>>98188374
You're blessed with having lots of ideas, and the knowledge that not all of them may fit together consistently.
This is not a bad thing.

My question to you is, why do you feel like you need to reuse a setting, especially when settings are of secondary importance to games anyway?

>>98188410
>My question to you is, why do you feel like you need to reuse a setting
Because I like the idea that the characters' actions matter, and that the next campaign can be based on the aftermath of the previous one. Would it be normal to get bored of a world after one campaign? I suppose so, but at the same time it would add richness to the world and make it feel like each campaign isn't just a movie you watch and then discard, it's part of a larger narrative.

I think it is true, a lot of them don't fit together consistently. Partly because, aside from my non-D&D campaigns (which are usually not the same genre so I wouldn't use that setting for them anyway), I also run 3 different editions of D&D on-and-off, plus Pathfinder, and each of them really has a big effect on the world due to how completionist those systems are. Pathfinder doesn't have beholders, for example, so my beholder kingdom doesn't really work for a Pathfinder setting, and converting all those beholder monsters is an uphill battle. For D&D B/X, there isn't much detailed specific lore, so I can be much more flexible and loose with it, but also having less established lore to go off of, means I focus much more on royalty and political structures, whereas in a game like D&D 3.5, where wizards make traditional power structures a quaint formality, it's not as productive to spend time on that when a level 9 party can kill 90% of the monarchs in the setting if they want to.

>>98188374
Because you have autism. \it's ok, many people do, it aint the en of the world

>>98188647
It's not just autism, it's some kind of idealizing of "the perfect campaign setting" that immediately loses its luster once reality hits. I want all the towns to have some unique cottagecore marketplace with interesting shopkeepers, along with all the names having the same linguistic style, while the campaign world has this deep history that led to that, while also being this malleable sandbox that the characters can add their own kingdom to for "domain play" at the end of the campaign if they want to become lords and ladies.

I really don't know what the middle ground is. I've had seven or eight different campaign settings at this point, and each time they soak up some of the finite number of decent ideas or interesting tidbits or kingdom concepts that I have.

>>98188374
Who gives a shit? Ask your therapist, you jakspamming argument for the importance of abortion.

>>98188448
>Because I like the idea that the characters' actions matter
You can do that with one-shot settings, easily.
You make the actions matter through what they do in the game, not through some writefag settingshit.

>>98188647
>it aint the en of the world
It really is. Spergaloids need to kill themselves and stop wasting real humans' resources.

>>98188374
I do the same thing. It's the ADHD

Brother, it's just the curse of lucidity. You know the ins and outs of your campaign intimately and therefore it loses all sense of mystery. A lot of people get invested into new games, hobbies and even relationships because of the mystery involved and the sense of discovering something new and exciting. You crave new-ness and discovery because you are a human being yet are stuck in worlds of your own design. The fact that you don't find any of your work appealing is just a normal part of the creation process. So in the meantime it sucks for you, but it is entirely normal. Don't stop your creative endeavours because of that.

>>98188739
Why would I ask my non-existent therapist, who is most likely a mid-40s woman who has never touched a tabletop game, instead of fa/tg/uys who have possibly had similar experiences to me?
>jakspamming
>on the website that invented them

>>98188788
>You make the actions matter through what they do in the game, not through some writefag settingshit.
That's my point, they go and change the world in some way through the course of the campaign, and then.... it ends. And we move on to a new campaign and new setting. It stops mattering. They could have overthrown a king, stopped an apocalypse in-progress, and we just move on to something totally new.

I'll put it like this, you could have a campaign where an eldritch entity's influence starts destroying the world with plague or extreme cold or something. The characters defeat it, but major changes are made, the world will never be the same, et cetera. That's a cool setup for a new campaign. And then we just drop it and move on. Because at that point I am sick of the world.

