constructively carving up D&D

[MortalPlague]

The one thing that jumped out at me is the inclusion of Mul in the Gygaxian 'Typical High Fantasy' theme. Seems out of place.

I think the other advice in this thread is spot on, and if you develop this idea into a couple of strong, thematic settings, it could make for a glorious campaign. I'm playing in a campaign set in a jungle, where the mayan-style city of Apayera is struggling for survival between the yuan-ti and the lizardfolk; it's one of the most thematic games I've played.

 

[Herobizkit]

I see the tropes as more of a starting point to solidify the idea of each setting.

When I see the Gygaxian area, for example, I'm immediately drawn to a 1e Greyhawk kind of feel... the life of an adventurer is nasty, brutish, and short, and there is little quarter given by enemies. Traps can and will kill PCs just as or more often than monsters; Monsters exist in dungeons because They're Supposed To.

Mos Eisley, on the other hand, is exactly that... a way-station between worlds where every conceivable race may intermingle and seek out fortune... the ultimate "you all meet in a bar" scenario with Planescape (Rifts, Stargate, Spelljammer et al) as the setting.

 

[Derren]

Overall looks interesting to me, but a couple of the names are almost painful (Gygaxia and Mos Eisley) But overall it looks like a good idea for a limited worldview, and some could exist onteh same plane, just separated by the gods or others to see how the races live in each kind of area.

Agree with the names. I really hope that they are just a description and not actually used in the game.

But why do the settings have to be separated by planes? A single world is enough to hold them all. Just look at earth's history, even as late as the 18/19th century.

You have the classical europe with all its wars between nations, you have the islamic middle east, you have the new world with its indian tribes, the wild unexplored interior of Africa, the Australian outback, the forbidden lands of China and Japan, the vast lands of Russia or the coquered India.

All those lands would offer a vastly different setting even though it was quite possible to travel between them at that time.
So I don't see why you can't have all those settings the OP described on the same world.

 

[GameDoc]

If I'm reading the post that started the thread correctly, the players are being given a choice. He's asking them to select which of these settings they'd like to start in and then build characters that fit cohesively into the fabric of that location, so you don't get a minegerie of characters with no plausible connection to the history, geography, or NPCs of the area.

I can empathize. I've been there.