Do settings get "played out"?

[Kae'Yoss]

the old World of Darkness

I still applaud their move. They had the End of the World (of Darkness) in the books from day one, as something that was said to be nigh, and they pulled it off. That's putting your money where your mouth is.

Rules-wise, I prefer the new WoD. The whole thing has a more streamlined appearance (although I must admit that I don't have too much experience with the old rules, and what I have was with a very inexperienced Storyteller).

I also like a lot of things in the new setting(s): That not all of history is stated as cold facts (which I hear has often contradicted itself between games - Vampire said one thing, Werewolf another, and so on). While many have complained about the lower Clan count in the new Vampire, I actually like it: WoD is supposed to be class- and level-free, so the "pseudo-classes" should be less. The Covenents add an extra layer of politics, which I like, too.

Most complaints I've heard personally amounted to "It's not the old setting we know any more" (Which proves, at least to me, that one man's trash is another's treasure; One is fed up with the old, the other wants the old) or "I don't like the new because [Clan X] isn't there any more. The latter was always from people who were playing D&D almost exclusively (with only some occasional Vampire) and makes me think that they're still trapped in D&D's class-system and don't want to consider playing their [Old Clan X Vamp] as a [New Clan Y Vamp] with an [Old Clan X] attitude.
There are surely other reasons out there why to prefer the old WoD, but I haven't seen them personally.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to take a bit of an unpopular stance here and say that yes, settings can become burned out.

One of the biggest complaints about 3e is the "rules bloat" that makes it so difficult for new players to enter into the game. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but, I do think that this is a fairly valid point. It is certainly intimidating to a new player to see umpteen books on the shelves all pertaining to the same game. That's a pretty big investment.

Settings suffer from this as well. FR has many, many supplements. Three editions worth of supplements. That's a whole pile of stuff, never minding the bazillion novels and whatnot as well. For me, that's a huge disincentive to get into the setting. I have no real interest in starting from so far in the hole.

Now, it's true that I could cherry pick a few books and go from there. That's fine. But, it can rapidly spiral as well. Players start picking up a few more books, and the snowball rolls downhill.

I know that I have zero interest (and I'm only speaking for myself, not any greater truth) in Greyhawk or FR or most other published settings simply because there's such a bloat of books to be used. The only reason I got as many Scarred Lands books as I did is that I picked up most of them very, very cheaply when the setting went kaput. Before that, I used only a small fraction of the material out there and went with a mostly homebrew setting. Heck, I ran Isle of Dread (much modified) in Scarred Lands.

I do think that when settings hit such a huge number of supplements, they really push away new blood. The fans of the setting will keep buying books, but, as they get out of the hobby, very few new fans will replace them.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

One of the biggest complaints about 3e is the "rules bloat" that makes it so difficult for new players to enter into the game. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but, I do think that this is a fairly valid point. It is certainly intimidating to a new player to see umpteen books on the shelves all pertaining to the same game. That's a pretty big investment.

I'm not sure the problem lies with the game here. Sure, some people will be intimidated, but others will think "whoa, that's neat, they sure support their game." And some will be told, or realize for themselves, that you don't have to buy all those books.

I think the real problem is when someone thinks he needs all that stuff in order to play. They don't. The core rules are necessary (and players don't even need all of that), and maybe a Campaign Setting (a single book). It's not as if Wizards left out an important part of the game, like spells (There's games like that, or at least one game: Core book has spellcasters, but no spells. And the book with the spells isn't even translated into English).

Settings suffer from this as well. FR has many, many supplements. Three editions worth of supplements. That's a whole pile of stuff, never minding the bazillion novels and whatnot as well. For me, that's a huge disincentive to get into the setting. I have no real interest in starting from so far in the hole.

For me, it's a huge plus. I have all 3e supplements, and every single novel (read them all, too). It was fun hunting down the old ones. The rest of the party seems to like the Realms as well. There's one guy who read a couple of novels and has probably read the FRCS from cover to cover. The rest doesn't know too much about the setting, and noone seems to mind.

I do think that when settings hit such a huge number of supplements, they really push away new blood. The fans of the setting will keep buying books, but, as they get out of the hobby, very few new fans will replace them.

I don't believe it is as bleak as you say. Plus, you already mentioned how it may work: More and more old fans are pushed out, and the number of new fans will decrease. At some point, that will lead to too few fans being there, and the Realms will be discontinued. But until that day, why shouldn't they continue giving those fans that are there more of what they want?

I also don't think that the relation between number of books and number of fans will continue until one day, the last book will drive away the last fan: I think there's some limit of what people can find intimidating. After that is reached, the new books won't intimidate any more people. I mean, those who aren't intimidated by, say 1,000 books won't be intimidated by 10,000 books, either.

 

[Dykstrav]

I also like a lot of things in the new setting(s): That not all of history is stated as cold facts (which I hear has often contradicted itself between games - Vampire said one thing, Werewolf another, and so on)...

Most complaints I've heard personally amounted to "It's not the old setting we know any more" (Which proves, at least to me, that one man's trash is another's treasure; One is fed up with the old, the other wants the old) or "I don't like the new because [Clan X] isn't there any more...