My current group wants to do a campaign set in the aftermath (+50 years) of their last campaign where their characters were granted a small fiefdom and they all founded their own guilds or organizations. They want to play up-and-coming characters in that area. Now the problem is that it is Pathfinder where the characters from the previous campaign have god-like powers simply by being level 20, and they could just teleport to where the new PCs will walk to, slaughter everything with summoned monsters, and return in a single afternoon. But we're avoiding that conveniently, and that's more a system problem than anything else. And I just feel very little creative enticement or excitement to build stuff for that campaign. The world building I did for it is from over a decade ago, a lot of stuff got made up on the fly, and now the PCs have a stake in it too. And it just doesn't feel consistent or interesting. I am going to be moving a lot of that campaign to a new location, but it still speaks to the same issue.

>>98189106
Thanks anon. I really like the stuff I make when I first make it. And then just out of nowhere I am suddenly sick of it. I still like the original concept, but it's as if actually playing it ruins it for me somehow, and I don't know what to tell myself to get that feeling to stop.

>>98189060
Is it really? Can you elaborate?

>>98189229
I am always working on new things, often two or more at once. You can hyper focus on something, but a truly insane amount of work in it, then suddenly you are just done. And your brain will move on, the focused and drive are gone and often so is the passion.

GMs with ADHD or related neurology, tend to jump setting or games. We need something to tinker with but it won't be the same thing all the time. I personally always have two or even three things I am working on at all times. Even if I am running multiple active games, I am still working on another setting as my creative side needs that outlet.

Creating is fun, creating is interesting. Running it is often less fun at times and in your brain it might push to far into the chore/work side and less in the fun side.

Try taking on a side project as you run your game.

>>98188374
Do you have OCD, anon? Sounds like an OCD-esque issue
t. knower

>>98188374
Lol, what is even "creating a setting". How many pages this supposed setting is and what precentege is used during the full run of the campaign? What genre? Which sysyem?

>>98188374
At some point the PCs are going to do something that reshapes the world to some degree. It will probably not go exactly as you envisioned, but once it happens, the world has now been changed by the players.

This is a great time for the players to have to go help some other world completely. If you continue to ramp up bigger threats to their home world / plane / reality, eventually the world will be reasonably exhausted of future threats and you'll have to timeline skip way into the future.

>>98189432
>Try taking on a side project as you run your game.
I have a ton. but I will keep that in mind. I was curious about getting diagnosed or tested for ADHD but I am worried I'd get a pharma shill who just wants to get a kickback.

>>98189545
>At some point the PCs are going to do something that reshapes the world to some degree
I want to use that as a springboard for a new cmpaign though.

>>98189222
>That's a cool setup for a new campaign. And then we just drop it and move on. Because at that point I am sick of the world.
This part is where you're missing something. Likely tied into >>98189106
but you're forgetting that because the world changed its exploration again. A lot can happen in 50 years. The players are mostly just going to want a few callbacks and references, they're not going to be overly concerned about the finer details and consistency from a world build you did 10 years ago.
>>98189662
>At some point the PCs are going to do something that reshapes the world to some degree
>I want to use that as a springboard for a new cmpaign though.
conflicts with
everything you posted >>98189222
They did that. They changed the world. They want to use it as a spring board for a new campaign. But you're sick of it.

So what do you actually want?

>>98189721
>They did that. They changed the world. They want to use it as a spring board for a new campaign. But you're sick of it.
>So what do you actually want?
That's my problem. I get sick of it before we even get halfway through the campaign and I want to "start fresh"
And I don't know how to stop that feeling.
I think it's just autistic fixation on an idealization of the fantasy of a fantasy world (lol) and once I actually make it the ideas aren't so attractive anymore.
Then I have fun running it but then it becomes "normal" and thus no longer fun.
I don't know how to fight against this though.
I thought playing a system where the PCs don't become retarded gods at endgame would help, because Tippyverse God PCs tend to make you not want to bother with a world anymore. But that really doesn't seem to be the full problem, only maybe like 30% of it.

