Difference between FR, Eberron, Middle Earth, Greyhawk etc.

[buzz]

I think you are wrong about setting. It's what is important.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. See, I think the very fact that you had to make an effort to "sell" the setting to your players proves my point. D&D, mechanically, doesn't care about setting. Unless it removes options from the core rules, I can create a PC with just the PHB and drop him into any setting.

The only setting elements that I can thnk of that get reinforced are implied setting elements: favored classes, racial ability bonuses, etc. Again, these seem to generally cross over to most published settings.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. See, I think the very fact that you had to make an effort to "sell" the setting to your players proves my point. D&D, mechanically, doesn't care about setting. Unless it removes options from the core rules, I can create a PC with just the PHB and drop him into any setting.

The only setting elements that I can thnk of that get reinforced are implied setting elements: favored classes, racial ability bonuses, etc. Again, these seem to generally cross over to most published settings.

Of course, you could drop a PHB character into a Call of Cthulhu campaign, and let him get slowly driven insane, too (DM makes adjustments and Sanity scores).

What you are basically implying is that whether or not the mechanics change based upon the setting is the only criteria for determining whether or not setting matters. I, for one, don't buy into that. It seems to me to be the shallowest of all possible views of setting.

YMMV.

RC

 

[buzz]

Of course, you could drop a PHB character into a Call of Cthulhu campaign, and let him get slowly driven insane, too (DM makes adjustments and Sanity scores).

That's a mechanical change (Sanity stat) that gives the setting impact.

What you are basically implying is that whether or not the mechanics change based upon the setting is the only criteria for determining whether or not setting matters. I, for one, don't buy into that. It seems to me to be the shallowest of all possible views of setting.

Setting either has mechanical impact, or it creates Situation. If it does neither, it's Color. A big swath of published (and homebrew) settings do little more than vary the Color. That's cool, and it can be loads of fun for world-builders, but it's not necesasrily changing anything about how you actually play the game.

My overall response was to the question: "How do I get my players to care about the setting?" IMO, you don't get them to care by handing them a thick packet that details elvish history. You get them to care by having the setting impact play. Mechanical impact is the big way to do this. Situation is an slightly-less-big way.

E.g., Midnight, even leaving aside that it uses a lot of variant rules, is a great example of Situation impact. That Izrador has conquered the world, that it's always night (also a mechanical consequence!), that the PCs are a minority of goodguys in a world that is trying to kill them, magic is illegal... there's no way for players to ignore this stuff. Add in the variant classes, lack of clerical magic, and spellcasting system, and you've got a setting that is cozying up next to you and whispering in your ear.

OTOH, when I ran CotSQ, the PCs made with FR-specific bits and those made without functioned with each other just peachy. The adventure itself would work identically in FR, GH, or many other settings.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My overall response was to the question: "How do I get my players to care about the setting?" IMO, you don't get them to care by handing them a thick packet that details elvish history. You get them to care by having the setting impact play. Mechanical impact is the big way to do this. Situation is an slightly-less-big way.

Well, then, I certainly agree with that. Players care about setting to the degree in which setting impacts their choices.

RC

 

[Chrome]

Setting either has mechanical impact, or it creates Situation. If it does neither, it's Color. A big swath of published (and homebrew) settings do little more than vary the Color. That's cool, and it can be loads of fun for world-builders, but it's not necesasrily changing anything about how you actually play the game.

My overall response was to the question: "How do I get my players to care about the setting?" IMO, you don't get them to care by handing them a thick packet that details elvish history. You get them to care by having the setting impact play. Mechanical impact is the big way to do this. Situation is an slightly-less-big way.

Thanks for you comments. I like the mechanical/situation/color classification. It seems clear to me that I have to try more than just color in order to "explore" settings better.

OTOH, when I ran CotSQ, the PCs made with FR-specific bits and those made without functioned with each other just peachy. The adventure itself would work identically in FR, GH, or many other settings.

CotSQ is a good example. Except from maybe some Faerzress effects, the mechanics is plain standard d20 D&D. Then how different would it really be, if played in Greyhawk? How to eg. fans of FR make it a great FR-adventure compared to just an adventure that could be anywhere if you changed the color?

 

[pawsplay]

IMO, the differences you describe (as well as in the orc example) are minimal, if not functionally non-existent. The mechanical function of these clerics and orcs in the game is unchanged; the only thing that is different is the color.

