Do you enjoy open-ended campaign settings?

[Imaro]

I play more than just D&D and doing this sometimes gives you a different perspective on what else is out there. The point of this is I have noticed that D&D and most d20 tends to stick with an open-ended campaign model. Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Iron Kingdoms etc. are settings where a set number of books is not determined before hand.

Lately I've noticed that with indie games and even some mainstream publishers that this model is being replaced with a "complete" setting in a pre-determined number of books. Examples of this include the Blue Rose line, Lankhmar, and the Eternal Champion by Mongoose, Promethean and the upcoming Changeling and Scion by White Wolf. I have to say there's something cool about knowing how many books you'll have to buy in order to complete a setting, as well as knowing the authors will not change it after a certain point.

So just a question, which model do you as a player, DM, or collector enjoy? and why? Can it reach a point in a setting where pretty much everything has been said that needs to be said and it either becomes redundant, requires an earth-shattering event so that canon can be recycled or sees diminishing returns on sourcebooks.

For me personally I'm starting to become quite enamored with limited settings, they seem more focused and less of a money pit.

 

[Laman Stahros]

I have never tried to "complete a setting". When I ran games set in FR, I bought the region books so that I wouldn't have to design the regions, allowing me to focus on designing adventures built around my player's characters. I walked away from FR because of the constant Realms-shattering events and the way the novels and region books were so heavily tied together.

 

[anton1066]

I dont see the point of wanting a closed setting. Lets say there is a setting out there that I really really like. I am never going to say, 'wow this is such a great setting, stop supporting it'. IMO if you can cover an entire setting in just a limited number of books, it wasnt that great of a setting to begin with.

 

[Korgoth]

One thing to like about a limited setting is that certain areas will be left entirely open to the DM. You'll never have to worry about a new book coming out that invalidates part of your campaign. "Just don't use the book!" Well, duh. But suppose it has some material that works and some that doesn't. Now it is officially a mess to sort out what is "canon" in my campaign, what published material I use and what I ignore. Much more troublesome that way.

That being said, it's fine to churn out adventures that can be dropped into the setting at various places. Ideally, I'd like something on these lines:

1) Boxed set detailing the world, weather patterns, etc. (like the old Greyhawk box)
2) A supplement detailing an important town or city and its environs rather exhaustively (still with room for DM expansion; for example, Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh)
3) A deluxe set or series detailing a main adventure location linked with item 2.
4) Adventures that can be easily placed in various parts of the setting.

And that's it.

 

[the shmoopie]

I would prefer open ended, but not to an retarded degree.
I would like the books to leave room for DM's to put as many details into a world as we want. FR has too much stuff to easily drop PC's into something other than on rails FR.
-for that matter-
I really like the idea of a campaign book for DM's only. I really don't like the idea of a PC having access to all the secrets they put in the main campaign book. I think that is what the players guide to xxxx should be for.
After that it is all gravy, make as many books as you want. I only buy the ones I want/need anyway.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I think the difference with a game like Promethean: The Created or Changeling: We Don't Know Yet is that, while Promethean will only ever be a five-book line, it's located within the World of Darkness.

Not only is there a line of "core" World of Darkness supplements that can be used in a Promethean game - Mysterious Places, Antagonists, Armory, Second Sight, 13th Precinct, and so on - but the more unified approach to the setting means that quite a bit of material found in supplements for Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage can be used in your Promethean game. You don't need to be a werewolf to have a problem with spider-spirits that burrow into people's brains and take over their bodies, after all.

With a D&D setting, we lack an overarching "meta setting" like the World of Darkness for the various lines. We used to have Spelljammer and Planescape, of course, but even those were much more concerned with their own material than adding to the existing settings. The basic reason they were all tied together was so you could bring characters from one into the other.

Games with a limited set of supplements and no meta setting to connect them to other games have their upside, but from the point of view of a company's cashflow their major effect is to force the company to keep coming up with fresh and different products - if you refrain from expanding upon what you've already sold your customers, you have to come up with something new they, or a new slice of the market, wants.

The Forgotten Realms and Eberron keep getting supported with new books because it's simpler and more effective for your new releases to build upon books your customers have already bought.

Games like Blue Rose and Promethean are limited lines because they're of limited appeal in the market. It's literally not worth the effort to support them past a certain point because the returns don't justify it in comparison with other projects.

All that means is that Green Ronin and White Wolf ought to be congratulated for putting out something that serves a niche market for as long as they did - it shows a willingness to make "poorer" business decisions in order to please players.

 

[S'mon]

Hm, by this definition of limited, Limited, I guess. I like a setting where I get the basics & can develop it to taste. Currently am enjoying Wilderlands a lot.

 

[Imaro]

I dont see the point of wanting a closed setting. Lets say there is a setting out there that I really really like. I am never going to say, 'wow this is such a great setting, stop supporting it'. IMO if you can cover an entire setting in just a limited number of books, it wasnt that great of a setting to begin with.

First, I am not talking about dropping a line, but instead (The company)deciding how many books will cover a setting upfront and focusing enough that it is fleshed out in that number of books.

Wow. I just totally cannot disagree more. I think with a focused setting that doesn't hold. Now with something like Eberron, everything plus the kitchen sink plus everything we'll make in the future I guess that might be true.

I am sorry but I can see the creator(s) of a setting, just like a good television series or series of books etc. realizing when it's over or complete and anything else would just be extraneous, or not true to the setting. What does how many books have to do with how good a setting is? Dark Legacies is only two books and it's a helluva setting

 

[Aaron L]

I like my campaign settings the way I like my comic books: multiple plot-lines, interesting characters, open ended stories, slow and gradual changes, continual updates, and continuous support, so I always have something to look forward to next month (or week, or year, etc... )


These are also some of the many reason's why I'm so ticked off that FFG stopped supporting Dragonstar

 

[S'mon]

I do think settings can be damaged by too much support material - Greyhawk and FR in the 2e era come to mind. Metaplots can be even worse, generally I think it's much better to have a set starting year and stick with that, as Wilderlands does. I think the ideal is a broad-brush overview (eg the 1983 World of Greyhawk, or the Players' Guide to the Wilderlands) and then flesh out small areas in detail in supplements, the GM can buy whatever looks to suit his game. Scenarios are the obvious thing that doesn't need to be limited. A by-nation Gazetteer system like with Known World/Mystara can work well too; if one doesn't fit your campaign you can ignore it - eg I loved Ken Rolston's Northern Reaches GAZ and Aaron Allston's Dawn of the Emperors, but disliked the Ierendi, Darokin and Glantri ones, so the first two got played to death while the latter three provided some NPCs to kill. >