If someone published their campaign setting...

[blackshirt5]

I agree with Drawmack 100%--see above quote from him



Play nice or you may not get any replies My answer is above.

I quoted myself because people were taking it off topic(and you posted the stick response 5 minutes after I got the answer) after I asked them nicely not to, because I'm seriously looking for responses on this. Sorry if I came off as being nasty.

 

[Drawmack]

I've been quoted by myself, since people missed it the first time.

If you look around the threads on the board you will see that there is allways some amount of idle banter in any thread. As Hal already stated, acting in an unfriendly manor will simply drive people away.

Also, do you prefer monster tomes written a la the WotC "Monster Manual", written from an OOC persepctive, or like Monsternomicon, written from an "in-character" perspective?

Whic topic would you like us to stick too? Harrasing people for not sticking to the topic and then changing the topic in the same post, call me confused.

I would like a monster book that has both. Maybe a little block of text I can read to the players and also contain the background information about them that the players wouldn't be privy too unless they researched the monster.

 

[MEG Hal]

I quoted myself because people were taking it off topic(and you posted the stick response 5 minutes after I got the answer) after I asked them nicely not to, because I'm seriously looking for responses on this. Sorry if I came off as being nasty.

I was in the quote as you typed, I am at work and sometimes need to get back to my reply, I replied before you posted and it posted after you replied.

I am not saying you were nasty but they were citing examples of a setting that does that, so it was OT IMO.

OK, you have my serious response to your question.

 

[Henry]

I would prefer a more "clinical" approach to the monster stats myself, although Drawmack's idea is a way cool one - adding in a "graybox" of descriptive text so as to get a better feel for the monster, followed by the monstrer specifics. I am finding a great enthusiasm for WotC's new look to the entries from the 3E Revised Monster Manual, in terms of monster tactics, more detailed ecology info, and friendlier to the eye.

 

[barsoomcore]

acting in an unfriendly manor will simply drive people away.

Right. Always stage your plays in friendly manors.

What I prefer in campaign settings is to have the various types of information broken out amongst separate books.

I'm not likely to want to purchase the "Deities and Demigods" for your setting, for example, but I would love to look at a Monster Manual. So yeah, breaking it out and just saying "Use the cosmology from book blah blah blah" would be perfect for me.

How the publisher of book blah blah blah might feel about it is another issue.

Sufficiently on-topic, threadmeister? Don't hit me with a stick!

 

[blackshirt5]

If you look around the threads on the board you will see that there is allways some amount of idle banter in any thread. As Hal already stated, acting in an unfriendly manor will simply drive people away.


Whic topic would you like us to stick too? Harrasing people for not sticking to the topic and then changing the topic in the same post, call me confused.

I would like a monster book that has both. Maybe a little block of text I can read to the players and also contain the background information about them that the players wouldn't be privy too unless they researched the monster.

I understand that there is always a bit of off-topic stuff in a topic; hell, I'm usually guilty of that banter! I'm just asking people to please stay on the topic, I'm trying to get feedback before I sit down and seriously write.(I live near a very rich neighborhood, they won't let me into their houses though, so it is impossible for me to act in an unfriendly manor, since the unfriendly ones won't let me in. )

As for changing the topic, I put that in the wrong thread. It was supposed to go in my monster book topic. My bad.

 

[blackshirt5]

Right. Always stage your plays in friendly manors.

What I prefer in campaign settings is to have the various types of information broken out amongst separate books.

I'm not likely to want to purchase the "Deities and Demigods" for your setting, for example, but I would love to look at a Monster Manual. So yeah, breaking it out and just saying "Use the cosmology from book blah blah blah" would be perfect for me.

How the publisher of book blah blah blah might feel about it is another issue.

Sufficiently on-topic, threadmeister? Don't hit me with a stick!

Cool, good to know that somebody else prefers it that way(I was talking to some of the guys who work at the FLGS the other day, and they were saying that they prefer things all in one book; that doesn't really make sense to me, can somebody explain it a bit better?).

I would think that other publisher's wouldn't have a problem with me referencing their books, since it serves to send more business their way, but I'm still gonna seek GR permission to reference BotR.

*smacks barsoomcore with a stick for being a smart-aleck*

 

[William Ronald]

.

Originally posted by Drawmack:
I would say you should include enough that the person will have a better time if the purchase the other books, but that they are not a necessity

I think a book should have enough material for someone to use it without directly referring to another non-core rule book.

One of the problems with 2nd Edition and the old TSR is that it seemed many of the FR books and other books referred to other books. However, they often did not include the material that was being referred to in the book. (The intended effect was to make people buy the other books. The unintended effect was to cause me to grumble and decide not to purchase the book I was looking at as a potential purchase.) Now, I think that if you have a feat or monster that is not included in the core books, include it in a new product.

Obviously, credit should be given where it is due. WotC has done this in some of its products, as have other companies.

So, give me just what I need to run something. If you want to publish an adventure centering around a deity's church, give me some information necessary to that adventure and let me know what book I can purchase if I wish more information.

 

[Drawmack]

Cool, good to know that somebody else prefers it that way(I was talking to some of the guys who work at the FLGS the other day, and they were saying that they prefer things all in one book; that doesn't really make sense to me, can somebody explain it a bit better?).

A campaign setting should be a living setting. This means that there will be future books published that add to that setting and detail things glossed over in the setting book.

Allow me to take TH:ROE as an example.

From just their setting book I could play games in Gothos and be prefectly happy, but I'd have to create some of my own stuff that is only glossed over in the setting book.

So then they produce other books that detail the specifics of these various parts of Gothos including monster books, magic books, etc, etc.

Also they use a lot of OGC, Bluffsides and Freeport have both found homes in Gothos. There is enough informaiton in the setting book that I could design these cities if I wished, or I can simply buy the books and have everything at my finger tips.

What I believe these people intended was that they do not want to purchase a setting book and then have to purchase more books just to make the setting usable.

Your setting book should be useable and the purchaser should be able to run a campaign in your world with nothing but the setting book.

OTOH: You should continue to expand on the initial book with subsequent books.

 

[Buttercup]

I think Drawmack has hit upon it exactly. Give us enough info in the campaign setting book to play with, but feel free to direct us to other sources for in-depth treatments. And if you want your setting to be viable in the long term, develop some of those future supplements yourself.