Fluff only campaign settings? (Now with a comprehensive list!)

[JoeGKushner]

Yet they keep selling and with Harn new products are still slowly being released.

But are they selling better than books that do adhere to a system? That would be a better indication of the success of such a thing no?

Heck, I know at most Gen Con's that Flying Buffalo is still selling City Books and Grimtooth Traps. That to me would be an indication of overprinting rather than continual demand.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

A good compromise would be the following:

Publish the book itself in a system-less form - but also make d20 conversions available on your web page (as well as conversions for other systems, if their publishers permit it).

 

[JoeGKushner]

A good compromise would be the following:

Publish the book itself in a system-less form - but also make d20 conversions available on your web page (as well as conversions for other systems, if their publishers permit it).

Problem with that though is if it follows standard d20 design methodology, it's still going to be obvious in the writing as things still have to be heavily quantified in the d20 system. Assumptions about magic and other fields are ingrained into the system and I think it's one of the reasons why third party publishers have had a hard time supporting a thriving setting because the D&D rules are really only good for well, D&D style campaigns. Attempts to move beyond that and keep the D&D rules are, in my opinion, destined for failure.

There would have to be a lot of 'call outs' to explain why X, Y, and Z aren't followed but why A, B, and C are and how those influences will effect game play and what assumptions will have to be taken into account when using OTHER third party material like Dungeon, Dungeon Crawl Classics, etc... in this 'fluff' campaign.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

A good compromise would be the following:

Publish the book itself in a system-less form - but also make d20 conversions available on your web page (as well as conversions for other systems, if their publishers permit it).

It turns out that this approach might be problematic with non-OGL systems, since this is not a "fan effort" and these publishers might not be keen on allowing you to make money with their system...

 

[GreatLemur]

This is an extremely interesting discussion to me. A friend of mine is thinking about publishing a setting he's been working on for the past two years, and at the moment he's considering going dual-stat simply because he dislikes d20, but recognizes the system's dominance in the market. Of course, a lot of folks are put off by dual-statted books since they ask gamers to pay for material they never intend to use. A crunch-free setting book could be a great possible solution.

 

[JVisgaitis]

If you'd like to read more about the new Freeport book and our support plans for the setting, check out the first of a series of designer journals here:

http://www.greenronin.com/freeport/2007/02/freeport_designer_journal_1.php

Sounds cool. What are you guys doing with power levels of NPCs? Are you rating them on some sort of power scale or just not worrying about it?

 

[tf360]

I did some work on Ed Greenwood's Castlemourn Campaign setting, and it was about 85%-90% fluff. Tim Hitchcock, from Dragon and Dungeon magazine among others, and I did just about all of the crunch.

Jeff, I saw your latest blog. Hope things work out well for you guys; you're some of the best guys in the industry.

 

[Turanil]

Sounds cool. What are you guys doing with power levels of NPCs? Are you rating them on some sort of power scale or just not worrying about it?

As a customer and DM, I would like to get an idea of a NPC's power level, but only in vague terms (such as "the most powerful mage of Zingara", or "an experienced and skilled warrior"). After all, the most powerful mage in my campaign might better be 18th level, while for another it will be 45th... likewise, for some people the average NPC is 1st level, while I do prefer a 3rd level average. So, exact level isn't necessary, i prefer to know its power in relation to others.

Problem with that though is if it follows standard d20 design methodology, it's still going to be obvious in the writing as things still have to be heavily quantified in the d20 system.

This is true if you compare d20 to GURPS for example. However, when it comes to the endless variants of d20 (such as D&D 3e, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Castles & Crusades, or True20), the basic assumptions are very similar, so a system less settings based on such assumptions would work very well IMO. I could use it with True20 while next DM will do it D&D3e.

 

[RichGreen]

If you'd like to read more about the new Freeport book and our support plans for the setting, check out the first of a series of designer journals here:

http://www.greenronin.com/freeport/2007/02/freeport_designer_journal_1.php

Chris, this sounds very cool. Looking forward to the new book, stats or no stats!

Cheers


Richard

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

This is true if you compare d20 to GURPS for example.

Even with GURPS it would still work. It's not that difficult to define GURPS parameters in a way that comes fairly close to the setting assumptions of D&D. I know that I have run a GURPS Eberron campaign without altering anything of the GURPS rule set, and it did feel quite similar to what a D&D campaign in the same setting would feel like. Well, maybe the characters didn't get quite as powerful quite as fast, but that was about it.