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

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think that's the point . . . that only stats matter. I disagree, but some gamers only care about stats and actual combat in the dungeon, with everything else handwaved. Basically, D&D as a video game, but with more flexible and complicated rules.

I vastly prefer most of the prominent console RPG settings to any of the officially supported 3e settings of D&D, and often play console RPGs that are close to worthless as games (i.e. stats) purely for setting or character.

So, which type am I?

 

[arscott]

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.



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?

On the other hand, you couldn't run CotSQ as written in Eberron. Drow play such a different role in that setting that you'd need to swap them for another group of antagonists. You'd likely have to set it in a different environ as well. Certainly, you'd have to ditch the 'Spider Queen' part, because Lloth doesn't exist in the setting.

And that's where the mechanical/situation/color begins to break down. Settings aren't the only source of situations. Sure, in the land of midnight, characters are going to behave in certain ways because the dark lord has achieved his victory and blotted out the sun, but characters in greyhawk are going to behave in a certain way because excessive violence on the Nyrond/Urunst border might provoke those two countries into war. Or, for that matter, they're going to act a certain way because they're stuck in an underground city with a bunch of frogmen.

The scope of the situation isn't very important, except in how it affects the PCs. So the difference between a situation presented in a setting and a situation presented in an adventure is just a matter of how long those particular situations last.

It doesn't matter a damned bit whether Johnny Player read the Eberron book. Because his DM did. And that means that Johnny's rogue is trying to diffuse a diplomatic standoff by solving a murder mystery instead of sneaking around a ruined mage's tower looking for gold and jewels.

And that's why settings are so important. They don't need to present a situation. They can also encourage the DMs to present certain sorts of situations, and perhaps discourage him from presenting other sorts of situations. As long as they're inspiring the DM, they're fulfilling their purpose.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have seen (at least some) players invest time to read about a homebrew world that I've seldom witnessed for published worlds.

I personally think that this is fairly natural. When you're using a published setting, there is a whole lot of material that the DM might never use. When its a homebrew, though, it is more likely that any information is put there for a reason.

In buzz-speak, each piece of homebrewed world information is more likely to affect "Situation" than each piece of published world information.


RC

 

[buzz]

On the other hand, you couldn't run CotSQ as written in Eberron. Drow play such a different role in that setting that you'd need to swap them for another group of antagonists. You'd likely have to set it in a different environ as well. Certainly, you'd have to ditch the 'Spider Queen' part, because Lloth doesn't exist in the setting.

I'd basically agree, and this is a reason I like Eberron.

And that's where the mechanical/situation/color begins to break down. Settings aren't the only source of situations.

Very true, but I did not mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying that, if the setting isn't a source of situation or mechanics, then it's color.

The scope of the situation isn't very important, except in how it affects the PCs. So the difference between a situation presented in a setting and a situation presented in an adventure is just a matter of how long those particular situations last.

Again, I agree. But w/r/t the context of the OP, if the situations you encounter in your games are rarely ones informed by the setting, I can see how the settings are going to blur together. FR and GH may provide two different contexts for battling through the dungeon of an evil cult, but the resulting play may look identical.

It doesn't matter a damned bit whether Johnny Player read the Eberron book. Because his DM did. And that means that Johnny's rogue is trying to diffuse a diplomatic standoff by solving a murder mystery instead of sneaking around a ruined mage's tower looking for gold and jewels.

Right, and if the fact that diffusing the standoff is better accomplished by solving the mystery is determined by the setting, then you've got setting that really matters, i.e. informs the play.

And that's why settings are so important. They don't need to present a situation. They can also encourage the DMs to present certain sorts of situations, and perhaps discourage him from presenting other sorts of situations. As long as they're inspiring the DM, they're fulfilling their purpose.

Let me be clear that when I said "settings don't matter," that's not the same as saying "settings are not important" or "...fulfil no purpose," as funny as that may sound.

