-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Best Campaign Setting????
- Thread starter Azazu
- Start date
AnthonyRoberson
First Post
Could you elaborate? Aside from the atrocious anti-feats, I liked the book quite a bit.Psion said:
Scarogoth
What do other people have?
Another vote for Kalamar
As already mentioned, the actual campaign setting for Kalamar has absolutely no rules in it, whatsoever -- it's pure 'campaign setting', and as others has said, one of the most consistent and 'thought-through' that I know -- all the other books (including the wincey VDH!) are mostly extra mechanics books that you can take or leave. There is virtually no d20 gaming content in it to speak of -- this can make it feel (as others have commented like a history textbook) -- but, personally, I like that level of realism and detail, and it's very well done.
Gaming content-wise, the same, of course, can be said for the Ghelspad of the Scarred Lands in the majority -- though it has an appendix of Prestige classes. However, in my experience it's slightly more insidious... For example there's only nine pages of text on the Gods, and the demigods aren't mentioned at all... and yet you'll read that the Drifting Isle inhabitants worship Erias, and yet the only information on him is in the Divine and the Defeated... etc. [Another personal bugbear with the Ghelspad is the lack of index.]
Trouble is, which ever setting you buy, you'll guarantee that you'll keep going back for the other books from the same stable -- at least that's what's happened with me. Doubly unfortunately, because I rather like both.
However, if you wanted a single book, I'd suggest you plump for the Kalamar setting. That's certainly the best 'value'. Just my opinion, of course...
As already mentioned, the actual campaign setting for Kalamar has absolutely no rules in it, whatsoever -- it's pure 'campaign setting', and as others has said, one of the most consistent and 'thought-through' that I know -- all the other books (including the wincey VDH!) are mostly extra mechanics books that you can take or leave. There is virtually no d20 gaming content in it to speak of -- this can make it feel (as others have commented like a history textbook) -- but, personally, I like that level of realism and detail, and it's very well done.
Gaming content-wise, the same, of course, can be said for the Ghelspad of the Scarred Lands in the majority -- though it has an appendix of Prestige classes. However, in my experience it's slightly more insidious... For example there's only nine pages of text on the Gods, and the demigods aren't mentioned at all... and yet you'll read that the Drifting Isle inhabitants worship Erias, and yet the only information on him is in the Divine and the Defeated... etc. [Another personal bugbear with the Ghelspad is the lack of index.]
Trouble is, which ever setting you buy, you'll guarantee that you'll keep going back for the other books from the same stable -- at least that's what's happened with me. Doubly unfortunately, because I rather like both.
However, if you wanted a single book, I'd suggest you plump for the Kalamar setting. That's certainly the best 'value'. Just my opinion, of course...
Last edited:
Psion
Adventurer
AnthonyRoberson said:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=kokv
That was the central problem, though the combat manuevers and other game elements were pretty tepid as well. The actual advice, villains, and templates were pretty good, though.
Dristram
First Post
Fourecks said:
Being a long time Greyhawk fan (since 1983), if you like Greyhawk, you'll LOVE Kalamar!
A lot of Greyhawk fans have switched to Kalamar after the lack of official support for the setting. A major disappointment.
To me, Kalamar is a more down to "earth" version of Greyhawk. Both are very similar to each other. But Greyhawk has a higher focus on magic's affect on the world than Kalamar has. Current FR is over the top in that department. Although, from what I've heard, the original 1e gray boxed set of FR is very good and on par with Greyhawk and Kalamar.
Scarred Lands is just a different style setting through and through. That's more a taste decision vs a quality/content one IMHO.
To find out more about the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting, I suggest visiting the discussion area:
http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?Cat=
haiiro
First Post
Dristram said:
The first gray boxed set for FR was a treasure. It was rules-light and detail-heavy, the maps were beautiful and it was chock full of great concepts - my two favorites being: leaving Sembia (a geographically central region for a Dalelands oriented game) completely undeveloped, and including a Current Clack section for several game years worth of adventure ideas, with specific ones being advanced over time.
That boxed set changed the way I played D&D, and remains my favorite way to look at the Realms. There's some great stuff in the FRCS, but the atmosphere of the world and the game has changed; not a bad thing, but I prefer the feel of the older version.
It boils down to a matter of worth. Although I'm sure I'm the minority, I didn't get the book for its mechanics, I got it for the first five chapters. (Although I did enjoy some of the new feats and I had developed my own system of summoning circles because I don't think the method for summoning provided in the PHB is of the manner in which I prefer.)
I choose Kalamar
I dropped an 18-20 year Greyhawk campaign to start Kalamar for a number of reasons.
I tried several 2E settings (Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, etc.) but I always came back to the classic fantasy setting. The main reason I didn't choose Scarred Lands or one of the other "themed" 3E settings is that the mood is set for you automatically. It's almost impossible to run a Scarred Lands adventure without it being drenched with an epic, blood-covered mood. That's the main reason Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and other heavily themed setting never lasted long with me. I want to choose the mood and theme of each adventure I run. I can do that with Kalamar. If I want a dark, undead-heavy adventure, I can send the PCs into the vampire dominated city of Giilia or into the desolation of the Kydoban Desert. If the players are looking for some swashbuckling and marauding pirates I just send them to Reanaaria Bay or the Straits of Svimohzia. There's an area called Skarrna that would easily let me rip off the movie "The 13th Warrior" if I wanted and a principality with a College of Wizardry where the players can be the next Harry Potter if they so choose. Basically, there's something in Kalamar for nearly anything I want to do as a DM or as a player. Kalamar isn't as much "generic" as it is "classic."
