Critical Role Tell me the selling points of Tal'Dorei / Wildemount, without mentioning Critical Role, Matt Mercer, etc.

[Necropolitan]

Just want to play Devil's Advocate for a second but why would you need to purchase this particular book to make up a new setting with a new threat?

You don't, it's a book for playing in the Critical Role setting.

If the podcast didn't exist but the sourcebook did it'd barely have anyone buying it.

It's like how you can sell tons of Batman action figures but you'd barely sell a fraction of them if they were "Flying Fox Man."

 

[...m...]

Conan doesn’t have robots or crashed ships etc and same with blackmor

(FYI - robots and crashed alien ships were not only integral to blackmoor as the seminal campaign setting from which D+D developed, they also featured as prominent plot points in the first published D+D adventure; greyhawk came along later with gary's sword+sorcery weird-fantasy pastiche, but dave's blackmoor was quasi-medieval science-fantasy from day zero)

 

[Clint_L]

I realized that I reccomended Exandria as a fairly standard D&D setting, but updated, but didn't explain what "updated" means.

Basically, no species is "evil" just because, so while specific species will tend to dominate specific regions, as in most fantasy settings, it is not unusual to find representatives of any given species in a given place. And even the worst bad guys have motives - their goals are usually rational from their perspective. Conflict is therefore driven not so much by "good vs. evil" as by circumstances, politics, ambition, greed, and so on.

That's not to say that there aren't some foes whose goals are inimical to just about everyone else, as the Chroma Conclave and Vecna have featured, and there are species such as mind flayers, who are just never gonna get along well with others because, well, they need to eat sentient brains. Not to mention the undead and entities from the lower planes in particular, who are mostly antithetical to mortal life. But for the most part, you can't assume that someone is an antagonist just because they're an orc, a drow, a gnoll, or whatever.

As well, the setting is very modern in its sensibilities about gender, sexuality, and tolerance in general. For me this is another feature.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, we have mentioned several times that the setting is modern, without really explaining what we mean by that. It’s not a unique feature, but it is one that makes it different from a couple of the alternatives that have been mentioned.

 

[Umbran]

It sounds more like Matt Mercer ran over your dog.

CR seems to really anger you. It’s hard to take you seriously when you’re this mad at a show.

Mod note:
Um, guys?

If the criticism is weak sauce, you can (and should) make that case without also taking potshots at the person making the critique. I mean, even just rhetorically, the ad hominem actively works against you. And beyond that, it makes you look like bullies, and gets you red text.

Be better, please.

 

[Necropolitan]

Basically, no species is "evil" just because, so while specific species will tend to dominate specific regions, as in most fantasy settings, it is not unusual to find representatives of any given species in a given place. And even the worst bad guys have motives - their goals are usually rational from their perspective. Conflict is therefore driven not so much by "good vs. evil" as by circumstances, politics, ambition, greed, and so on.

Kingdoms of Kalamar did that in 1994 and did it without shoving the majority of the 'monstrous' species into one place with a reincarnation handwave.

And D&D has had motive-driven villains from the start.

So Exandria isn't 'modern' in any way except making a big deal out of stuff previous editions and settings already had.

It's like claiming Taco Bell is the "Modern" place to get tacos because they don't purposefully use rat meat to save money.

 

[zakael19]

Kingdoms of Kalamar did that in 1994 and did it without shoving the majority of the 'monstrous' species into one place with a reincarnation handwave.

And D&D has had motive-driven villains from the start.

So Exandria isn't 'modern' in any way except making a big deal out of stuff previous editions and settings already had.

It's like claiming Taco Bell is the "Modern" place to get tacos because they don't purposefully use rat meat to save money.

Within WOTC official settings, this wasn't a thing until Eberron; and has continued being a bit of a back and forth in WOTC main line products (witness all the kerfuffle around WOTC "modernizing" species along this line in the 5.2024 products). You're also skipping over the general emphasis on diversity, both species and sexuality that was pointed out above. That sort of inclusion baked into a setting is pretty "modern" in feel, and aligns with a large amount of the play culture who have entered the hobby in the 5e era.

