"Cool setting, bro. But what's the hook for the PCs?"

[Maxperson]

2. The reason most campaign worlds don’t work today, IMO, is because they follow the modern FR example. By that, I mean that they are scripted and lore-heavy. They are written, because the person who writes them finds the world interesting. The best campaign worlds IME are the early ones - gray box FR, 83 greyhawk, early Known World, City State ..... that provided an outline with a world full of mysteries and hooks, not lore. They were not meant to be read, they were meant to be played.

I don't agree with that. When I read a section lore on the Realms, ten plots with hooks just leap out at me. Rich lore is like that. I remember the days of 1983 Greyhawk and I struggled to fill in the wide gaps. I like smaller gaps that allow me to guide the rich lore settings, rather than something that's barely a rough outline and doesn't move without 80 hours of work.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I don't agree with that. When I read a section lore on the Realms, ten plots with hooks just leap out at me. Rich lore is like that. I remember the days of 1983 Greyhawk and I struggled to fill in the wide gaps. I like smaller gaps that allow me to guide the rich lore settings, rather than something that's barely a rough outline and doesn't move without 80 hours of work.

It may work for you, but looking over the FR, all I see is the same drivel WOTC has always put out: kill a dragon, wizard, liche, explore ruins, rinse, repeat.

That's not badwrong fun, but it is a very simplistic approach. FR doesn't lay out boundaries, or bother to explain how trade reaches entire cities built in extreme climates.

It accommodates a single play style, unchanged since 1987.

 

[MGibster]

That's not badwrong fun, but it is a very simplistic approach. FR doesn't lay out boundaries, or bother to explain how trade reaches entire cities built in extreme climates.

The game is called Dungeons & Dragons not Labor & Ledgers. D&D is very much focused on adventuring and within that context it usually doesn't matter how that remote city in an extreme climate is engaged in trade. You're right that it's a simplistic approach but the basic assumptions for what you're doing in D&D is very simple.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The game is called Dungeons & Dragons not Labor & Ledgers. D&D is very much focused on adventuring and within that context it usually doesn't matter how that remote city in an extreme climate is engaged in trade. You're right that it's a simplistic approach but the basic assumptions for what you're doing in D&D is very simple.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, yes, it was, but just because you use a game system (or parts of it, in our case) doesn't mean that you can't have a campaign with depth, context, and a modicum of credibility.

That said, I don't use WOTC settings. They're really poor. I have used the maps on occasion, because apparently they're better at choosing artists than 'writers'.

 

[Maxperson]

It may work for you, but looking over the FR, all I see is the same drivel WOTC has always put out: kill a dragon, wizard, liche, explore ruins, rinse, repeat.

That's not badwrong fun, but it is a very simplistic approach. FR doesn't lay out boundaries, or bother to explain how trade reaches entire cities built in extreme climates.

It accommodates a single play style, unchanged since 1987.

There's a LOT more there than that if you look. Sure it has lots of dragons, wizards, liches, etc. It also has a lot of lore on groups, places and such that are ripe for plucking.

 

[MGibster]

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, yes, it was, but just because you use a game system (or parts of it, in our case) doesn't mean that you can't have a campaign with depth, context, and a modicum of credibility.

I like D&D and I've been playing it for most of my life at this point. But when it comes to complex characters, plots, or narratives D&D is not the game that pops into my mind.

 

[Jd Smith1]

There's a LOT more there than that if you look. Sure it has lots of dragons, wizards, liches, etc. It also has a lot of lore on groups, places and such that are ripe for plucking.

Not really. What is has is just a bunch of names thrown at a page.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. What is has is just a bunch of names thrown at a page.

I'm going to take it that you really haven't read it very closely, or maybe you're just so biased against it that it affects how you see what is written. Since I do read it and I KNOW how many things are available via the rich lore, I'll remain happily provided with more hooks and stories than I can use in my lifetime.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I like D&D and I've been playing it for most of my life at this point. But when it comes to complex characters, plots, or narratives D&D is not the game that pops into my mind.

Yeah, D&D is definitely not developed to be a thinking man's game. I bailed in around '83, and came back to 5e because it fits well with Kenzer's Aces & Eights targeting system, once you change the xp system and deal with the spell system.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I'm going to take it that you really haven't read it very closely, or maybe you're just so biased against it that it affects how you see what is written. Since I do read it and I KNOW how many things are available via the rich lore, I'll remain happily provided with more hooks and stories than I can use in my lifetime.

It paints in broad strokes, and ignores the most basic of laws of nature & politics.

Now, again, if you & your players expect no more, then it can work. My players are older, educated, and less likely to accept settings simply because its written a certain way. They want a logical structure so they interact in detail.

It's all about expctations.