How 'different' can a setting be, for you?

[Aristotle]

I know their are similar threads and comments throughout the forums. I lurk more than I post so I've seen a bunch of them. Still, I've been wanting to ask this for a while now (partially out of curiosity, but also as a poorly veiled bit of marketing research). So here goes...

How 'different' can a campaign setting be before you decide its strayed too far away from the game for your tastes? Do you prefer a game where nearly all of the difference is flavor and clever 'twists' in the fluff? Or can you stand a setting where changes have been made to the 'crunchy bits' of the game? If so, how far can those changes to the rules go before it crosses the line for you?

• For instance...
  
  A setting with only one race (i.e. only humans) or all new races to replace the 'core races'. Assume the new races are done well and not just elves or dwarves with different names.
  
  A setting where the magic system has been completely replaced (altering spells and magic items along with it).
  
  A setting where 75% or more (or even all) of the core classes have been replaced with campaign specific core classes.
  
  A setting that uses some combination of Vitality/Wound Points, Armor as DR, and/or Defense Bonus to replace the core AC and HP systems.
  
  A setting that uses one or more UA option such as Bloodlines, Paragon Classes, Weapon Groups, Craft Points, Action Points, etc...
  
  A setting that uses three or more of the above examples (or other rule changes).

I'm just wondering how far a campaign setting can generally deviate from the core rules before folks start losing interest in it as a setting they might be interested in playing in or running. I know that, regardless of how many changes are made to the rules, the setting itself (the fluff) has to be worth looking at. But, from comments I've seen from other players, I know that rule variations can make or break a game too. I'd love to get some insight as to where some of you weigh in.

 

[ecliptic]

I think most of the time when a company comes up with all new races to replace to old they end up taking the humanity out of them. Simply for the fact of change.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I'm not emotionally attached to any of the flavour elements presented in the D&D books. So racial characteristics, for example, are things I feel free to ignore, as well as entire races - the setting I'm designing at the moment won't be using many of the Player's Handbook races, for example, apart from humans.

Ruleswise, well, I own and like Arcana Unearthed, so a rethink of the magic system which keeps the general feel of the D&D system suits me pretty well. I'd also be comfortable running or playing in a game which replaced magics with psionics - I really like the Expanded Psionics Handbook - or in a game which combined or altered both or either.

Campaign-specific core classes are fine with me; I'm using some variant classes right alongside the standard classes in my own setting. Additions to the system, like bloodlines and sanity, are things I like as well.

One thing I'm much less interested in are radical changes to the basics of the system. I like D&D's abstraction of combat, so changes like armour as DR or vitality/wound points are things I'm not interested in. That's not to say I would automatically turn down the chance to play in a game which used them, but I would rather be playing a different system (like GURPS) than play D&D with a bunch of patches to make things more "realistic" or "gritty".

But flavourwise, Hell - in Second Edition two of my favourite settings were Planescape and Spelljammer, so I figure the weirder the better.

 

[DrZombie]

A setting with only one race (i.e. only humans) or all new races to replace the 'core races'. Assume the new races are done well and not just elves or dwarves with different names.

Wheel of time, Conan (got both)

A setting where the magic system has been completely replaced (altering spells and magic items along with it).

Again, Wheel of time and Conan

A setting where 75% or more (or even all) of the core classes have been replaced with campaign specific core classes.

Eeeuhm, Wheel of time, Conan

A setting that uses some combination of Vitality/Wound Points, Armor as DR, and/or Defense Bonus to replace the core AC and HP systems.

Just Conan this time

A setting that uses one or more UA option such as Bloodlines, Paragon Classes, Weapon Groups, Craft Points, Action Points, etc...

Mmmh, gotta pass on this one, don't have any products like that (yet)

A setting that uses three or more of the above examples (or other rule changes).

Wheel of time, Conan .

I'm just wondering how far a campaign setting can generally deviate from the core rules before folks start losing interest in it as a setting they might be interested in playing in or running. I know that, regardless of how many changes are made to the rules, the setting itself (the fluff) has to be worth looking at. But, from comments I've seen from other players, I know that rule variations can make or break a game too. I'd love to get some insight as to where some of you weigh in.

As you see, I don't have any problems with tinkering with any of the rules. That's the thing I like about d20. It's a good base to tinker with. I agree, some experiments aren't as good as others, but still. That's whu I don't understand a lot of comments on the board about D&D combat being unrealistic, not liking this or that. There are so many rules variants out there, just use whatever you like.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

To be perfectly accurate, DrZombie, Wheel of Time has defence bonuses too, though they replace magical enhancement rather than armour per se.

 

[Turanil]

In the campaign setting I am currently designing: all the changes you mentions!
The setting itself presents humans and a bunch of new races. The rules are those of Grim Tales (so new classes, action points, new magic system, etc.). In fact I really need a break from pure D&D.

 

[Acid_crash]

For people like me...give me all the options you want that make it different than core d&d, as long as the alterations make sense for the campaign world and are justified accordingly. If it seems that something is put into a world just because of having it there, that's not cool. But, if something truly makes sense, and it makes sense to alter the core rules to better represent the world, then I am all for it...and I have a tendancy of wanting those kinds of games a lot more than vanilla core rules.

 

[kolikeos]

A setting with only one race (i.e. only humans) or all new races to replace the 'core races'. Assume the new races are done well and not just elves or dwarves with different names.

fine by me (oriental adventures does that)

A setting where the magic system has been completely replaced (altering spells and magic items along with it).

i'm not sure i'll like that (like the psionic kish? NO way!)

A setting where 75% or more (or even all) of the core classes have been replaced with campaign specific core classes.

it's ok with me (again, OA does just that)

A setting that uses some combination of Vitality/Wound Points, Armor as DR, and/or Defense Bonus to replace the core AC and HP systems.

no, no and no, that is not the same system anymore!

A setting that uses one or more UA option such as Bloodlines, Paragon Classes, Weapon Groups, Craft Points, Action Points, etc...

i know nough about UA


anyway, the only setting i'll be playing in the near (maybe far) future is, the core rules with self-made changes

(btw, i don't like OA)