Best Campaign Setting????

[Fevil]

I would have to agree with Shadow on a couple of his points. Scarred Lands is indeed an expensive setting to run, but it is worth it.
And you dont necessarily have to buy all the books, just the ones you want, as is the case with every setting out there (including Kalamar)

 

[hammymchamham]

Rokugan

 

[Outlaw]

SLvsKOK

What I don't tell many people is that I actually ran my campaign in the Scarred Lands before I ran it in the Kingdoms of Kalamar. And, of course, a campaign is what the DM makes of it. But if you are not looking for a campaign to buy and then fiddle with, just to use as is, the two are different enough that you may certainly prefer one or the other or prefer them both for different reasons.

The Scarred Lands' entire mythos is based around the blood of the titans. The world is dark and is steeped in the supernatural based around this blood.

Kingdoms of Kalamar focuses on the human races and their relationship to the world. There are all the standard fantasy races that you've come to love in D&D (and some extras) but humans are the favored child. The world is built around their rise and their political jockeying.

Although I enjoyed my characters in the Scarred Lands for the short time I played them (Sor 7/BW 3 IIRC), it just never fit my style of play. I prefered the peasant to lead a life of toil and tribulation because the crop didn't come in the yield he expected, rather than there was a necromancer who ravaged the countryside (this is intentionally a broad generalization to show a point).

I would like to point out a few things.

The Kingdoms of Kalamar has one core rule book (although there are several optional books carrying the Kingdoms of Kalamar label) while Scarred Lands requires you to buy several books to play in the setting (The Ghelspad atlas, both Creature Catalogues for the Scarred Lands creatures, and a whole slew of other products).

The Kingdoms of Kalamar has TWO main core books, the Campaign Sourcebook and the Players Guide. The former only has three pieces of actual 3E material (and they're all horses). The rest of it is description of the setting (I love that book). The latter has all the rules variants, editions, classes, feats, prestige classes, spells, etc etc etc. All the crunchy stuff.

Now, I ran my SL campaign with Relics and Rituals and the CC. I set it on an overlay of modernday Earth with some ecological changes. Maybe it wasn't "as much" of a scarred lands campaign as it could have been if I had owned all the books, but I don't think it's necessary to have to own them all to use the setting (although it may add to the depth of the setting).

KoK has plenty of other books to buy including its own Atlas, a book on Orcs, Villain Design and upcoming books on Hobgoblins, Cities, Monsters and a lot of other stuff. So I think the comparison in that respect is a little misleading.


So, after all that talk? I prefer the Kingdoms of Kalamar. I even prefer it over the homebrew I spent six years making. But it's because it fits how I like to game. You, on the other hand, might be totally enthralled by the world of darkness contained in the scarred lands and the wealth of opportunities titan's blood may offer your campaign. That's for you to decide.

 

[Patrick-S&S]

Hârn and Kalamar is my bet on the table. The former is perhaps too dry and down to earth, but the latter is well developed in its own right and has the correct fantasy feel. if you are into D&D, there is nothing as good as Kalamar.

 

[DDK]

I say go Greyhawk. Don't believe all the naysayers who say it's dead or 'low-magic' or whatever. Most of them wouldn't have a clue about the setting.

Put it this way, if you like the style that Earthdawn was written in, then you'll probably like Greyhawk, seeing as modern Greyhawk was mainly shaped by Carl Sargent.

The sheer amount of fan support you can get online, including free material, is stupendous and beats out any other setting hands down.

And anyone who says FR has a richer history than GH is one of the aforementioned 'Not a cluers'. I don't know about Scarred Lands but I know that if you like Kalamar, you'll LOVE Greyhawk. Also, the producer of Kalamar, Kenzer Co., might be producing new GH material so if you really need it, hopefully it will be there in the future.

 

[Outlaw]

Also, the producer of Kalamar, Kenzer Co., might be producing new GH material so if you really need it, hopefully it will be there in the future.

If you like Hackmaster you're absolutely correct.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Kalamar is decent, but I prefer Scarred Lands.

Finally, if you are a rules fiend, I find the rules content in Scarred Lands books to be better than KoK books in general.

You've clearly never looked at Wise and the Wicked.

 

[The Cardinal]

Mystara / Known World

I'm playing in a D&D3e Mystara campaign for about a year now - and it's a blast (we're currently working our way out of Chateau d'Ambreville)!

 

[caudor]

Our group switches between campaigns depending on our mood. You can call it the 'buffet approach'. I allow players to have one character in each setting.

Right now, we are having a great time in The Hunt: Rise of Evil campaign world. Derek wants to run his Ravenloft character on Friday, so we are doing that.

(Yep, it is a lot of work..but fun).

Kalamar, Scarred Lands, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Erde, Arcana, Ravenloft, Nyambe, Rokugan, Oathbound, Dungeon World...all great places.

To tie it all together, I'm thinking about cranking up Spelljammer one of these days!

If you have trouble choosing...just use them all

 

[Psion]

You've clearly never looked at Wise and the Wicked.

You're funny.

You've clearly never looked at the Villain Design Handbook (wince).