Are you put off by "Creative" Campaign Settings?

[ptolemy18]

My enthusiasm for a creative campaign is inversely proportional to the amount of homework the DM expects me to do in order to prepare for the game. If he plops down a thirty-page handout and tells me to read up so I know what's going on, I begin to reconsider my gaming options.

That's a very good point.

I've been running an "Ancient Egypt/Africa" campaign for a year now, and on the whole, it's going pretty well, I think. (Still got 6 players.) But although the players seem to be having a good time, the majority of them are playing "standard" D&D classes, rather than ones from AFRICAN ADVENTURES and EGYPTIAN ADVENTURES. Only a few PCs have given me really complicated culturally-specific backstories (i.e. "I am an Egyptian priest" instead of "I am a wandering lizard man"), and nobody has hit me with a truly historically-researched backstory ("this character is a Roman legionaire who is the future uncle of Julius Caesar and who was involved in the Jugurthan War, etc. etc....").

So what I've discovered is: players don't play D&D to do history homework. On the other hand, my group at least doesn't *mind* that they're in a historical setting, so I myself, as the DM, can do as much homework as I want, as long as I leave room for barbarians and warmages.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

To clarify, I want to build a setting without the normal 'medieval' trappings but with Aztec, Mayan, and Incan influences. I am very interested in an mesoamerican type D&D game but I fear that I will only be creating it for my own amusement.

Even if you do end up creating it just for your own amusement, you can always write a fantasy novel or something.

Jason

 

[Herobizkit]

I am quickly losing my taste for 3.x Core classes, setting, et al.

I was rejuvenated when the Unuearthed Arcana was released, as the concept of Gestalt classes greatle appealed to me. But soon, I ran out of 'fun' combinations to play.

I picked up Arcana Unearthed, looking (and drooling) at all of the wonderful NEW base classes to play. But where's the time?

I picked up Blue Rose, because the whole damn thing sounded pretty cool. And it IS pretty cool... now if only I could find some players...

I want to pick up Iron Kingdoms and make it my base world. I am done with peudo-medieval Europe. I want Age of Exploration, gothic, psionic pseudo-Europe. Bwa ha ha!

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

i have played in a few varied settings, some of them have worked well others have not:

Al Quadim- Probably the most sucessful, players could easily relate, and more importantly, i could as a GM.

Darksun- Different yet cohesive and interesting where all the players were hooked into the rough, rugged and brutal world.

Iron Kingdoms- Great flavor, but not sustainable as the setting becomes overcumbersome and a mishmosh of stuff over time- i think this might have to do with the Warmachine elements that became primary due to the evalution of that business line. It is far too hard to sustain it with that presence. (maybe an effect of 3e as well, were mechanics become primary and the more different a setting is, the more players and the DM needs to learn to play in the setting).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I am not put off by Creative Campaign settings as Dark Sun is my favorite published setting. Furthermore, unlike at least one person here, I don't mind new classes or variant classes and might actually be put off by lack of their inclusion as they help define the archetypes as appropriate for the culture or setting.

I remember this setting. I liked it - or at least the flavor and history of it, not the rules - but upon running it, realized the players were kind of lost.

It turns out none of them were very familiar with the setting, and none had read every scrap of Dark Sun history and personality stories that I have. That would take a very long time. It's easier to go with what players know.

(Another DM made a similar mistake. He ran a Wheel of Time campaign, but only two players had read any of the books. I had read one and one other player had read every single book. We were mystified half the time.)

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So what I've discovered is: players don't play D&D to do history homework. On the other hand, my group at least doesn't *mind* that they're in a historical setting, so I myself, as the DM, can do as much homework as I want, as long as I leave room for barbarians and warmages.

Yep. I don't mind cultural differences, etc. in my games. I don't mind new classes, (though that requires a lot of trust in a DM,) either. I'm an attentive player, prone to writing short stories about my PC, even.

The key is in the method of introduction. As you so truthfully said, players don't play D&D to do history homework. But if you are canny enough to introduce the foreign elements of the culture bit by bit, then by the end of the campaign you'll have me spouting out campaign-specific information all over the place, enthusiastically.

It's the difference between having a multi-page handout on the Jugurthan War---expecting your players to read and memorize the information---and fashioning an adventure around an old battlefield in said war, and introducing bits and pieces of information about the War as flavor throughout the adventure.

 

[andrew_kenrick]

I like odd-ball/unconventional settings. My players, on the other hand, don't. I tried to run Nyambe a few years back but they resisted, so we had a compromise which was DnD roman style.

We're just wrapping up my first dnd game (run since 3e came out) which is traditional western european fantasy, and in it's place I've managed to persuade them to play Etherscope. I suspect this is as unconventional as I'm likely to get.

They're more tolerant for one-off games or mini-campaigns, but for the main, weekly game they're a little more conservative.

 

[Henry]

You'll find that these message boards are frequented by a LOT of DM's; DM's typically ARE DM's because they love creating content; asking this question here, you'll find a couple hundred people who would LOVE to try settings that are off the beaten path.

However, the vast majority of D&D players will try a different setting, but they aren't as driven to GO off the beaten path where settings are concerned. Any setting you offer needs to be sure to include the things that make the players want to play. A setting of all intrigue will turn off the combat-lovers; further, a setting that voids the traditional tropes of D&D (fighting, winning spoils, levelling, and exploring) will often hit snags. For most players though, an Aztec-flavored setting is just as comfortable as any other homebrew, as long as there are archetypes they can relate to. If Jack can't make up his big hulking fighter that goes loot-hunting, and Susie can't make up her mysterious mage who goes hunting for power, they won't bite. But if they can, it doesn't matter if the fighter is named Rogar or Tloxipec, and the mage is named Xipatwe instead of Alustriel.

 

[The_Gneech]

Tloxipec

Tloxipec!

Narf!

-The Gneech

 

[Wil]

While not D&D, I've had great luck with sustaining long-term games set in DP9's Tribe 8 setting, which is fairly "non-standard" fantasy. The magic system is different than most (it's extremely flexible), the supernatural elements function differently than most people expect, there is no monetary system - the game is just different. However, once you veer too far away, say into Skyrealms of Jorune territory, and it gets more difficult to find wider appeal.