I don't understand your viewpoint at all. In one case, clerics are free to tell divine emissaries to stuff themselves, are not beholden to any particular deity, may or may not be part of an organized church, and may or many not proselytize. In the other, clerics are beholden to their gods, have a relationship of some kind with the sanctioned church, and are responsible for a specific code of conduct. In Basic D&D, clerics aren't religious characters at all, in the sense of their moral beliefs affecting them (beyond alignment, which everyone has), whereas in D&D 3.5, clerics are of central importance in describing various cultures in FR and Greyhawk.

I really don't understand where you're coming from with the orc thing. If orcs are evil, magical creations, then the "orc babies" problem takes on a significantly different meaning than if orcs are simply savage humanoids who often worship evil deities.

The only sense I can make of your statement is that either way, a cleric has the same number of spells/day, BAB, etc. But we were talking about differences in setting, not differences in character statistics.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, to my mind, who the gods are and how often they interfere with you might very well be a good example of having "the setting impact play". I know it is in my world.

RC

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

I really don't understand where you're coming from with the orc thing. If orcs are evil, magical creations, then the "orc babies" problem takes on a significantly different meaning than if orcs are simply savage humanoids who often worship evil deities.

The only sense I can make of your statement is that either way, a cleric has the same number of spells/day, BAB, etc. But we were talking about differences in setting, not differences in character statistics.

I think you've got it, there - there's one breed of player that only cares about what character build options are in, and another that cares about how their character gets to interact with the world, and what kind of world they have to interact with. To the former, it doesn't matter what setting you're using, unless it's something way off center like Dark Sun, for example. To the latter, the difference is in the details. (Although, even a hack-and-slasher has to know who they can get away with killing.)

 

[buzz]

I don't understand your viewpoint at all.

In your cleric example, all three of the different cleric types are all still fighting a cult dedicated to raising an evil deity. None of the three setting contexts changed the fact that all of those clerics are holy warriors that go out and do stuff like that. The context isn't really changing.

Now, if in one of thsoe settings the nature of clerics would prevent them from taking action agaisnt the cult, then we're talking impact.

As for the orcs, the variances can affect the "orc baby" question, but the only time I've ever had to deal with orc babies is on web fora. If your rationale for the nature of orcs doesn't change the fact that they are still those brutish humanoids you have to kill in order to get the pie, then I don't see that it really matters, and I can see why Joe Player isn't really going to care.

The only sense I can make of your statement is that either way, a cleric has the same number of spells/day, BAB, etc. But we were talking about differences in setting, not differences in character statistics.

My point is that if the setting has no effect on those stats, it's a tick in the "doesn't really matter" column. Situation is the other aspect I mentioned above.

Please keep in mind that I am NOT saying that settings are wholly irrelevant unless they meet the criteria I've lain out above. Color can make all the difference to some people.

E.g., the DM of my AoW campaign has changed all of the place names to Spanish. Our PCs have names like "Gonçalo" and "Sandoval," and the campaign starts in "Lago Diamante." This has had virtually no impact whatsoever on how the campaign actually plays. BUT, it's added a layer of fun. I whipped up a big, boisterous Portuguese-ish family for my halfling rogue, and I get to talk in a wild accent.

Did every player go this far? No, but that's okay, as it's not a meaningful change, and thus didn't really demand everyone's attention. It's just fodder for us actorly types.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you've got it, there - there's one breed of player that only cares about what character build options are in, and another that cares about how their character gets to interact with the world, and what kind of world they have to interact with. To the former, it doesn't matter what setting you're using, unless it's something way off center like Dark Sun, for example. To the latter, the difference is in the details. (Although, even a hack-and-slasher has to know who they can get away with killing.)

While I fully agree with you (although I believe most people overlap these two types), I'm not as convinced that the nature of gods in a campaign world (and how they impact clerics) are not a mechanical change. If a god requires me to follow a code of conduct in order to use my class abilities, then that is a mechanical change, akin to the paladin's code of conduct (though perhaps laxer, or more severe).

RC


EDIT: What I am saying, in the light of buzz's last post (above) is that, while "Situation" and "Mechanics" are useful terms for bandying about arguments, the reality is that there can be a real overlap between the effective meaning of these terms.

If a "Situation" allows a special action, or prevents some action, as a constant or near-constant factor throughout the game, then that "Situation" is effectively mechanics. OTOH, if a mechanical benefit is never used in a campaign setting, it might as well be "Color" (ex.: choosing undead as a favored enemy in a world where you never encounter undead).

Thus, the nomenclature that buzz is proposing is useful, but not absolute.

Finally, buzz, for shame that you imagine orc babies only exist on Internet message boards. I can tell you as a fact that orc babies (and children) are a real concern in my world, and in a great many worlds that I have had the luck to sit in on or watch in action.

RC