What I'm saying (or saying now, at least) is that D&D will work without any "setting" in the conventional sense. The implied setting of D&D is so strong that you can create PCs and run adventures wihtout any context larger than the module the DM is currently using. This is why I can easily see the perspective of the OP; given a series of contexts (i.e., settings) that are all vaguely medieval European and leave most aspects of the implied D&D setting untouched (because the settings themselves do so or because the DM runs them that way), it should come as no surpirse that the player may not see any difference between them.

And this is regardless if the setting is doing a great job of inspiring the DM. I mean, I don't really see a whole lot of difference between FR and GH (much less Mystara, Kalamar, and many homebrews I've created/witnessed). However, people have their tastes, and the text of GH may inspire some DMs to create great adventures more than the text of FR, and vice-versa. Not to mention, some setting products may be better-written than others and more clearly provide direction for the DM.

Still, does this really matter from the player perspective? Is the setting going to be more distinct because of this? I'm not sure it will.

I think my opinion stems from having seen so many similar settings over the years. Nowadays, a setting really needs to show me it has a reason to exist. If all a setting has to offer me is a new map and extensive elvish history, I'm probaby going to pass, as it's not changing the here and now of the D&D play experience. Since the here and now is what's important to me when game night rolls around, I can fill in setting details like that myself, should they ever come up, thus saving me having to plow through another big tome (or a fat handout from the DM).

 

[wayne62682]

Let me just add that the issue I have with a lot of the campaign worlds is one that has been said before.. apart from mechanical choices, there's never anything that makes me "feel" the world.. I mean, if I'm playing Eberron aside from the nuances of that setting (Dragonmarks, Warforged, etc.) I may as well be playing FR or Greyhawk or any other "generic" setting.. both as a player and a DM I have trouble ingraining myself in the world to make it seem unique; it seems like the same old D&D but with a few quirks.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

That's essentially claiming that a game set in the Roman Empire, the Three Musketeers, Waterdeep, and a roleplaying game based on Shakespearen Denmark are all the same because they all have guys stabbing other guys with swords.

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.

It can matter when you meet some orc hunters, slaugther them, and lose your paladinhood, because they are Neutral. It's also significant whether half-orcs are "half-evil," just humanoids, racially inclined toward evil, or impossible.

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.

I find your argument nonsensical.

GM: The M-1 Abrams rolls toward you.
Player: I... uh, draw my sword. No, I run.
GM: The M-1 Abrams draws its falchion.
Player: ... wuh?
Player 2: I raise my holy symbol.
GM: Suddenly, you are stripped of all your cleric abilities.
Player 2: Why? I've been good!

I consider it completely ridiculous to argue that context or the names of things does not change game play.

As far as mechanical differences go, the exist, and as they exist, and you have provided no way to measure the difference, the game worlds are different. Eberron has its unique prestige classes, Dragonlance has unique monsters, FR has regional feats, and so forth.

Thus, for instance, if you are running an Eberron adventure, and it involves a trip on the lightning rail, and one of the bad guys is a shifter with an Eberron specific PrC, you cannot, in fact, just scribble in different names and run it as a Greywawk adventure.

 

[Banshee16]

It's rare that I say this, but I agree completely with RFisher.

One of the biggest problems I've had with published settings is that the players simply couldn't care less about it beyond perhaps a bit of character generation bits.

I wouldn't entirely agree....some settings have such a strong flavour that the players notice no matter what. Planescape, as an example. Same thing with Dark Sun. Unfortunately, 3E settings don't tend to stand out as much.

I think some, like Midnight, and Eberron might, but I haven't run either yet.

I think part of it might be because campaign settings tend to be expensive, and purchased by DMs. As a result, players don't read about them, so the DM has to work hard to instill the feeling of the world because otherwise there's no exposure. I think tha the players guides that came with the Ptolus campaign setting were a brilliant idea. WotC did them for DL and FR n 2nd Ed., but they were hardcovers etc. and too expensive for what you got. Ptolus, with some stapled mini-books, achieves the correct balance, I think.

I purchased Midnight 2nd Ed. and gave my 1st Ed. copy to one of my players as a gift, and now they're starting to get excited. That's why I think it's partly because players don't have anything to pore over for the campaign settings.

