Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WillowLuman]

I'm leaning towards no hub normally, but occasionally hub for oncoming traffic with one entry into the world proper.

And again, having to take a pathway through several words to get to a world with no direct connection to yours (thus having some map of portal routes), but that has a practical problem with having to negotiate with every GM en route.

[~Neri]

And the hub vs no hub thing is still up in the air.

In the OP it was mentioned that some worlds might initially have no access to other worlds, but as the result of the GM's plot, a passage may be opened from one side or the other later.

Yes. I supposed that a GM decides to which other worlds his world has passages, and can add passages later on.
I also thought that if a GM says that his world has a passage to World X, then the GM of world X can't outright refuse. He can make the portal one-way or put it in some very nasty place, but not refuse it completely.

I'm leaning towards no hub normally, but occasionally hub for oncoming traffic with one entry into the world proper.

Would this temporary hub be GM'd by the GM of the destination world or otherwise?

It would basically be a bigarse funnel, I guess it could be GMed by the one who makes it, not too much upkeep needed.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

I don't think 5 is a good idea.

Threats should naturally occur.

I think it is a good idea, as it provides another aspect to make the games connected.  A GM doesn't have to utilize it, it is just known to be a thing that exists.  Heck, the connections could be reasoned in fluff terms as to exist due to a being or set of beings establishing them in order to create connections so beings from a multitude of worlds can work together to learn about what it's goals are.

I'm leaning towards no hub normally, but occasionally hub for oncoming traffic with one entry into the world proper.

Like worlds that have had a long history of using them could learn to establish ports along the route that act as checkpoints/ports along the route?

[WillowLuman]

I don't think 5 is a good idea.

Threats should naturally occur.

I think it is a good idea, as it provides another aspect to make the games connected.  A GM doesn't have to utilize it, it is just known to be a thing that exists.  Heck, the connections could be reasoned in fluff terms as to exist due to a being or set of beings establishing them in order to create connections so beings from a multitude of worlds can work together to learn about what it's goals are.

Again, I think it would be better for said threat to emerge from someone's world, and not be innate to the world-travelling system or present in the system from the get-go.

Just a question, has anyone here read His Dark Materials?

[Avis-Mergulus]

I don't think 5 is a good idea.

Threats should naturally occur.

I think it is a good idea, as it provides another aspect to make the games connected.  A GM doesn't have to utilize it, it is just known to be a thing that exists.  Heck, the connections could be reasoned in fluff terms as to exist due to a being or set of beings establishing them in order to create connections so beings from a multitude of worlds can work together to learn about what it's goals are.

Again, I think it would be better for said threat to emerge from someone's world, and not be innate to the world-travelling system or present in the system from the get-go.

Just a question, has anyone here read His Dark Materials?

*raises hand*

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Again, I think it would be better for said threat to emerge from someone's world, and not be innate to the world-travelling system or present in the system from the get-go.

Like a cut-off world containing a major threat, that, upon establishing a connection, causes the being to become present across multiple realities due to an accident in travel (ex. Being killed in transit or thrown out of a 'safe' route)?

[WillowLuman]

The threat doesn't have to be omnipresent, or be "the same evil existing in multiple forms across the multiverse." I was thinking more like some hostile entity that uses the transit system to reach worlds that are easier to attack than whatever world it came from.

[birdy51]

I think there are some core design questions that need to be asked from a thematic perspective with multiple worlds before focusing too much on villains and the great evil. Some of these questions may have been answered already, but humor me. They may help out to define, refine, and polish any existing ideas.


First, what connects the realms and cause them to be linked? What are the binding "truths" that are going to be the same for each world?

Then, what enables these connections to occur?

Third, how often do everyday characters and NPCs cross worlds? Is crossing into another world rare or common?

Fourth, how long has the ability to cross worlds been around?

Fifth, how does the ability to cross worlds effect policy and culture of the individual world?

Finally, where do the players and GMs fit into the grand theme of things? Is there going to be an overarching plot, or is it going to be a scattered mix of ideas based on the whims of the GMs?

[WillowLuman]

I think there are some core design questions that need to be asked from a thematic perspective with multiple worlds before focusing too much on villains and the great evil.

Exactly. I was just thinking we should let any Big Bads or such emerge from the stories, rather than have one/them as a core mechanic.

6: Most likely the latter.

[birdy51]

The main issue I can foresee with too many whims is that there is no overarching end point to reach for. Which is... Ok to an extent if that's your goal. But that also can result in a lack of progression unless something is put in place.

On a completely unrelated note, I just had the idea of no GM controlling the "great evil" of their world. It exists as a character outside of their immediate control.

[Avis-Mergulus]

Three and four: I think it should be a thing that is known to occur but mostly semi-mythological, studied by various arcane scholars and conspiracy theorists. Then again, it could depend on the world: if one world has an estabilished permanent gateway which everybody knows about, it could be though of as commonplace (somebody might even sell tickets). Another world might have gateways in the remotest of places which nobody knows about.

On a completely unrelated note, I just had the idea of no GM controlling the "great evil" of their world. It exists as a character outside of their immediate control.

That sound cool. How does it function?

[birdy51]

On a completely unrelated note, I just had the idea of no GM controlling the "great evil" of their world. It exists as a character outside of their immediate control.

That sound cool. How does it function?

Not sure yet. But it's an interesting concept to throw around.

One way would be to have "villain" master of sorts on particular GM whose main job is to create villains. That would create cohesiveness, but would harm creativity.

The idea that I'm leaning towards to having the villains be passed off round robin style between GMs. Say we have five interconnected worlds, A, B, C, D, E controlled by GMs One, Two, Three, Four, and Five. GM One controls and creates World A. But GM Two makes and plays the villain when the players are interacting with that world. Player Two also controls world B, but that world's villain is controlled by, you guessed it, GM Three. The pattern loops itself around until all of the worlds are connected in that manner.

[Digital Hellhound]

No GM controlling the great evil is problematic. GMs have to control it in their worlds anyway - they control everything, after all! The only way I see it working is if the great evil's actions are randomized on a broad scale - so a random dice roll might determine when it invades your world, or when it's strengthened or something like that. The alternative is having a Great Over-GM controlling it, but they still shouldn't interfere in the running of the worlds themselves.

[Avis-Mergulus]

Besides, not all worlds have a great evil, or any evil at all.
As a general guideline thing, I think that GM A should GM World A, and the less he sticks his nose into World B, the better for general manageability, and the less opportunity for confusion and lore/plot conflicts there is. I might be wrong, though.

[Kadzar]

So how do we handle NPCs that travel to other worlds? Does the original GM still play them, or does control of them pass to the GM in the world they travel to? I'm personally in favor of the former.