'monstrous' species into one place with a reincarnation handwave.

Btw, what do you mean by this? The various goblinoid species are still distributed around Wildemount, it's just in the regions close to a Luxon beacon that they escape Bane's curse (no reincarnation required); along with some other regions where they've found alternative methods for quelling/curing that. Orcs are explicitly not supernaturally driven to rages in this setting, even though people think so. The setting does a good job of laying out how the species fit into the different major regions under each entry.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Kingdoms of Kalamar

1) Kingdoms of Kalamar is not a WotC product or available on DDB. That matters to a lot of people.
2) Whilst I have not read Kalamar, I assume that, given it's association with Greyhawk, it is retro, low magic and aims for gritty realism. Not bad things in themselves, but very different to Exandria. If you like one, you probably won't like the other, and visa versa.
3) It makes Flying Fox Man look like the most famous Superhero ever.

 

[Necropolitan]

That sort of inclusion baked into a setting is pretty "modern" in feel, and aligns with a large amount of the play culture who have entered the hobby in the 5e era.

Kingdoms of Kalamar has that level of inclusion when it comes to species. It does include bigotry in the setting, but it makes it obvious that's a bad thing (it outright calls bigotry Evil) and DMs are free to remove it since none of it is load-bearing.

It was the 1990s so LGBTQ inclusion isn't really there, but it doesn't have any homophobic or transphobic tropes so a DM doesn't need to do anything other than add some LGBTQ NPCs to reach the same level of inclusion as Exandria.

1) Kingdoms of Kalamar is not a WotC product or available on DDB. That matters to a lot of people.
2) Whilst I have not read Kalamar, I assume that, given it's association with Greyhawk, it is retro, low magic and aims for gritty realism. Not bad things in themselves, but very different to Exandria. If you like one, you probably won't like the other, and visa versa.
3) It makes Flying Fox Man look like the most famous Superhero ever.

1. Yes, Exandria is the Starbucks of D&D in that it's way more available and heavily advertised. That doesn't make it the better product.
2. No, no, and no.
It's not near Eberron's level, but new technology and the combination of it and magic is one of the many things that has the setting on the tipping point. There's even at least one worker's revolt brewing.
It's high-fantasy, one of the higher-level adventure ideas given is stopping a cult from putting out the Sun.
I would guess that "gritty realism" and "There's a spell that drops bird poop on your enemies and the God of Undead rewards his followers based on their kill-counts and they thus aim to get a high score" are mutually-exclusive. The latter's even given as a reason why one of that god's followers would be fine working with an otherwise Good party since they're getting lots of opportunities to semi-legally practice their faith.
You shouldn't make assumptions.
3. Irrelevant, the point is the comparison between the two settings.

Exandria is great for younger players, those who don't want to deal with certain subjects, and those who are fans of Critical Role. Kingdoms of Kalamar is the better generic setting overall (in my opinion anyway) since it's fine for both younger and older players, capable of including or removing certain subjects if the players and DM are or aren't comfortable with them and you don't need to know anything outside the setting to fully appreciate it.

Actually Exandria might also be better if you want to play a Tiefling since Kingdoms of Kalamar was written back before they'd exploded in popularity as PCs. But it got a 4E update that added them so I might be wrong there since I haven't read it.

 

[Fifinjir]

Yes, we have mentioned several times that the setting is modern, without really explaining what we mean by that. It’s not a unique feature, but it is one that makes it different from a couple of the alternatives that have been mentioned.

If I (not an Exandria fan) were to try to explain it, the setting has existentialism and individualism (perhaps even hyper-individualism, as vague as that difference is) as the “air it breathes”, something it has just as a basic assumption rather than a theme it’s trying to convey.