You'll never sell a player's guide without a bunch of rules in it for $30.....I think a small fluff-book with enough taste of the setting to inform the playesr would work at like $5 or $10. And if the players read about the world, they're more likely to want to make characters involved in that world.

Banshee

 

[buzz]

That's essentially claiming that a game set in the Roman Empire, the Three Musketeers, Waterdeep, and a roleplaying game based on Shakespearen Denmark are all the same because they all have guys stabbing other guys with swords.

If the above implies that each one is a different rolelpaying game, with different base assumptions w/r/t what the game is about, then you're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about D&D campaign settings used with D&D's ruleset.

If you were to set a D&D game in each of those locales that changed nothing about the mechanics being used nor the "core story" of the game, then, yes, I'd say the differences were pretty meaningless. The associated color could be pretty fun, however.

It can matter when you meet some orc hunters, slaugther them, and lose your paladinhood, because they are Neutral. It's also significant whether half-orcs are "half-evil," just humanoids, racially inclined toward evil, or impossible.

But you're not saying the same thing I was. You're now talking about when orcs are not just the brutish humanoids you kill in order to get the pie.

I find your argument nonsensical.

GM: The M-1 Abrams rolls toward you.
Player: I... uh, draw my sword. No, I run.
GM: The M-1 Abrams draws its falchion.
Player: ... wuh?
Player 2: I raise my holy symbol.
GM: Suddenly, you are stripped of all your cleric abilities.
Player 2: Why? I've been good!

I consider it completely ridiculous to argue that context or the names of things does not change game play.

You're not really having the same conversation I am. I never said anything about using undefined vocabulary and deliberately misleading players, whcih is what I'm reading in your example. I think this is a strawman.

As far as mechanical differences go, the exist, and as they exist, and you have provided no way to measure the difference, the game worlds are different. Eberron has its unique prestige classes, Dragonlance has unique monsters, FR has regional feats, and so forth.

Right, and bringing these sorts of mechanical differences into play is a method I suggested to the OP for giving campaign settings a bigger impact.

However, FR, GH, Dragonlance, and Mystara are probably more similar than they are different. Eberron, too, to a certain extent. Given that the overall purpose of all of these settings is to facilitate playing D&D, they're obviously not going to fall too far from each other (though Eberron certainly pushes it). Ergo, if a DM isn't really hitting home the differences in some way, they're going to feel pretty identical.

Midnight, otoh, was an example I gave of a setting that really shoves its differences in your face. This doens't make it better or worse than the others mentioned; it's just an example of a setting with pronounced impact, IMO.

Thus, for instance, if you are running an Eberron adventure, and it involves a trip on the lightning rail, and one of the bad guys is a shifter with an Eberron specific PrC, you cannot, in fact, just scribble in different names and run it as a Greywawk adventure.

I've been repeatedly using Eberron as an example of a setting with a goodly amount of mechanical and in-setting differences you can draw on to help players notice it.

Paws, look at it from the opposite perspective. Let's start with the adventure rather than the campaign setting. As I mentioned before, CotSQ would work almost identically in GH, FR, and probably Kalamar or Mystara; arscott noted the issues with Eberron, but it's not totally out of reach. How about a DCC or Necromancer module? Would the actual play of them really be any different if you dropped them into any of the settings we've mentioned? Or, more precisely, would any of the settings mandate it be significantly different?

Personally, I don't think so. This is partly a strength of D&D. The implied setting is so strong, and generally kept so uniform across published settings, that you really have to go out of your way to avoid it; you can't help but play in a way recognizably "D&D."

 

[ZSutherland]

To the OP:

