Best Campaign Setting????

[Azazu]

Im about to buy into a new campaign setting. Im going to start a whole new campaign in a month or so based on the new setting. I would love to hear all your thoughts/suggestions on which is better. My two choices are Kalamar and Scarred Lands.

Please anything will be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[KDLadage]

For my money: Kalamar.

It has the most internal consitency (and logic), it has the most richly detailed background, and the most well thought out history of any setting you can get on the market.

But that is just this man's opinion.

Also, if money is a concern... UMBRAGIA is free.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Interesting in that your two choices are on different sides of the scale. Both are very good settings. KoK is more structured middle ages fantasy. SL is more greek fantasy.

Does that make sense?

 

[Eristophenes]

I would definitely suggest Scarred Lands... SL has greater feeling, is more epic and darker than Kalamar. It has lots of really cool ideas, and I haven't seen the lack of internal consistency...

Really - SL is the best buy...

 

[KDLadage]

I would definitely suggest Scarred Lands...

Scarred Lands is good. Never said it wasn't.

And although I do not want to turn this into an argument, I would like to know what you mean by a few things (if you do not mind):

SL has greater feeling

I have no idea what you are saying here.

is more epic

In what sense?

and darker than Kalamar

This I will grant you.

It has lots of really cool ideas

Yes it does, as does Kalamar, in my estimation. However, I have found most of Scarred Land's ideas to be more kewl than cool, if you know what I mean.

I haven't seen the lack of internal consistency...

It is there. It might take some time to see it, but it is there. Much of the setting, you might recall, was written piecemeal -- as submisions (I wrote a very small part of it myself). Kalamar has a feel that can only come about by sitting down, from the start, and trying to build an internally consistant and logical background.

Just my opinion.

Really - SL is the best buy...

It is a good buy, yes. Best? I don't think so, but we are all entitled to our opinions, yes?

 

[Psion]

Kalamar is decent, but I prefer Scarred Lands.

Kalamar has a flavor very similar to old school Greyhawk, but is reworked from the ground up to provide for better internal consistency. The core setting book is a little dry to read, as there are few easily identifiable overarching and easy to grasp themes but lots of little details. If rich detail fits your palette, you may like Kalamar alot. Also, if you are a map fiend, the maps for Kalamar are, IMO, a lot better -- more attractive, more detailed, more true-to-life. Further, Kalamar has a lot more adventure support, though some of those adventures get bogged down in details.

Scarred Lands is much easier to digest and goes further from the basic D&D formula. Make no mistake -- despite what KDLadage implies above, Scarn is richly detailed, internally consistent, and has a well thought out history. Scarred Lands doesn't tow the geographically true-to-life line. Geography in Scarn is directly influenced by supernatural upheavals -- a sea flows with the blood of a titan and some mountains are said to be teeth of a titan. IMO, Scarred Lands is better fantasy because it is more richly immersed in fantasy elements.

Finally, if you are a rules fiend, I find the rules content in Scarred Lands books to be better than KoK books in general.

 

[jester47]

Whatever. A Setting is what you make of it. Don't let people tell you that Scarred Lands is the best or Kalamar is the best. Find out for yourself. As the song says, what might be right for you may not be right for some. If you see a lot of talk about one or another then you can assume that it is pretty good. While I will not tell you which one is good, I will give you some of the criticisms and compliments I have about each:

1: Scarred Lands- They are wizards and sorcerers, not battlemechs. Loose the heat system for spellcasting. It has a very cool aesthetic.

2: Kalamar: It has about as much detail as the forgotten realms. (that can be seen as good or bad) You get a lot for your buck. Just avoid the coin series.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

Furthermore, One thing bugs me about camapign world descriptors. People are consistantly saying this world is more gritty and that one is high fantasy thiesone is low fantasy. In truth, aside from geography and history, there is not much difference between the scarred lands, Forgotten realms, Kalamar, Greyhawk, and any other campaign setting. My FR is more scarred than the scarred lands and greyer than greyhawk. And it is just as detailed as Kalamar. But that is just because of the way I like it. When it was greyhawk it was the same, and when it was homebrew it was the same. So whats this all mean? I think it means that you should come up with your story and see which background it can fit best in. Base your decision on that.

Aaron.

 

[Fevil]

I would suggest Scarred Lands, but only because I personally find it more appealing than Kalamar. Having said that however, I have been thinking about getting Kalamar as it is a very detailed setting, more so I think than SL.


Scarred Lands is not as Generic as Kalamar IMHO, and I have always been a sucker forstrange settings (having ran Dark Sun for 10 years).

 

[shadow]

I prefer Kingdoms of Kalamar.
Scarred Lands is the standard White Wolf "Dark Fantasy", while Kingdoms of Kalamar is more the standard medieval fantasy.
I prefer Kingdoms of Kalamar because it requires a lot less material to run. The Kingdoms of Kalamar has one core rule book (although there are several optional books carrying the Kingdoms of Kalamar label) while Scarred Lands requires you to buy several books to play in the setting (The Ghelspad atlas, both Creature Catalogues for the Scarred Lands creatures, and a whole slew of other products).
Moreover, I just think that the Kingdoms of Kalamar has more detail. Being a language Geek, I loved the appendix of languages in the back of the Kalamar rule book.