D&D General Is Spelljammer really that bad?

darjr

I crit!
In play three books have been really useful and the pages being as sturdy as they are is pretty cool too.

I think they swung at a new format and in doing so made compromises that were to much for to many folks. Price probably being the first strike as people learned about the set.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jdrakeh

Front Range Warlock
We've been playing through the campaign in the box set and really enjoy it, so it's not bad at all by that metric, for our group.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Mod Note:

@Maxperson @Chaosmancer , you seem to be not just disagreeing with each other, but getting a bit heated about it. And people are noticing. Perhaps one or both of you should opt for some form of disengagement, at least from each other.
 

fjw70

Adventurer
In play three books have been really useful and the pages being as sturdy as they are is pretty cool too.

I think they swung at a new format and in doing so made compromises that were to much for to many folks. Price probably being the first strike as people learned about the set.
I love the three book format. I hope to see more products like this in the future.
 

Threadcrapping + divisive profile avatar.
Yes. It really is that bad. But it's been bad since its inception, so how could it be good? Crystal spheres? Dumb. Phlogiston? Dumb. Ditto for giant space hamsters and anthropomorphic walruses with muskets. Nope, dumb is the wrong word. Silly? Hmmm... Nope.

Cringe; that's the word I'm looking for. Spelljammer is just cringe turned up to 11.
 

Never seen or owned any of [the initial releases for the Scarred Lands]. But how did you have books set in a setting without having the setting?
The setting was referenced implicitly, with a 2+ page section at the end mentioning the gods and titans. While flavorful, it was inadequate to detail the setting itself. This sounds very similar to what people describe how the setting is detailed in the current Spelljammer product.

See, the Kingdom of Thrane effects all the other countries in Khorvaire. Same with Zilargo. You can be in Breland and feel the effects of these countries and their policies, because everything is tied together.

However, if you are on the Planet of Hadir, are you affected at all by the stuff going on on the planet of Toril? Do these two places even have contact with each other? THIS is the thing I don't think people are realizing about the Spelljammer setting in comparison. All of these locations are disparate. All of them are disconnected. Even if they are connected by spelljammers, they don't have shipping lanes or the like.

And if they do... then that is something you are adding and building. If you want to build a collection of "island nations" that are affecting each other, that's fine, but that isn't how this Spelljammer is organized.
Then I submit that is a failure of the published setting. Wherever there are collections of people there will be interrelationships and trade, hostile or otherwise. Even Traveller and Lancer, games set ostensibly in our galaxy, have worlds at great distance affecting others, chart trade routes, culture clash/shock, &c.

And you are going to visit the continents.
Not necessarily. For this point I was thinking of the Bajau, a nomadic sea people. Also, if I was tracking the expansion of the Polynesian peoples, that would cover many tiny to moderately sized islands dispersed in the South Pacific.

Even so, I understand your point of focusing where the people and points of interest are. Those should be presented with an appropriate amount of detail, including interrelationships. My understanding is that this wasn't done, and was present in the previous presentation.

They made specific decisions with how they made this setting. All I am trying to do is point out that the setting book seems to me to be working as intended, and most of the responses telling me I am wrong start from the premise that we should have the same or very similar amounts of content as 2e had. Which seems to me to be a bad assumption. I can make a setting in less than a paragraph that would be plenty for people to run a game in that setting. They would need to come up with NPCs and such, but it would still work as a setting. And these books seem to provide plenty for the setting to work.
You are missing part of the point of a purchased setting. When you are buying a setting you are looking for inspiration and time savings. If you are presented with "a setting in less than a paragraph that would be plenty for people to run a game in that setting" you don't have a lot of time savings, do you? There is no reason why Spelljammer should or is better by having a paucity of detail when compared to other settings.

All that said, for those who purchased the product and are happy with it, then it's all good. I don't believe that Spelljammer sales are particularly supportive for the format. The community judgement comes with the next supplement that uses the same format, which I believe is going to be Planescape. We'll see how that does. Personally, I love planar adventuring so I am planning on picking that one up. (The only 5e purchase I'll make beyond the core three.) I'll present my feedback then on my purchase.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
Yes. It really is that bad. But it's been bad since its inception, so how could it be good? Crystal spheres? Dumb. Phlogiston? Dumb. Ditto for giant space hamsters and anthropomorphic walruses with muskets. Nope, dumb is the wrong word. Silly? Hmmm... Nope.

Cringe; that's the word I'm looking for. Spelljammer is just cringe turned up to 11.

That's kinda the appeal of it. SJ may not appeal to everyone along with Darksun or whatever and that's ok.
 



Zardnaar

Legend
Yeah, Spelljammer being extremely campy feels like it was always completely on purpose. There's so much of it that couldn't possibly have been made without tongue firmly in cheek. Like Dark Sun, it's a more niche setting, but it definitely has fans.

I don't like Ravenloft much because I don't like horror and what it's attempting to do. It's just not my thing it's not bad as such.

I don't like Dragonlance because it's subjectively bad, always has been subjectively bad and it spreads it's subjectively badwrongfun across the multiverse including it's subjectively badwrongfun Gnome ships and Kender in Spelljammer.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top