D&D General Scarred Lands vs Wilderlands of High Fantasy - preference?

Can anyone with a lot of experience with both tell me what you did or didn't like about running or playing in them? I am talking about the 3e versions of both, for a 3e game (3.0, but the 3.5 materials of both will work just fine, and Scarred Lands was mostly 3.0 anyways).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I ran both during the days of 3.x and out of the two, myself and my players preferred Scarred Lands.

I ran two campaigns with Wilderlands and no one was really impressed by the setting. I remember one player saying it was Greyhawk lite, meaning that it felt extremely generic and without any real setting hooks other than what I as the DM put into it. Another player felt that it was too much like 1950's and 60's fantasy. A little weird and not all that grounded. I see what they mean. After two campaigns we never went back to it.

Scarred Lands on the other hand I was a fan of from day 1. It was different from the usual D&D campaign setting and but no much that it didn't feel like D&D. In the early days I got a D&D meets Clash of the Titans vibe, and I would try and include that in what I wrote. I ran several campaigns on Scarn and they were popular. I lost interest after a few years when they started to take the tone away from the D&D/Clash o the Titans vibe in their books.

Of the two, I think Scarred Lands is better written and fits better with the D&D dynamic. It has life where I feel Wilderlands falls a little flat.
 

I don't have a lot of experience running both in 3e, but I might be helpful anyway. Scarred lands was made for/under e & 3.5e, and the wilderlands go back to the very beginning, to OD&D. That matters in obvious and subtle ways. I'd give that as a point for Scared lands, however, it's all made for the rules used, not warped to fit from elsewhere.

While the Wilderlands of high fantasy are indeed a "kitchen sink" (apparently the only campaigns now), they certainly aren't Greyhawk light in the least; moreover I love Greyhawk! No setting hooks? LOL, that's a joke; but I can get it more if one thinks of it as a half dozen setting mashed into one. The hooks are regional or a few regions. Frankly, though, alot of the cool/unique bits are pulled back from or not really rules mechanically made all that well; Red, Green, Purple, Yellow, etc peoples among them (once inspired from Burroughs's Mars, surely). There is less materials in d20 format, far more materials from before. Some of the best adventures ever made are set here, Dark Tower by Jennell Jaquays, for example. If you want an urban centered game, the City State of the Invincible Overlord is simply the best, the originals maps alone inspired countless hours of play. OTOH, the collection of random encounters that was the judges guild way back in the day isn't exactly the best directly translated to d20. 50's & 60's fantasy? JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, Fritz Leiber, Poul Anderson, Andre Norton, L Sprague de Camp, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Anne McCaffery, Ursula Le Guin? Yes, I guess it is...as D&D is, and always has been? Sounds like the opposite of a criticism to me.

Scarred lands reads as clash of the titans took place, but I dunno if it feels that way in play. That said, I like the premise a ton, and I agree unique monsters & terrain/weather give it great & unique flavour. I'm just now realizing the 2010 movie instead of the wonderful 1981 film might be being referenced. I'd not insult the scarred lands calling it 2010 trash, but in any case, to each their own. You will decide which suits you & your group more. Scarred lands has much more material made specific to the edition to be played (or 3.5e). It's got several different campaigns/continents, but I only was familiar with the first (& mainly the monsters!). Ghelspad, Mithril, city of golems, and Holowfaust, city of necromancers.

I can't agree on better written, but maybe if we are talking basic campaign book to campaign book I can? Wilderlands certainly doesn't have the monster books, Scared lands can't even begin to compete module/adventure wise (though a fair bit of wilderlands never got converted, and conversion itself is always a diminishment to some degree). Depends what you want I guess. I'm think both would benefit from a strong guiding hand DM at the outset, not a railroad, but on characters to be used (avoiding the silliest kitchen sink effects).

You could more or less just run Dark Tower, set in the desert lands, near the holy city.
You could do an urban centered City state game
You could make up your own stuff more centering around a given region/people. They can vary wildly...wizardly blue ice magic people on their magical island? Avalon. Savage barbarian swordsmen? the Red Altanians fit the bill(with the women druids & psychics). Amazons & sabre tooth "tigers"? check. Vikings? Shandiks. The kitchen sink is there, indeed it is perhaps the first/among them, but the focus & overlap can be fairly minimal, really. I've played in a whole, full, many year campaign almost entirely inside Verdistan, with visits to the various neighboring areas at times, all about resistance to the World Emperor. We started session one seeking escape from slavery, my character was a Veridian noble (aka a greenie) religious heretic/blasphemer (aka a cleric of LG Mitra). Game went L1 to L20+. It was very specific & not too generic at all, as far as D&D goes anyway (D&D is [almost] always a bit generic).

Scarred lands offers similar in that, with plenty of cool places, often better defined in d20 terms & much more consistently linked. It's got the serpent amphora trio of adventures, though I cannot say how good they are.

Not really answering your question, but hopefully it was helpful.

 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top