What makes a D&D/d20 Campaign Setting great?

[Mouseferatu]

Interesting thread to resurrect.

Even more interesting to read Ari's post above and conclude he was mostly wrong in saying there was no room for anymore generic settings like Greyhawk or the Realms. I think the success of Golarion shows this.

Um... While I'm happy to admit to being wrong when I am, I don't think that's fair. The entire face of D&D has changed since then. New editions, new games based on older editions... Not precisely the same market I was speaking of at the time.

Golarion's a great setting. But would it have succeeded if 4E and Pathfinder had never happened, and it was just another 3E setting added to the pile? No, I don't think so--or at least, not as well as it has--because it wouldn't have had as much of a focused market behind it. (This is, again, no slam on Golarion. I believe the same would hold true of any "generic" setting.)

As for Dragonhelm's comments, I disagree with some of them, but I'm still putting my thoughts together on the issue. There might be a column in it.

 

[Wicht]

Um... While I'm happy to admit to being wrong when I am, I don't think that's fair. The entire face of D&D has changed since then. New editions, new games based on older editions... Not precisely the same market I was speaking of at the time.

Golarion's a great setting. But would it have succeeded if 4E and Pathfinder had never happened, and it was just another 3E setting added to the pile?

I offer as a counterpoint to your disagreement: Kalamar. Which is the setting I liked prior to going over to Golarion. Both are generic settings. I think generic settings have broader commercial appeal as they can be used in more ways by the purchasers.

Still, if more focused settings with interesting hooks produced high quality adventures I would be more interested in using them, even if it was only for a one shot.

I do think the appeal of Golarion has not so much to do with what is presented (generic DnD world) as with how it is presented (Introduced with a great adventure path: RotRL; high quality writing; consistent support keeping it nice and shiny)

 

[Mouseferatu]

I offer as a counterpoint to your disagreement: Kalamar. Which is the setting I liked prior to going over to Golarion.

Kalamar was very popular with a select group, but it never had even remotely the level of success as any of the "official" settings, or even some of the other real popular 3PP ones.

I wasn't (and still am not) arguing that such settings can't find an audience; only that they're unlikely to carve out a huge chunk of the market, or ever be successful on a wide level, when competing with those that already exist.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I do think the appeal of Golarion has not so much to do with what is presented (generic DnD world) as with how it is presented (Introduced with a great adventure path: RotRL; high quality writing; consistent support keeping it nice and shiny)

I would argue that Golarion has a definite difference from "generic D&D": it's more human-centric and has a darker tone with more grey and grit (all things I read people asking for). I think it fulfills Mouse's "Like X, only better": it's "Like generic D&D, only channeling the sword and sorcery heritage as the prime rather than the high fantasy".

(As an Example: it is for this reason that I am turned off by it, despite it's nice production values and consistent support.)

 

[Wicht]

Kalamar was very popular with a select group, but it never had even remotely the level of success as any of the "official" settings, or even some of the other real popular 3PP ones.

I would have thought Kalamar to be more successful than some like Dragonstar, Dragonmech, Xcrawl and other niche settings.

Perhaps it would be useful to know what people consider the the three or four most popular published settings for Dungeons and Dragons. I would say the top three at the moment are Eberron, Forgotten Realms (old and new realms combined), and Golarion. I suspect a lot of people like the idea of things like Dark Sun and Ravenloft, but wonder how many long term campaigns are actually run in such locales. I know for myself, games set in "unique" settings like Ravenloft are shorter in nature, campaign wise, than games set in more generic settings like Kalamar, Golarion and the Realms.

 

[autumnfyr]

From someone who has DM'd for decades (scary), what makes a setting great is the story. My players range from role-players to hardcore min/maxers, but the story is what keeps them interested in the setting. Detail is important in a setting - the fluff rules. If anyone has not read or played Age of Worms, it makes Greyhawk come alive. Golarion is a great setting because of the adventures and the detail (even though its a "traditional" setting) wrapped up in those adventures. Eberron doesn't have a lot of adventures set in it, but the setting is detailed enough to run and create those adventures, as is the case in many of the settings in this thread. Scarred Lands intrigued me to no end, but ultimately it was lacked a lot of that detail. Even though the big idea of the story, Titans vs. Gods, was well done, I found it hard to fill in the details, even with their sourcebooks. Each sourcebook seemed to go in a different direction, so there was no consistent vision in the story.

Though I have dragged my players (kicking and screaming) into 4th edition (the min/maxers did me in and I couldn't take the "I can make a character that destroys the game and if you (the DM ) kill him, I'll just make a more powerful one from the messageboards"). I am concerned that WoTC hasn't spent much thought on setting at all. That's what makes me love a game or a setting. Story, enough detail to make a fit, and enough character (often through NPC development) to make it interesting.

I don't usually respond to these threads, but this one caught me.