

As soon as you discourage the characters from doing something, however gently, at least one of them will do it regardless.

[MPlease]

You're one of those softie GMs who gives in whenever your players whine aren't you? hehe. You're forgetting the First absolute rule of GMing: You are God. You can literally do a "rock falls, everybody dies" if you wish! Of course, your players may actually hate you after that one. hehe. I'd personally try "subtle" when directing their character creation. If you're good enough they never even realize it...

[Mr_Pleasington]

You're new.

I get that.

So I won't have to ask SE to send his Ninja Monkies for insinuating I'm locked into a particular GMing style and not aware of other methods.

You want my creds?  Go back and read "The Nerdery" columns I wrote, back when I had time to devote to such things.

Smacktalked by a guy named "Vaj." What have the forums come to?