Wilderlands of High Fantasy - Wots...Uh The Deal?

[Teflon Billy]

Can you please list some examples of this blatant obsession with Good vs. Evil in the core rules that wasn't there in 1ed?

Sure. In fact I've already done so.

City State of the Invicible Overlord is a reworking of the 1E Judges Guild product of the same name. It lacks the "good vs Evil Obsession" I'm talking about.

I won't even include 2ed which we know did away with all grey areas to appeal to the masses. Really, why do you think all 3rd edtion players play good vs. evil? I don't see it in the core rules anywhere espousing this type of gameplay.

And you probably won't. But read the boards here for awhile, and come across any of the myriad "Do you allow Evil PC's" threads and you'll beging to get a feel for how the game is currently being played by the masses.

The most repeated comment against allowing evil PC's is "My game is about a Heroes fighting evil, there is no place for Evil PC's in my game"

So, for whatever reason, since the dawn of 3E I've witnessed a jump in pollyanna "heroes only" Roleplaying. Your mileage may vary, but my commentary would pass a polygraph.

The base world in 3.x is Greyhawk and correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Iuz an "evil" adversary? Or were the Pc's supposed to ally with him? How about the ToEE? Didn't all these good aligned heavyweights come and save the day in Emridy Meadows. Weren't the PC's supposed to fight evil? (all this in 1ed too)

Well, I would debate whether Greyhawk is the base world for 3rd edition, given that it has, like, two books to Forgotten Realms' 20-ish.

I mean, I'll agree that that's certainly the Ad Copy (and given your repeated requests for Core rules cites I can see how you might well take that at face value over real-world experience), but it doesn't look like that's how it actually pans out. But I digress...

Sure. There was Iuz, but if memory serves, several of the heroes (Rary and Robilar maybe) went evil and fought their compatriots as their goals diverged. Didn't Rary set himself up as an evil king in some desert nation?

Check the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. Good nations vs evil Nations and Good Superherpoic NPC's vs Already Defeated Evil Supervillainous NPCs.

20 Books to 2.

That's all I need to see on that subject.

"Old School" had plenty of Good vs. Evil and I know that D. Arneson was very much a Tolkien fan and there was much Evil in his campaign world.

There are plenty of 3.x settings with slavery, zigurrats, reptilian kingdoms, and also the "us vs them" dynamic.

How do they sell compared to Forgotten Realms?

And the "wee wee lets play with elves" is a pretty ignorant statement as you understand very little of what Elves are supposed to be like.

Well, it wasn't my quote, but I think I can safely say--having read it--that there's nothing in there to imply any lack of knowledge about what "elves are supposed to be like"

Because the statement "what elves are supposed to be like" is utter nonsense.

I'm not sure who named you the "elf police" and where you got the bible regarding what "elves are supposed to be like" (Nocturnal Shoemakers? North Pole Toy Manufacturers? Wolf Riding Forest Dwellers? Angelic Warriors who can see other dimensions?...all as valid as the others--which is to say all are from literature), but for you to come in and start a snippy lecture about it is beyond the pale.

Blame D&D for elves who are too "human". The wussification of Elves came from "old school" authors trying to make them more human -like so you could roleplay them I guess. Even Tolkien elves are supposed to be warlike and angelic as well as artistic. ( Hence they can see into the other planes of existence because they live in both at the same time) Not to mention elves as described by Poul Anderson in "The Broken Sword".

Ahhh, I"m getting it now. You are one of those "tolkien elf enthusiasts" that plague the game.

Well, there's really nothing to argue here...you admit yourself that "D&D is to blame for elves who are etc etc etc..." and we are talking about D&D, so....

They probably never should have been PC races. Last time I checked, WoHF (which I own) has elves...so does Rappan Athuk...

There are plenty of "old-schooll" settings for d20/3.x including Wilerlands, THieves World, Conan, etc.. so where's the rub? There's something for everyone.

Yet somehow you sound like you think my tastes are wrong.

 

[seskis281]

And in returning to address the OP.... I'd say if you love settings then buy it and make your own opinion (I'd go with the box set). While I've never used Wilderlands I have read a good bit and borrowed ideas from it. Settings that emerged from older systems to be more adaptable to whatever you like, from 3e to completely different game systems, mainly because they don't include a lot of system-specific "crunch" or statistics. Some players hate that sort of setting approach and prefer the uber-detail of a Ptolus, others really like it.

