Best d20 Setting?

What setting for d20 is the best one (remember, I am limited to 10 options)

  • Greyhawk (the default D&D setting)

    Votes: 41 13.8%
  • Forgotten Realms (Wizards of the Coast)

    Votes: 67 22.6%
  • Wheel of Time (Wizards of the Coast)

    Votes: 6 2.0%
  • Legend of the 5 Rings (Wizards of the Coast)

    Votes: 8 2.7%
  • Kingdoms of Kalamar (Kenzer and Co.)

    Votes: 57 19.2%
  • Scarred Lands (Sword and Sorcery)

    Votes: 31 10.4%
  • Iron Kingdoms (Privateer Press)

    Votes: 25 8.4%
  • One of the EN World Hosted Settings (post it below)

    Votes: 4 1.3%
  • My Homebrew Campaign (describe it below)

    Votes: 28 9.4%
  • Something else entirely (post it below)

    Votes: 30 10.1%

  • Poll closed .
Davelozzi said:

I agree. Everything that people say that they like about Kalamar is something that I look for in a campaign setting but no matter how hard I try I just can't get into it. I usually plow through game products like nothing but I have the KoK campaign setting and the Root of All Evil and every time I try to read them it's like doing math homework.

What's funny about your comment is how it relates to me. I'm (unfortunately) not a big reader. I have a hard time reading for long periods of time before my mind wanders onto other thoughts and I end up missing what I just read. So, for me, Kalamar was daunting at least. But, for some reason, it's been pretty easy for me to read and get into! It's surprised the heck out of me. I personally love it. Reading the words within really get my imagination pumping. For that reason I try not to read too much because I was finding myself wanting to create so many different adventures. Given my limited time as is, I need to be focussed on the adventures at hand for my players :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Horacio said:


Surprised? Why? It's a good setting, isn't it?

As a big fan of KoK, I was surprised as well. Only because I didn't think too many people knew about it. It's rarely mentioned on this board (compared to FR, GH, SL, etc.) so I wasn't expecting many votes.

I'm very pleasantly surprised :)
 

Horacio said:


IMHO Forgotten has lots of fans, and even more haters. With FR, you can love it or you can hate it, there are (almost) no middle ground. And most of old TSR fans are fragmentated, FR, Dragonlance, Planescape (the best, of course!), Dark Sun, Greyhawk...
So I find it makes difficult for FR to win such a poll.

I used to be an FR hater, and boy I liked poking fun at it. :) But with the FRCS, I've come around somewhat. I don't love it, but niether do I hate it. I like it for what it is.

And if I didn't vote homebrew, I'd have voted KoK, with GH a close second.
 

Dardellan's Law...

I now show the proof of Dardellan's Law which reads...

"Any "best campaign setting" poll will disintegrate into a "Let's bash the Forgotten Realms" thread within at least 30 posts, and more often within the first 20 posts. The bashing invariably begins at least 10 posts after the Realms are mentioned."

:rolleyes:

Despite having my own setting, my vote would be for the Realms, despite all its warts. I find voting for yourself to be arrogance of the highest degree.
 


Dristram said:


What's funny about your comment is how it relates to me. I'm (unfortunately) not a big reader. I have a hard time reading for long periods of time before my mind wanders onto other thoughts and I end up missing what I just read. So, for me, Kalamar was daunting at least. But, for some reason, it's been pretty easy for me to read and get into! It's surprised the heck out of me...

Actually, all this praise for Kalamar has made me decide to give it another chance and I've been reading through the book for the past two nights and really enjoying it. Last time I made the mistake of trying to read it straight through, but this didn't really work too well as it's really written as more of a reference book than an introduction to the setting. Now I've been bouncing around from place to place, refering to other sections whenever it mentions something new. For example, tonight I read about Reanaria (sp?) Bay, the Reanarians as a race, and their language, as well as about some of the gods that have prominent temples in the bay area. I'm finding it to be much more enjoyable this way.
 

Last time I made the mistake of trying to read it straight through, but this didn't really work too well as it's really written as more of a reference book than an introduction to the setting.

There's probably a lot of merrit to that statement. As much as I like the setting I've never been fond of reading a section straight through. When I read an area I do pay it lots of attention and look for the details, but I find I read sections here and there as the desire to learn some portion strikes me.

As for Kalamar not getting much talk here on EN World; I'd say that's from three reasons:

1. The people who like it really don't have much to say most of the time. There are no real questions to ask about rules, NPCs, or future product. I only tend to comment on it inside of threads other's have started once those thread have swung around to it. And I've seen the same pattern from those who like it.

2. There is a very good email list and a web forum devoted to nothing but Kalamar. Even these two have low traffic albeit lots of members.

3. Until very recently the people producing the setting [have had] nearly zero presence on these forums.


There just really isn't all that much to say most of the time.

The only thing that really brings us out is when somebody starts to ask about setting choices.
 
Last edited:

Re: Dardellan's Law...

Michael_Morris said:
Despite having my own setting, my vote would be for the Realms, despite all its warts. I find voting for yourself to be arrogance of the highest degree.

I voted for Malls & Morons :D
 

The Kingdoms of Kalamar

As for Kalamar not getting much talk here on EN World; I'd say that's from three reasons:

1. The people who like it really don't have much to say most of the time. There are no real questions to ask about rules, NPCs, or future product. I only tend to comment on it inside of threads other's have started once those thread have swung around to it. And I've seen the same pattern from those who like it.

2. There is a very good email list and a web forum devoted to nothing but Kalamar. Even these two have low traffic albeit lots of members.

3. Until very recently the people producing the setting (have had) nearly zero presence on these forums.


There just really isn't all that much to say most of the time.

The only thing that really brings us out is when somebody starts to ask about setting choices.

I think there's a lot of truth to what Arcady has observed... I, myself, support Kingdoms of Kalamar and use it as my favoured campaign setting. I've probably read the thing several times now, though not in an orthodox way. Like many others, I treat the book as a reference book more akin to a survey text on a continent than a regular supplement. Therefore, I read what I believe I need to know and refer back to certain parts as I see fit.

I think someone (David Kenzer himself?) wrote something akin to how he's surprised that even though Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting is an official, WotC sanctioned, D&D setting, it is very rarely mentioned on the more comprehensive D&D and RPG messageboards and discussion groups. Personally, I suppose I knew this, but never really addressed it with any conviction. It does seem true that there is a following for KoK: Berandor, KenjiB, Arcady, Grimjesta, Lord Irial, Saburr et al are but a small example of that following.

Are the supporters of KoK less vocal? What makes the Kingdoms of Kalamar something people use and follow, but not discuss?

As Arcady has put so succintly, perhaps there is nothing really to say. Personally, I am very content with how things are with KoK and Kenzer & Co. I've no issues, be they negative or positive.

Though I am apt to talk about my KoK campaign, I rarely, if ever talk about KoK as a separate entity like one could with other settings. Why is this? Personally, I believe it is because of an underlying fact about the Kingdoms of Kalamar.

No metaplot. No mythos. No unified experience.

While some will say these things are positive, the fact is that these things also have consequences on how the setting is approached by others. With no collective backstory shared by the bulk of the readership, the Kingdoms of Kalamar becomes a personal experience for DMs and players. While I'm fairly certain that every campaign is different, no matter the setting, the KoK is even moreso a personal effect.

I wish I could articulate my point a bit better than I have in this post, it's my sincere hope that some semblance of understanding has resulted from my writing this thing... hehe. :cool:
 


Remove ads

Top