Buzz has made two really compelling points. One, you don't want to "sell" a setting to your players. "Selling" implies bogging them down with information they don't want or need. Instead, "invest" your characters in a setting. Eberron lends itself to a different sort of adventure than FR. The authors of the FRCS went to a great deal of trouble to mention (and in some cases detail) intriguing adventure locations. Eberron went another route and spent time detailing intriguing NPC political/religious groups. FR focuses heavily on dieties and their impact on the world, where Eberron's dieties are given scant attention and have signifigantly less impact on the game than even standard D&D dieties. In either setting, a dungeon is a dungeon is a dungeon. Campaign setting in the dungeon is color at best because the characters' actions are not unduly imposed on by the setting. They will revert to SOP for dungeoneering. However, if the plot of the FR story is that the players are scouring not a dungeon, but the tomb of Soandso the Deceitful, former Chose of Mask, and you let the PCs in on the fact that the place is trap-riddled and that some research into Soandso's life and career may well help them survive, the setting becomes important to them. In Eberron, if the adventure is to travel to various locations in Sharn uncovering clues to solve the murder of a minor member of House Orien, it is up to you to involve the specifics of Sharn, House Orien, and other Eberron tropes and themes in a way that demands their attention to setting detail by affecting their choices. Otherwise, it's just another murder mystery.

There are several ways to go about this. One is circumstance modifiers. Perhaps the party's cleric (in Eberron) is a servant of the Silver Flame. If the story takes the PCs to the Eldeen Reaches, give the cleric a circumstance penalty on social skill checks when dealing with the area's residents, and tell the player that you did so. When he asks why, explain (briefly) the history of the area and their general outlook on life and nature. Then explain how the area retains a large shifter contingent and that the Church of the Silver Flame wiped out most of the shifter's lycanthropic ancestors during a crusade because they were "abominations." The NPCs are thus naturally distrustful of a cleric of that religion and the party may need to use someone else as their "face" while they're in the region. The best way though, is to give the PCs some equity in the setting; this is why I used the term "invest" earlier. You want them to feel like they are a part of the setting, that the world responds to them, but you want to structure it in a way that is appropriate to the setting. At low levels in FR, really play up the fact that heroes are a dime a dozen. Give them serious scut-work to do, like cleaning out the rat infestation in the bar's cellar. Nothing says "You're nothing special" like rodent patrol. Don't have nobles or important characters hire low-level PCs or even deign to speak to them until they're really made a name for themselves. Do the reverse in Eberron, where PC-classed individuals are rare. Develop relations with recurring NPCs that display certain facets of the campaign world. Have the prevailing authority grant them land and title in exchange for their great service. Finally, play up themes. Everyone in Eberron has their prejudices and agendas, but they are rarely the sort of "high-adventure unleash the demon-god" type of agendas. So, don't have the PCs hired out by the the High Clergy of the Sovreign Host to retrieve the holy-widget and stop the evil arch-lich. Hire the PCs out to an Aundairian noble to recover evidence of a plot against the queen, and then have that evidence indicate that maybe the queen isn't the sort of person they want to protect.

The other good point that Buzz made is that D&D has a very strong implied setting, and it can trip you up just as much as it can help you. When you tell your players you will be playing D&D, they show up with certain expectations. They assume they will encounter certain familiar game facets (PC-classed individuals, orcs/goblins/kobolds, dungeons, and the alignment system). It's okay to rock the boat by violating those expectations, so long as you do it sparingly so it maintains its shock value. What you want to do with a published setting is use those aspects that pique their interest, not dash their expectations. They're used to goblins, so give them goblins, but if it's Eberron, apply the elite array for their stats, raise their CR, and have them work like the disciplined military units they are. It gives the PCs a reason to look into why goblins are acting in unexpected ways, which in turn leads them to learn more about the setting. On the other hand, don't put the PCs in a homebrew where humans live in dank caves and old ruins waiting to be slaughtered by arrogant PC-classed goblins in search of loot and xp. It's too far outside their expectations and will just bewilder and frustrate them.

Lastly, remember that you're there to have fun. If you and your players are having a grand time pointing at a random spot on a map and settling down for a night of dungeoneering, why sweat the details?

 

[pawsplay]

But you're not saying the same thing I was. You're now talking about when orcs are not just the brutish humanoids you kill in order to get the pie.

How is that nont D&D? Orcs are "often chaotic evil." Not always, not even usually, just often. Meeting Neutral orcs in any standard D&D setting is not only possible, but in the long run, almost inevitible if you encounter enough orcs.

You seem to be using a version of the "True Scotsman" argument; all D&D games have X element, any game that doesn't have X element isn't really D&D.

I'd like to point out right now that Krynn does not have orcs, as far as I am aware.