>>98189432
>GMs with ADHD or related neurology, tend to jump setting or games.
Real shit. I have never been diagnosed but I guess I'm pretty ADHD adjacent

>>98189662
>I want to use that as a springboard for a new cmpaign though.

Yes! That's my point. Once the PCs do something that reshapes your world, THEN you move the PCs to another world. They don't need to be banished there, but you give them quests in a new fantastic place that are really important.

What this lets you do is keep your current campaign world, with the PC-instigated change, as the springboard for your next campaign. If you let the PCs stay in your current world you will invariable continue to throw crazier things at it. That's what you want to avoid; all the super high level shenanigans yield a world not suitable for inheritance to future heroes.

>>98189864
A few things that might help in varying degrees.
Run shorter campaigns. See if you can range in on how long it works for based on previous experiences you and aim for that length.
Run games that have a distributed prep load, some of it on the players even so they're more invested earlier, you don't have to do as much and get to discover things so don't get as burnt out. Things like Perilous Wilds or Beyond The Wall might be worth looking at.
Randomization. Not for everything, but it helps keep ideas fresh.
Play a bit instead of running the game.
>lower power level shorter campaigns feel more meaningful
Sounds understandable.

>>98189942
Same, I hit every branch on that tree. I have played with enough other neurodivergents (not rare in TTRPGs) to see the pattrens

>>98188664
What does any of this have to do with killing monsters in a dungeon?

>>98188739
You are so buttflustered that you got stuck here forever

>>98189987
Sorry I didn't realize we were talking about Baldur's Gate III you fucking normalfag.

>>98189945
True. And a lot of D&D books suggest the characters go fully extraplanar for epic levels.

>>98189958
I can try some of these. I actually do want to have the characters create a game world with me, using Microscope or something, so they are more invested in the world and it has things they like before it even starts.

>>98190029
Microscope is a lot of fun with the right group. Might help to get everyone on the same page with the world building goal very clearly at the start though.

Shot in the dark but I've found starting small helps me out, lets there be unknowns and room to expand ideas instead of starting macro scale and filling in so much its not interesting anymore when I look at it, having tried that in the past.

>>98188374
Bruh you're lucky if you make it through the campaign. By session 4 or 5 I've already finished my intro adventure for the next thing I wanna run instead.

>>98188374
>Why do I always end up getting sick of the campaign setting I made soon into the campaign
It's because you over-prep. You see too much of the setting during the preparation phase and expend all your creativity there, so then the setting just becomes a ball and chain once it comes to actually playing.

>>98188374
just make a world where you can run multiple different settings.
Earth (IRL) can serve as a good starting point. You can play cyberpunk dystopia or actual caveman bow and arrow (with assault rifle wielding bosses)

>>98191888
The thing is, I used to barely prep at all. Then I started getting annoyed that my world didn't feel cohesive, the names didn't feel right, towns didn't make sense, etc. so I started overprepping more and more. I figured, I am a long-term DM, I know how to run a campaign, this is solely for my own satisfaction for internal consistency. But even with that effort, when I'm done, it's still not perfect. It's like I'm expecting some transcendence from an RPG campaign world or something. And other peoples' campaign worlds seem so perfect by comparison. Even Critical Role which I cannot stand that style of fantasy at all, I am jealous of how well-put-together their world feels. Maybe it's because it's a professionally-made world, but I've been doing D&D/RPGs for most of my lifetime now, I feel like I should have that same feeling toward my world.

>>98188374
I had essentially that problem with basically every creative endeavour from writing to video editing to gamedev. Turns out I had adhd.

>>98189662
Why is that a worry? The standard treatment is a pill that clears from your system in like 12 hours. If it isn't helping you, just stop treating it. They aren't going to straightjacket you and shovel shit into your mouth if you don't want to. You can literally just ignore what doctors tell you if you want, they can't really stop you unless you're threatening to kill yourself or others.