Probably the biggest reason I chose Kalamar was the care and detail I saw Kenzer & Company putting into their products. The writing is excellent, the art and cartography is great, and the attention to detail and flavor is second to none. I've seen David Kenzer (the owner of KenzerCo) and many others from the company on their forums getting opinions and ideas from the fans on various occasions. When you ask a question, you get an answer.
Don't get me wrong, Scarred Lands is awesome if that's the flavor you're looking for, but if you want variety with a classic feel, Kalamar may be you're monkey.
I dropped an 18-20 year Greyhawk campaign to start Kalamar for a number of reasons.
I tried several 2E settings (Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, etc.) but I always came back to the classic fantasy setting. The main reason I didn't choose Scarred Lands or one of the other "themed" 3E settings is that the mood is set for you automatically. It's almost impossible to run a Scarred Lands adventure without it being drenched with an epic, blood-covered mood. That's the main reason Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and other heavily themed setting never lasted long with me. I want to choose the mood and theme of each adventure I run. I can do that with Kalamar. If I want a dark, undead-heavy adventure, I can send the PCs into the vampire dominated city of Giilia or into the desolation of the Kydoban Desert. If the players are looking for some swashbuckling and marauding pirates I just send them to Reanaaria Bay or the Straits of Svimohzia. There's an area called Skarrna that would easily let me rip off the movie "The 13th Warrior" if I wanted and a principality with a College of Wizardry where the players can be the next Harry Potter if they so choose. Basically, there's something in Kalamar for nearly anything I want to do as a DM or as a player. Kalamar isn't as much "generic" as it is "classic."
Probably the biggest reason I chose Kalamar was the care and detail I saw Kenzer & Company putting into their products. The writing is excellent, the art and cartography is great, and the attention to detail and flavor is second to none. I've seen David Kenzer (the owner of KenzerCo) and many others from the company on their forums getting opinions and ideas from the fans on various occasions. When you ask a question, you get an answer.
Don't get me wrong, Scarred Lands is awesome if that's the flavor you're looking for, but if you want variety with a classic feel, Kalamar may be you're monkey.
Enceladus
First Post
It's Kalamar for me!
That I think, is because it was all Ed G. It was wonderful. The Realms is one of the most richly detailed and fleshed out settings ever created. For some reason the new FRCS just didn't do it for me. Greyhawk? One of the best DM's ever, my mentor DM by the way, played nothing but Greyhawk(which is why I think I got so burned out on it). He made that setting sing though, let me tell you. The dude knew every inch of that world and then some. I've only had a brief flirtation as a 1st level player in the Scarred lands setting, it was loads of fun but ultimately not for me.
On a lark I bought the Kalamar source book, I had just put together a new gaming group and was looking for something to do, the thought of starting another whole new camaign in the Realms just didn't appeal to me. And I have to admit that I was a bit leary of starting my new campaign in this Kalamar setting but after putting it into practice and using the source book its turned out to be really something great.
The Pantheon is perhaps one of the most tight, solid systems I've come across. The God's dont have stats though (as it should be) for those crunchy monkeys who dig that sort of thing. The Organizations, both benevolent and benign are very well done, and very useable with room to grow, add on or kill off. I wasnt too keen on the Code of Law but my players, believe or not are getting me turned on to it. I'm a big Monte Cook fan so you can guess I have a ton of his freelance Eldritch stuff. It's great, I can take a city like Ptolus and not have to change a lot to make it fit. And I can plop in virtually anything from Monte and not upset the whole balance of the the setting. I just don't think I could do that in the Realms without doing more work that I would want to.
What can I say? I'm hooked. My players? Hooked. My wife (who doesn't game), who has to sit there and listen to me incessantly prattle on about my campaign? She's hooked too!
That I think, is because it was all Ed G. It was wonderful. The Realms is one of the most richly detailed and fleshed out settings ever created. For some reason the new FRCS just didn't do it for me. Greyhawk? One of the best DM's ever, my mentor DM by the way, played nothing but Greyhawk(which is why I think I got so burned out on it). He made that setting sing though, let me tell you. The dude knew every inch of that world and then some. I've only had a brief flirtation as a 1st level player in the Scarred lands setting, it was loads of fun but ultimately not for me.
On a lark I bought the Kalamar source book, I had just put together a new gaming group and was looking for something to do, the thought of starting another whole new camaign in the Realms just didn't appeal to me. And I have to admit that I was a bit leary of starting my new campaign in this Kalamar setting but after putting it into practice and using the source book its turned out to be really something great.
The Pantheon is perhaps one of the most tight, solid systems I've come across. The God's dont have stats though (as it should be) for those crunchy monkeys who dig that sort of thing. The Organizations, both benevolent and benign are very well done, and very useable with room to grow, add on or kill off. I wasnt too keen on the Code of Law but my players, believe or not are getting me turned on to it. I'm a big Monte Cook fan so you can guess I have a ton of his freelance Eldritch stuff. It's great, I can take a city like Ptolus and not have to change a lot to make it fit. And I can plop in virtually anything from Monte and not upset the whole balance of the the setting. I just don't think I could do that in the Realms without doing more work that I would want to.
What can I say? I'm hooked. My players? Hooked. My wife (who doesn't game), who has to sit there and listen to me incessantly prattle on about my campaign? She's hooked too!
Last edited:
Similar Threads