And hey, feel free to check out my own setting at the site below... it's free.

 

[elijah snow]

CSIO if you are looking to add something to a specific area of your campaing. WoHF (the boxed set) If you want to add an expansion area for players to explore.

Also this will give a taste of the boxed set. http://www.judgesguild.com/pdf/rorystone.pdf which Clark and I wrote as a preview of the Boxed Set.

Rob Conley

I just spent several minutes reading the Rorystone Road .pdf. If this is what the setting material is like, than I am definitely going to be picking it up. It seems like a good mix of locations, strongholds, npcs, and monsters. Very cool. It looks like, as someone said, I could just grab off a piece and drop it anywhere in my campaign world. Thanks.

 

[der_kluge]

The Wilderlands absolutely rock. I simply can't rave about it enough. The setting is just so detailed, and so filled with imaginative and descriptive locations. Hell, I wrote a review for it. Go read it!


To put it succinctly - it's awesome.

The boxed set is the best, and is all you really need. The Player's Guide is ok, and is really largely a regurgitation of some of the stuff from the boxed sets, but it does have other helpful stuff like info on the gods, and languages, and history, and other stuff that's not in the boxed set (go figure). Or better yet, do what I did, and use Forgotten Realms gods, and then you really don't need the Player's Guide. I have the PG, but rarely use it.

CSIO is awesome as well, and I highly recommend picking it up.

 

[Xyanthon]

I've been hearing a lot about WoHF and was thinking about getting it myself. I've been highly impressed with other Necro offerings (like City State) and have been considering this one as well. Well, I guess I'll just have to go ahead and pplunge in. I like to play with a variety of different themes and settings and it sounds like this setting is broad enough to house a sort of Elric meets Conan meets 1e feel type gaming with room for other stuff that might catch my fancy.

 

[Treebore]

My first thoughts too but this thread is of interest to me for other reasons. I have bought a couple of NG products and have been less than impressed but I like a lot of what I've heard about this stuff. I managed to resist picking up the boxed set last week. I've managed to resist picking up CSIO for months. A combination of comments in this thread (I'm looking at you, Teflon Billy) and the arrival of payday are beginning to make tomorrow look expensive.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to the thread.

Could you tell me which products you bought that you were less than impresed by? There are about 4 that I wasn't so hot about (didn't reallly like) and about 6 more that I would put at OK/average. So I just want to know what you didn't like in case there are some that I think you might like.

 

[Treebore]

To the best of my knowledge he has never made a positive comment on any subject.

I think I found one in the RA:R shipped from Amazon thread he started. Guess he likes RA:R after all.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Spoons are better than forks. You can eat a steak with a spoon (if you're determined), but you can't eat soup with a fork.

I win the thread!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Spoons are better than forks. You can eat a steak with a spoon (if you're determined), but you can't eat soup with a fork.

I win the thread!

Spork, my friend.

 

[Blustar]

Sure. In fact I've already done so.

Yet somehow you sound like you think my tastes are wrong.

Yeah, maybe I came across a little too strong, so sorry... Adventures like Lost City of BArakus, Caverns of Thracia, Rappan Athuk, Dungeon Crawl Classics, etc...Not to mention OGL games like Conan or Grim Tales, whose whole schtick is S&S low magic settings. I think it's proven that "1ed feel" can be done well with 3.x. I enjoy playing OAD&D and still do, I just find it odd to state the new edition is anti-Sword & Sorcery. That's only true if you want it to be but not because of lack of material to choose from.

I just get the feeling that you were saying "we can whore and butcher and storm eldritch abandoned towers" only with the 1ed crowd. (like they have a monolpoly on wenching) Ptolus, the epitome of 3.x is hardly a Good vs. Evil setting. Is Eberron? I've never read it before. Whatever, I guess I jumped the gun, so I apologize.



Blue


Ps- As for being the Elf police I just think that Elves are never roleplayed properly by players. If I didn't glance at the character sheets I would never know they were Elves. (until a sleep spell is cast on us) Yes I'm a Tolkien fan but I do appreciate other variants and fey elves ala folklore and other authors like Anderson, Dunsany, etc...I still like that they are in the game I just wish they were handled different. (all this is just my opinion) There's nothing nice about Elves in most literature I'm familiar with so that's probably the disconnect. (Normally they're dangerous, mysterious, immortal, inhuman, powerful, vengeful etc...)