Every Edition Has Its Setting

[airwalkrr]

As I glanced at an Eberron adventure just a few minutes ago, something strange struck me. I couldn't imagine playing Eberron in 1st edition or 2nd edition. The setting is designed for 3rd edition. Further, I realized that I have always had a lot of difficulty playing Greyhawk in 3rd edition when 1st edition has always seemed so much more comfortable. And since the most copious amounts of Forgotten Realms sourcebooks came from the 2e era, I have found that trying to convert all of that to 3rd edition becomes onerous at best. And many 2e concepts are not backwards compatible with 1e. A Forgotten Realms campaign using 1e rules would seem lacking, incomplete.

So I was struck with the strange sense that each setting has its own edition. Greyhawk fits neatly into 1e and 1e provides the right feel for a Greyhawk campaign with its often unforgiving rules and nitty-gritty combat. And I got quite a feeling of distaste for the meshing of 3e with Greyhawk in Living Greyhawk. 3e is too high-powered for Greyhawk. Forgotten Realms, with its ever-expansive exploration almost requires a "rules light" system like 2e (at least in the general sense of the system not having an overall consistency or governing purpose). Besides that, my experiences with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale have cemented FR as a 2e campaign setting in my mind. And Eberron is very mechanical, like 3e. Feats and templates and skills are all integral to the world of Eberron and it would be impossible for me to envision it without them. The setting oozes high fantasy and spectacular stunts that simply weren't possible with previous editions.

It would be nice if settings transcended time and editions, but I am not sure they do. I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing however. I also don't think that any system is truly perfect. But if the game is going to be completely reinvented with every edition, I think a new campaign setting would be virtually required for me to get my full enjoyment from it; either a setting of my own design or a WotC one. I, for one, think 4e will be a great system, but I don't know how well it will do in living up to my experiences with other settings in other editions. I think I will be starting a 4e campaign when it is released, but it will likely be with a completely new world, or a "rebooted" FR where I forget everything I used to know about Toril and go with the basics, like Elminster the uber-mage, who really doesn't need statistics since he is practically deific in proportion.

 

[HellHound]

I felt that Greyhawk and Blackmoor were the OD&D settings.
Mystara is the B/X & BECM setting (although Blackmoor was a big part of our B/X games back before we switched to my homebrew).
Unfortunately, that would make DragonLance the 1e setting (and the setting that chased me away from 1e).
I remember FR coming out - so that had to be 1e also... I didn't play 2e at all.

 

[Cam Banks]

I personally prefer Dragonlance as 3rd edition, myself.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[reanjr]

I personally prefer Dragonlance as 3rd edition, myself.

Cheers,
Cam

Wholeheartedly agree. I think Dragonlance was one of the best examples of using Prestige Classes and while their editing/testing is a bit subpar, the overall quality of the game was fantastic. I always liked reading about DL before, but in 3e I finally wanted to PLAY it.

 

[Quasqueton]

I played, very briefly, in a homebrew campaign world with impossibly tall city towers with magical elevating platforms, and some magical luxeries/technolgy back in the late 80s, with the AD&D1 rules.

Quasqueton

 

[jdrakeh]

I personally prefer Dragonlance as 3rd edition, myself.

Cheers,
Cam

I have to concur. Althouth it existed as early as 1e, those early modules and box sets left very little room for PCs to maneuver and dedicated tons of space to detailing the exploits of NPCs and past events that had little bearing on actual play. They were great companions to the novels but, IMO, pretty crappy RPG supplements. I really appreciate the new Dragonlance setting material as it opens up a lot of the possibilities that were closed off in the earlier products. I never much cared for Dragonlance as a game setting until the SAGA game and the later 3x material saw print.

 

[airwalkrr]

I played, very briefly, in a homebrew campaign world with impossibly tall city towers with magical elevating platforms, and some magical luxeries/technolgy back in the late 80s, with the AD&D1 rules.

Quasqueton

But I doubt you had warforged, extreme explorers, and exorcists of the high flame running around. I'm not talking about the backdrop in particular. I am talking about the character options that give the setting it's feel.

I mean, Greyhawk may not have impossibly tall city towers, but it has some pretty fantastic places. Castle Greyhawk itself defies architectural convention. And magical luxuries may not be commonplace, but they exist, and are far more common among the wealthy. You may not ride an elementally-powered airship to work everyday, but it would not be unexpected to see a wizard "disappear" into the mage's guild.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So I was struck with the strange sense that each setting has its own edition.

As someone who has been playing since the early days of 1e, I disagree with your thesis. I have found Greyhawk to work equally well in all editions. I can imagine Eberron working just fine in 1e, though it would certainly not feel the same; that's because any 1e campaign is going to feel quite different from a 3.x campaign.

 

[migo]

The feeling might come from nostalgia. I also have a hard time thinking about running Forgotten Realms in 3rd Edition.

I was actually thinking of getting Ptolus for a 3rd Edition campaign until I found out 4e was coming out.

 

[Geoffrey]

The Wilderlands is the spirit of OD&D (the little brown books published in 1974-1976).