Do you wish new Campaigns to integrate with popular ones

[D+1]

In truth I don't think I truly understand the poll question. What do you mean by integrate? If it's a new setting, doesn't it by default NOT integrate with old settings but instead stand on its own? Are you asking for a choice of whether alignment rules should integrate into ANY campaign setting or if it's "okay" to create new worlds without reference to alignment? I chose the last option on the poll because it's the closest to a sensible answer I can derive given the vagueness and confusion of the poll itself. A DM (or by extenstion the person designing the new world/setting) should be the one to ultimately make the decision of whether alignments should be part of it.

One other thing - do NOT make the foolish mistake of seeing a few vocal objections and assuming it is representational of any truly significant portion of gamers. A FEW people object to alignments. When they do they tend to be VERY put off by them and very vocal about it. They do not constitute a group that could be called "many". You see a lot of people advocating 1E or OD&D (even 2E) as well, often very loudly or incessantly (see Diaglo), but it doesn't make them a truly meaningful cross section of players as a whole.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

There should really be a poll option for "I have absolutely no idea what this poll is asking me about."

If you're asking me about a campaign world you're creating, my suggestion would be to make it as interesting and as flexible as possible, and don't skimp on providing suggestions for how someone could tear your setting apart and use the best bits of it somewhere else.

Seriously, put a little bit of effort into telling me why some things in the setting were designed a particular way, what effect they're meant to produce, what the designer's intention was, and alternatives that I might want to try instead. When you've got your setting all put together, show me how you chose the pieces you used and what else I could use those pieces for. If you have metaplot (and oh god, I hope you don't, because I hate metaplot), make sure it's more of a vague set of possible plot hooks than an organized story about pet NPCs, and give me a look behind the curtain on that, too.

In other words, if you want to sell me on how innovative your product is, tell me how you got there and give me tools and suggestions for taking your product and using bits and pieces of it in every single game of anything I will ever run again. Put in so many good ideas and so much good advice that I'll be stealing things out of that book until 2014.


...or actually, don't do any of those things. You'll go broke if you actually target your book for people like me. Make a thick book of new spells, prestige classes, and magic items instead, because those always sell better.

--
throw in some pictures of half-naked drow chicks, and you're all set
ryan

 

[ngenius]

In truth I don't think I truly understand the poll question. What do you mean by integrate? If it's a new setting, doesn't it by default NOT integrate with old settings but instead stand on its own? Are you asking for a choice of whether alignment rules should integrate into ANY campaign setting or if it's "okay" to create new worlds without reference to alignment? I chose the last option on the poll because it's the closest to a sensible answer I can derive given the vagueness and confusion of the poll itself. A DM (or by extenstion the person designing the new world/setting) should be the one to ultimately make the decision of whether alignments should be part of it.
...

Sorry D+1 for the confusion; from what I understood about d20 was a system to enable different campaign worlds to use similar rules of magic and other world parameters. A new campaign can introduce new ideas much like WoTC is doing with Eberron, but still use all the popular magic spells, classes, etc. Other great campaigns like Arcana Unearthed by Monte Cook have their own merits, but it would have been better if Monte had more guidelines on how d20 restrictive classes like the Paladin may be used in Arcana Unearthed by gamers who may wish to integrate Faerun and AU. Many do so using house-rules. I just thought a more organized system brings more sanity.

Just, between you and me, I like your ideas integrating AU with the PHB.

 

[Sollir Furryfoot]

Y'know, you can vote for more than one thing on this poll, so I voted for both:

-New campaigns should stand alone and be totally unique
and
-The GM should decide what is best and integrate freely without forced rules

By the former, I don't mean that it has to have its own classes and spellcasting system, skills, feats, etc... and completely deviate from the standard D&D cosmology, just that it has enough to differentiate it greatly from another campaign setting. Personally, I'd like to see campaigns with more twists on the basic areas of what is considered the "norm". All too many campaign settings have, for example, pantheons of deities that look like religions from another source just with different names.

Also, I'm more of a crunch then fluff gamer, and I appreciate new rules, mechanics, etc... assuming they're appropriately balanced. Of course, in all cases, the GM should decide what or what not he wants. I don't like buying campaign settings myself, but I have bought some Forgotten Realms products and Unearthed Arcana for crunch purposes.