>>98193250
idk man I had a friend doing theoretical physics who said once he tried adderall / ritalin (I honestly forget which) he said it fucked up his brain forever.

>>98193220
Damn maybe I really should look into this.

>>98188374
To me it sounds like you just don't like the way other people are affecting your world. Do you find yourself thinking the players are making dumb decisions?

>>98193539
>To me it sounds like you just don't like the way other people are affecting your world.
Sort of. I referenced like 4 different campaigns in this thread so I'm muddling my point with a lot of different scenarios. There was one Pathfinder campaign I ran from level 1 to 20. It was great, but by the end, they were basically gods. I don't mean "lol they killed a god and became one hahah nat20" but just by RAW, they were godlike in their capabilities. They could find anyone, be anywhere, kill anything.

You would think that that wouldn't be such a problem, when you could just wait til they died of natural causes, and there was a need for new heroes to rise and take their place.

Nope.

They can just cast "cyclical reincarnation" and bam they restart their lives, basically. I don't even think they lose any levels. Maybe one, which they could get back in an afternoon by blowing up an entire orc army for XP.

So in Pathfinder, a "legacy campaign" doesn't really work. I know this because, they begged me for one, I came up with a premise where they fulfilled a dying elderly PC's final wish (or are tasked with such at least) and then they said "uhhh lol actually I can cast this spell and he would never die so that campaign wouldn't exist."

So basically I gave up after that because that was the only idea I had that would make any interesting use of the previous campaign and PCs. I could just run another campaign in that world, but I don't really see any reason to.

And that's where my issue is. Once I finish running a campaign, it's like that entire world is done. Even if they only visited each location once. It just feels used up, like an old wrapper I need to discard. And I don't know why.

But it isn't just because of the PCs' capabilities, because even in 3.5e, B/X D&D, 5e D&D, etc with different power levels at end of game, I have had the same thing.

is this normal? healthy? good? idk

>>98188374
My GM is the opposite. I'm on game 3 and soon game 4 of him and its always the same world and the same plot. Sure the individual events are different but the same NPCs are always evil so if you met someone in game 1 then you know exactly where they stand in game 4 and it makes everything kind of bleed together and since we only play like every other week or so when you've played in enough games its hard to keep events straight in this timeline.

>>98194122
yeah man this is what I'm talking about. I really want that and I don't know how to make it work. can you talk more about what system you guys play, what the world is like, what makes it memorable, etc.?

>>98196598
Why would you want that? As a player it gets so tedious. Like if it was different stories in the same region it would be fine but its not. Its more or less the same plot every time and it always ends in a TPK or the game crumbling by flaking.

But since you want the details.
>system
It was Pokemon Tabletop Adventure when I first joined the game. We switched to Pokemon Tabletop United/Reunited for game 3 after the GM bought Foundry
>what is the world like
Edgy grimderp Pokemon where immortal steroid addicts run the region
>what makes it memorable
I mean since I said games bleed together its not all that memorable but I guess its that literally every NPC is evil, insane or useless.

I like the GM as a friend but when our current game ends I'm thinking of dipping out because I am just kind of sick of his one note games. I really only stayed because we're buddies and edgelord Pokemon is still better than asspats adventure that most other people run Pokemon as.

I'm also annoyed with him right now because I found a combo that makes his boss fights slightly less tedious and he just straight up went "Nah I won't allow that" when literally all it did was deny his boss to save against being stuck in place once. And my favorite of the other players has been sick and has missed the last few sessions and might quit the game so I'm stuck with a weeb and a furry.

>>98196805
maybe I'm the weird one for having highrolled on my first RPG group and ending up with four people I like, two of which are good at GMing but I just can't imagine playing an RPG that is being run poorly with people I don't even like for more than two sessions.

Admittedly it did take 10 years to find my first group so maybe it's just different answers to the "play bad game every week vs play no game every week" debate