There are surely other reasons out there why to prefer the old WoD, but I haven't seen them personally.

Yeah... There's no denying that reinventing your entire flagship product line requires some brass balls. Sometimes, that's exactly what a product needs to stay fresh and viable (especially such artsy games as the World of Darkness).

I always tried to play off the contradicitions between game lines as being the party line for the particular supernatural faction. Usually worked rather well, but it was still frustrating to deal with those players who whined when you mentioned Lilith or Kuei-jin when the core rulebook "stated explicitly" that all vampires were descended from Caine. But you always get a certain amount of goobers playing any game... It became almost a requirement to change some of the supernatural history for your own chronicle just to deal with those people that wanted to play neonates with an intimate knowledge of the Camarilla's inner circle and the like.

I think one of the things that turned me off to the new setting are the people that claim that they love the new World of Darkness because it's somehow impossible to play a stereotype in the new setting. In the old World of Darkness, I've played a Brujah archaeologist, a Ventrue bodyguard, a Tremere that was an olympic athelete, a Giovanni lounge singer, and a Gangrel day trader (those are just some of my weird Vampire characters, my wraiths and mages were usually more out there than that). So the argument that the old World of Darkness somehow shoehorned you into playing clans a certain way really never held water with me.

I do kind of dig the idea of blood potency, but nothing else in the new setting has caught my eye enough to convince me to shell out money for a game that I don't see as broken. I may end up playing the new World of Darkness one of these days. But the old one still has plenty of interesting things for me to play with.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think one of the things that turned me off to the new setting are the people that claim that they love the new World of Darkness because it's somehow impossible to play a stereotype in the new setting.

You can play stereotypes. I doubt you could prevent that.

I do like how your clan doesn't determine your primary/secondary/tertiary attributes or skills, so it's easier to play "non-stereotypical" characters.

So the argument that the old World of Darkness somehow shoehorned you into playing clans a certain way really never held water with me.

What I was saying that several people I know hated the new play because they could no longer play their favourite character types. They wanted those stereotypes.

I may end up playing the new World of Darkness one of these days. But the old one still has plenty of interesting things for me to play with.

I didn't have any WoD stuff, anyway, so I might as well buy the new stuff.

 

[00Machado]

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.

QFT - in my experience, a lot of people are reluctant to personalize a setting, to take ownership of it as theirs and make it leave and breathe apart from novelizations, video game, and other sources of canon. Adhering to canon limits the settings usefulness in terms of what I like to get out of a game.

Regarding the 'can a setting be played out question', I think only rarely. You can always introduce an apocalypse, or epic scale war to overhaul the setting elements (everything from geography, to alliances, to NPC's to countries) if they've become stale to you. I think the only chance of it becoming overplayed is if after such a reboot, you end up with something where you've resolved all the tension points. So long as tension points remain, or can reasonably be introduced, a setting isn't overplayed in my opinion. Getting bored and wanting a change on the other hand, is much more likely in my opinion.

 

[rounser]

Now, it's true that I could cherry pick a few books and go from there. That's fine. But, it can rapidly spiral as well. Players start picking up a few more books, and the snowball rolls downhill.

Well, I'd ask, how much space do you really need? If you can reach 20th level in 12 adventures ala the Paizo adventure paths, why are hundreds of thousands of miles needed? An island the size of Mintarn is more than enough, peppered with a few dungeons, adventures and intrigue.

Add to that the "dungeon walls" hypothesis: the more options the players have over where they can go, the less control the DM has over the campaign and the more they have to improvise. While this is fine in theory, it's rarely pulled off well in practise IME.

I think settings need a major rethink to fit D&D properly. They seem to have been bushwhacked by the epic scale that would better fit a novel than a game. Something the size of Thunder Rift or the Korinn Archipelago seems far more amenable to actual gameplay. Ptolus was a big hint in this direction, too, IMO - a single city being more than enough for 3E.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I'd ask, how much space do you really need? If you can reach 20th level in 12 adventures ala the Paizo adventure paths, why are hundreds of thousands of miles needed? An island the size of Mintarn is more than enough, peppered with a few dungeons, adventures and intrigue.

Add to that the "dungeon walls" hypothesis: the more options the players have over where they can go, the less control the DM has over the campaign and the more they have to improvise. While this is fine in theory, it's rarely pulled off well in practise IME.

I think settings need a major rethink to fit D&D properly. They seem to have been bushwhacked by the epic scale that would better fit a novel than a game. Something the size of Thunder Rift or the Korinn Archipelago seems far more amenable to actual gameplay. Ptolus was a big hint in this direction, too, IMO - a single city being more than enough for 3E.

I agree with this 100%. You said what I was trying to say much better than I did.

When you think about it, between the three AP's, and the Dragon supplements of those, you have a huge amount of information about a fairly small geographical area that you could set adventures in for many, many years.

I would actually love to see more campaign settings in the Ptolus mold where the heavy lifting work (statted NPC's and the other crunchy bits) are done for me. The big beef I have with most published settings is they only start the process. Scarred Lands was guilty of this. I have a wonderful setting book like Shelzar, but, I still have to create pretty much every adventure from scratch. How is that really all that different from homebrew?