 

[scourger]

I took a hint from the post above and voted twice for options one & four: stand-alone and GM discretion.

For me, a campaign setting really has to offer something new & exciting without deviating too much from the core. It should present just enough to make the new setting come alive without getting mired in too many rules or too much setting information.

For D&D, I run a core game. I call it a Greyhawk campaign, but I really mean it to be a core game. The depth of information presented in the PHB and the D&D Gazetteer is about all I need or want. The Living Greyhawk Gazeteer was too much broad detail. The AD&D sourcebook Greyhawk the Adventure Begins was much better for my d20 D&D game as it detailed the City & Domain of Greyhawk. This is an example of a stand-alone campaign. I have not felt the need to buy any alternate fantasy settings.

Non-fantasy D&D settings I have liked enough to buy & run are DragonStar, Judge Dredd, Omega World, and Skull & Bones. I have purchased many, many more camapign books; but they didn't get kept or run by me. I call these D&D settings because, although they are not sword & sorcery fantasy, they are based on the D&D d20 rules. DragonStar probably won't go any further for me due to player disinterest (although I would love to run Raw Recruits). It is a stand-alone campaign. Same for Judge Dredd, unfortunately, although I have 2 adventures unused and plan on continuing to buy future accessories. Both of those settings are strong because they provide adventures. I am trying to finish up an Omega World mini campaign. It is based on the adventures presented in Alternity Gamma World, and the conversion is a snap since Mr. Tweet provided such great rules for DMs in the game. Omega World is stand-alone. I am using less than 1/4 of Skull & Bones--mainly setting information and a few rules for ships. I really don't need to reinvent the wheel for the core game in order to run a pirates game, so I didn't. I'm just using the PHB and firearms rules from the DMG with no "flashy" magic. DM discretion works great!

Other D&D settings I would like to run are Spellslinger and the Shackled City Adventure Path. Note that each is a concise, portable campaign. Again, I don't need to reinvent the wheel to get my game on. I am hoping that Spellslinger will be close enough to the core D&D game to allow me to easily modify adventures I already own. Shackled City is another classic stand-alone D&D campaign.

As for alignments, I don't really care. I don't intend to put my players in an alignment straight-jacket. It is more fun for me to give them direction in the campaign world and let them make their own choices. For D&D, I expect them to be heroes. In DragonStar they were part of a military organization with attendant codes of conduct and loopholes. For Judge Dredd, they are judges and get rewards for acting accordingly. Omega World has no alignments, just hopes, fears and dreams. Pirates are piratical, even if they should become privateers. Spellslinger doesn't seem to need alignments. Alignments are helpful for fantasy archetypes, but otherwise I can take them or leave them.

My advice to you is to keep your new campaign simple and focus on presenting a compelling world with lots of adventures. If you do that, the alignment issue will solve itself.

 

[D+1]

Sorry D+1 for the confusion; from what I understood about d20 was a system to enable different campaign worlds to use similar rules of magic and other world parameters.

It is, but then d20 publishers make their own choice of which direction to go based on what their trying to accomplish - stick close to existing rules to facitilate integration/adaptation, or take it in all-new directions/change everything. Whether a given product should or shouldn't depends on how well they DO either one.

Most d20 stuff seems to me to be meant for integration, yet follows the 90% of everything is crap rule. AU is the first thing I've bought that is geared for the other method. Fortunately it seems very well done for what it is meant to be - a wholesale replacement for the PH and everything in it.

A new campaign can introduce new ideas much like WoTC is doing with Eberron, but still use all the popular magic spells, classes, etc. Other great campaigns like Arcana Unearthed by Monte Cook have their own merits, but it would have been better if Monte had more guidelines on how d20 restrictive classes like the Paladin may be used in Arcana Unearthed by gamers who may wish to integrate Faerun and AU. Many do so using house-rules. I just thought a more organized system brings more sanity.

Okay, so what is it you're thinking of reorganizing? Surely not the d20 rules themselves? They seem to be working just fine if they CAN provide either ease of integration or drastic departure.

