Do settings get "played out"?

[Emirikol]

I certainly feel that way. We quickly 'played out' Eberron. Greyhawk took us a few years back in the 90's. Now I'm playing in Hyboria and it's starting to get worn.

I'm thinking Lankhmar or Thieves World or something else 'lower magic' next. I'm REALLY burned out on the D&D magic-item-power-escalation theme. The good thing is that it can't get much worse!



jh

 

[Crothian]

The only reason to put a setting out to Pasture is if the company is no longer making money on it.

 

[Xyanthon]

I certainly feel that an individual may feel that a setting has become "played out" but I don't really think that subjectively you caould say that a setting is played out. I've never really been a fan of FR so it felt played out to me from the begining. I'm sure that there are settings that I enjoy such as Planescape that others feel have been played out.

 

[seans23]

Greyhawk will never die.

 

[The Levitator]

We've been playing FR since we converted to 3.5 around 4 years ago. We haven't gotten sick of FR yet, but that might be because my version of FR is at best a 2nd cousin twice removed to FR "out of the box". I use the races, the geography, most of the creatures, and some of the history, and that's about it. Our version of FR is actually low magic availability. We play a highly modified version of 3.5 ( I have a Gurps player and a Rolemaster player in my group so we are trying to make everyone happy). We don't rely on magic as much as a standard FR campaign, but I give ability points every 3 levels, feats every other level from 1st, and while we have low magic availability, it's still a fairly high magic campaign in regards to power. I don't really have much "mundane" magic. In fact the 1st magical weapon a PC will get their hands on will be at least +2 or +1 with an ability. Is it balanced? We don't really care. We aren't a munchkin group, so we have a lot more options with our playing. If we don't like a particular aspect of FR, we change it to suit our collective tastes. I think any campaign setting can be played by any group as long as the group collectively makes the changes necessary to suit the groups' tastes and gaming style. It would take a LOT for our group to be able to modify a setting like Eberron enough to make it fun for us, but I'm sure if we wanted to switch worlds, we could do it.

We talked about a homebrew world, and I would love to do it. I just don't have the time. So, I use FR and make a few changes to suit us and it plays much more like a homebrew than it does a pure FR setting.

 

[Azgulor]

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.

I think the answer to your first question is purely subject to the opinion of the GM and players. As to your second question, absolutely. A brilliant setting can go off the rails if the developers lose sight of the themes of the campaign setting. As whether or not they get played out, I'd say no. If they do, it's only in the sense that the GM might run dry of ideas and need to step away from the setting for awhile. Sometimes you just start to lose the forest for the trees. I have yet to see a setting that I couldn't come back to for another campaign after recharging the batteries, so to speak.

Azgulor

 

[Oryan77]

For me, a setting never gets played out if the DM keeps the adventures interesting & fun. Also, the more I learn about a setting the more fun I have playing in it.

I've realized a lot of gamers (seems like most gamers) are very wishy-washy and lose interest quickly. They change from game to game & from character to character very often. I'm the kind of person that if I like something, I stick with it for a very long time because I like it...I don't get bored easily & I don't get anxious to play the next new game. So many gamers have played in so many different settings/systems that I always wondered if they have ever played the same character very far in a single campaign. I've played a lot of D&D, but I have only played maybe 4 different settings & they were all D&D systems.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

To answer your first question directly - there does NOT come a time when it makes sense to put still-popular settings out to pasture, ASSUMING of course that the setting continues to be profitable to publish. That doesn't mean that it isn't going to wear out its welcome with some people due to being complicated, over-detailed, gimmicky, etc.

I swore off the Forgotten Realms several years ago after having spent over 10 years running and playing EVERY D&D campaign therein. I literally said, "I intend to NEVER run FR again." I spent as much time finding things I DIDN'T like about it and making changes to it as simply running it. I think it was when I found myself in the middle of rearranging the map for the entire setting that I said, "I give up." I also wanted change just for the sake of change. Doesn't make it a bad setting as such - just one that no longer did anything for ME. I don't particularly suspect that too many people feel the same way. FR is still popular; it's still selling, yes? When those two things change, THEN it's time to lay it to rest with a respectful farewell.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

However, this burning out only applies to those who have been involved in such settings through all the expansions, revisions, etc. To someone who's never played FR it's a GOLD MINE of a setting. All those things you just listed as demerits to one person become invaluable assets to another. And then if you gave up on it 10 years ago and hated it, you could come back to it now and wonder what the hell you were thinking.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

The settings themselves don't get "burned out" though after a certain point it can be necessary to move the timeline. But the people DMing and playing a setting? Definitely, after a while you can just get burned out and need to move on to something new.

Its the reason that I made my homebrew a Dyson sphere, when everyone involved begins to look like they need a change I can change just about everything and yet remain in the same overall setting. I never run out of room and there's always something else beyond the edge of the map for players to explore even if I have to spin it wholecloth on the spot.