Which of these games would you rather play (and why)?

[Evilhalfling]

This is a hugely one-side response.

I think if you want to run option 1, you start the world normally, and develop the threat as the game progresses. Its really the lack of player choice, and the thought of having to save the world right from first level that would suck.
It might work as a One-shot game, or short series with PCs starting at higher levels.

It looks like a staple of fantasy literature, but your coming in right in the middle of the series. Tolkien, Eddings, Jordan all relied on really powerful mentors protecting the hero, until they grew into the role. This would suck as a campaign model. There is a reason Elminster was hated.

 

[Camelot]

Option Two, because I like points of light better than points of darkness.

 

[fanboy2000]

Interesting, not quite the responses I was expecting, perhaps because the examples were poorly worded.

Could you elaborate on this? Why do you think the examples were poorly worded?

 

[krate]

Option 2.

The first option is too much of a wargame/military campaign. I am not fond of those for the most part.

 

[Lanefan]

If that was the information given going in, I'd go with option 2 as on the surface it seems more open-ended; there's always going to be something more to do and thus the campaign can keep going. Option 1 seems somewhat closed-ended - once the war is over, then what?

But if we had no information given at all going in and only later (after playing through a fair bit of the campaign) did we realize the story we'd played, I'd probably be quite happy with either provided the option 1 version had allowed us to now and then go on adventures unrelated to the greater war, as a break.

Better yet would be to include option 1 as a part of - but by no means all of - option 2.

Lanefan

 

[M.L. Martin]

I must admit to some amazement that as of right now, I am the only person voting for Option 1.

But I like high fantasy and would relish a chance to play a good campaign of it, and I range from general apathy to thorough disgust when it comes to the 'sword & sorcery, all grimy grays, browns and blacks, hyper-cynical, Power Is The Only Truth and Good' model of D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

Could you elaborate on this? Why do you think the examples were poorly worded?

I think the "war" terminology is hanging some people up; I was looking less for a war-game related world of mass battles, sieges and conscripted soldiers and more of a prolonged border-skirmish against guerrilla-like foes. The emphasis is less "Call of Duty" and more "backdrop to explain why goblin raids are becoming more common".

Later on, it could develop into a more traditional clash of armies, but to start, it would've been more occasional battles with Nameless One's minions alongside traditional dungeon quests.

 

[Doug McCrae]

goblins, orcs, giants, undead and dragons

Imho, these terms are too 'D&D'-y. They give the prospective player too much information about the monsters, what should be one of the most mysterious aspects of the game.

You could call them, say, hulderfolk, jotuns, walking dead and great orms, for example. That would be a bit more interesting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because I am a horrible horrible instigator, I wonder what they would look like mashed together....

[sblock=Option Infinity]
History is draped in the corpses of fallen empires, nations lost to time. The most recent attempt to resist this collapse is The Kingdom of Elaria, is a fairly peaceful and stable realm, formed with an alliance of races. However, Elaria's peace comes at the hands of its tyrant-king, nicknamed the Iron Rod due to his capital city being a mining town known as the Iron City. Outside of the nation live fiends and barbarians, creatures of darkness and legend. Inside the nation is a tenuous allegiance of elves, dwarves, and other races, all kept in check by the fear of the Iron Rod's military might. However, the kingdom is splitting at the seams as old rivalries barely kept in check start to bubble into true rebellion. The Iron City, they say, is rusting.

Meanwhile, an entity known as the Shadow-King is organizing the various monsters and tribes outside of the Kingdom into a cohesive force, in savage mockery of the Elarian alliance. Here, they find ancient and powerful artefacts buried in the rubble of previous ages, and bring these old technologies to bear against the Kingdom.

A call goes out from the Iron Throne. Heroes are needed. Of course, in their own homes, heroes are beset. Spies. Monsters. Rebellions. Crackdowns. A brooding, distant army, and dark clouds on the horizon. Only those who can combine their powers to survive will prosper and, perhaps, lead the Kingdom to a new gilded age...
[/sblock]

I prefer my campaigns to be yin-yang. Points of darkness in the light, points of light in the darkness. The first campaign read like something Tolkeinesque, the second campaign reads like something out of DARKER AND EDGIER fantasy (which is a mixed bag). I don't like it when the expected things play out, and that counts for both types of games.

 

[JeffB]

Op2

To me D&D has always first & foremost been a game of exploration- combat being a side effect of that.

I've never been able to bond with campaigns/worlds that are centered around a group of PCs heavily involved in a war (Like some kind of S&S version of the A-Team)

To me a campaign just having got over a major war (like Eberron) or having one looming on the distant horizon (Gary era GH) is more interesting than the war itself. That kind of tension makes for some great adventures (Indiana Jones movies are a great example).