I'd say that to me the ability to incorporate ANYTHING into some other campaign is better than having products that really want to stand on their own. It's FAR more likely that I will be taking pieces of a product and adding them to something else. If your product either is problematic to take pieces of or add pieces to it then it's much less likely to be the core of something I want to use.

Just, between you and me, I like your ideas integrating AU with the PHB.

I hadn't even realized until last week that it doesn't have alignments in it! That's... that's like criminal or something. I had my players read it after I suggested we might use it as the primary basis for a new game. Some characters have been rolled up but the actual start of the game has been delayed for RL reasons. I'm now having second thoughts about using it as a primary source. Not because of alignments but because of lots of other issues coming into play - no elves or dwarves in AU being one. I CANNOT run the game I want without elves or dwarves. Some noteworthy player doubts about the AU magic system. I think it would work out fine but the key player in question sounds very dubious - and if he's sounding dubious he's already not liking it for whatever reasons (right or wrong). That's a problem since he wants to run a spellcaster.

There's other factors too but if we can't start it in earnest before Eberron arrives I'm fairly sure it will be an Eberron campaign that we play (using elements of AU, rather than running AU using elements of Eberron - AND JG Wilderlands, the PH, etc.)

 

[megamania]

DM= Damn Mighty.

The DM has final say in anything in his game. If he wants to be purist and his players agree then so be it. I would bet most DM's will borrow a bit from other world books and companies however. Otherwise- why get anything but the first three core books.

 

[nopantsyet]

New campaigns should stand alone and be totally unique

However, I don't have any opposition to sidebars devoted to variations. I don't want to see, "Integrating Thiswurlde Into Forgotten Realms." More what I'm thinking of is in the alignment section there might be a sidebar, "Thiswurlde and Loosely-Aligned Settings." In the magic section there might be, "Thiswurlde and Low-Magic." Something to provide some helpful advice for DMs who wish to mix all or part of it into their campaign, whatever it is.

 

[ngenius]

New campaigns should stand alone and be totally unique

However, I don't have any opposition to sidebars devoted to variations. I don't want to see, "Integrating Thiswurlde Into Forgotten Realms." More what I'm thinking of is in the alignment section there might be a sidebar, "Thiswurlde and Loosely-Aligned Settings." In the magic section there might be, "Thiswurlde and Low-Magic." Something to provide some helpful advice for DMs who wish to mix all or part of it into their campaign, whatever it is.

Thanks nopantsyet for your comments and advice. Also thanks to all the other members of ENWorld who posted their ideas here.

Anyway, nopantsyet, has some really nice ideas using the side-bars as places where we can provide rules of possible ways to integerate our own Campaign Setting with popular elements in other Campaigns, such as alignments, races and race-restrictions and most especially travel between different worlds.

 

[ngenius]

Okay, I notice many votes to let GM decide

Hello Gamers,

I am noticing many votes to allow the GM to make final decisions on game integration across various campaigns. Please give examples of how you managed to join some very disparate worlds such as AU and d20 types.

I even found someone trying to integrate AU into the very dated Al-Qadim campaign on the ezBoards.

Just my observation regarding the alignment problems between d20 and AU. How does the very alignment-specific Paladin survive in Arcana Unearthed?
I guess that all Paladins have to be transformed into Champions instead.

Personally, I like many of the classes from Arcana Unearthed but integrating its own magic system with the d20's is difficult, since Monte Cook chose a different view of Magic, less reliant on Clerical Domains or Arcane schools of magic, but instead more of an innovative system based on Simple, Complex and Exotic spells.

I prefer most of the d20 classes as they are, but wish to integrate them with some really neat classes from AU such as the Akhasics, Champions, Runethanes, and Witches. Others like the Magister are too much like the Wizard, and even the Oathsworn closely resembles the Monk. The Champion is like the Paladin, but much better since alignment restrictions do not apply.

This is the main problem when no rules are present to integrate various Campaign settings. I am sure that many gamers, like myself, like to borrow the best parts from the various game worlds and use them in our own campaigns.

Hence, my poll, to find out whether, a weak integration is what gamers want, so that they can argue endlessly on the ENWorld. Or do we create rules to simply things?