Do settings get "played out"?

[Birmy]

I was paging through the Forgotten Realms 3e book the other day and got to thinking about how much I used to love that setting. All campaigns I'd DMed had been set there, and I'd obsessively devoured all of the novels (regardless of quality) all through my teen years. I'd grown sort of dissatisified with how convoluted it had all become, and looking at it now it was hard what I had liked so much about it for all those years. I'd felt similarly about Dragonlance, though my affection for that setting burned out much more quickly. It seemed like they either became too dependent on novel-driven events or became so complicated that it necessitated a time jump that made things even more messy

So my question is this: does there come a time when a setting, regardless of popularity, should be put to pasture? Does it ever get too big, too sprawling, too dense, too dependent on gimmicks to continue? Do settings get "played out" (so to speak)? I know complicated game worlds are part of the appeal for a lot of people, but it just seems to me that these things have a saturation point eventually.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not for everyone, but certainly individuals feel that way.

I think both camps are well-served by jumping a setting forward X number of years periodically (once per edition, perhaps).

 

[Bardsandsages]

Settings like FF and Dragonlance tend to "burn out" only because too often people get caught up in the metaplot. FF is a wonderful setting, when running it for people who don't know it. It's an incredible world. But I've found that when running it for people who have played it for years and read all the books, they start making comments like "Well, Elminster would (fill-in-the-blank)" Or "But we can't do that because X mega NPC lives there." They may not SAY IT outright in game, but their brains react that way, and when you as a DM suddenly kill off say, the Simbal, you get these metaplot responses from players.

But so long as you can separate the dogma from the setting, these worlds are great to run in.

 

[MadMaxim]

I think you can get fed up with a setting at some point. That's why I switched from Forgotten Realms to Eberron. It's still great and all, but sometimes you just want something different and perhaps return to the setting you still love sometime later.

 

[Banshee16]

Nope....that's like saying that a certain type of car has been really popular, but despite the popularity, it should be ditched after awhile.

Certainly individuals might get burned out on a setting, but why should the fact that someone has played in a setting for 10 years mean that someone who has just learned about it for the first time should be denied the pleasure of getting into it?

It's natural that some people would get bored with a setting after awhile. But that just means it's time for *them* to move on.

I've felt the same way about various settings, such as Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and Planescape over the years. However, in most cases, simply changing gears and switching settings was good enough to refresh my interest in time.

Banshee

 

[S'mon]

Yes, but there are two different issues:

1. An open world like FR or Greyhawk can get burned out through endless expansions, revisions, metaplot etc. This is sad, and usually a result of the world being over-worked by the publisher.

2. A 'closed' world can be constructed to tell a particular story. These worlds are usually best finished with when that story is done. Dragonlance's Krynn was designed that way, Middle Earth at end of the third age also, and the Midnight world would be 'done' once Izrador was defeated.

 

[Nightfall]

Only if they are WotC settings. Well some of them anyway.

 

[Khairn]

I believe that a well made setting will have multiple lives. Effectively being used for a period of time ... dropped as personal gaming tastes change ... and then resurected when its rediscovered years later.

So far that type of cycle has happened with Harn, my homebrew, Shadow World and Cormyr from FR. All of these I personally consider to be "classics".

 

[DungeonMaester]

Settings like FF and Dragonlance tend to "burn out" only because too often people get caught up in the metaplot. FF is a wonderful setting, when running it for people who don't know it. It's an incredible world. But I've found that when running it for people who have played it for years and read all the books, they start making comments like "Well, Elminster would (fill-in-the-blank)" Or "But we can't do that because X mega NPC lives there." They may not SAY IT outright in game, but their brains react that way, and when you as a DM suddenly kill off say, the Simbal, you get these metaplot responses from players.

But so long as you can separate the dogma from the setting, these worlds are great to run in.

I agree. In fact, I remember a podcast where they discussed CoC being hard to run because of players who Metaploted.

I felt that way when I told my players I would be running Ravenloft, and all they players ran out and read everything they could about Ravenloft.

---Rusty

 

[BlackMoria]

Not for our group. We have been playing in the Forgotten Realms since it first came out and we are still going at it with an enthusiasm that would astonish many others.