Thoughts on Kalamar

It's a nice, deep, consistant setting that a GM can really work with and get a lot out of.

Thanks for the thoughts. What do people think of the supplements that have been put out for it? Other than the Atlas, which is damn fine, are any must buys?

I really don't like a lot of their earlier rules supplements, though. Fortunately, Kalamar seems enough a straight-up fantasy that you can live without most of those.

I really dig their orcs. The orc book is really good. Most of the 3.5 books are pretty good.

I think where you get into crap territory is their 3.0 rules-heavy books. Villains Handbook 3.0 and the Players Guide are two that really put me off.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

The setting istelf is great. The rest of the stuff associated with it didn't thrill me much.

One thing to beware of tho. There are something like 52 common dieties included with the setting. Thats ALOT for the DM to keep track of and even more so for the players, especially if they don't have easy access to the material. So be careful when involving religions, or else use a different pantheon.
 

Talic said:
One thing to beware of tho. There are something like 52 common dieties included with the setting. Thats ALOT for the DM to keep track of and even more so for the players, especially if they don't have easy access to the material. So be careful when involving religions, or else use a different pantheon.

I haven't read the books in a while, but my impression is that there are around a dozen dieties, but each nation has a different name for them, giving the appearance of a lot more flavor with the same mechanics.
 

I bought a bunch of the books a while ago from an EnWorlder's fire sale. Since then they have sat on the shelf for no reason other than the fact that I haven't had time. I still don't, but I may take a peek tonight sometime.
 

Though some site it as boring, I find Kalamar to be one of the best generic settings out there. I find myself shying away from complete homebrew, but Kalamar gives me good base template that I can add to.

I have not run it as much as I'd like to, but when I have, I replaced the pantheon with that from Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous.
 

Volaran said:
I have not run it as much as I'd like to, but when I have, I replaced the pantheon with that from Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous.

Great idea. That's a WONDERFUL book, if not the best of it's kind.
 

There was a time when one of the Kenzer crew would cut and paste their Why Kalamar? essay within the first five posts.

I hopped on board the Kalamar train when it was first released for 3.0, and found the setting enjoyable, but some of the more annoying and vocal fans on thier board turned me off.

The setting is fun, and I enjoy the Coin trilogy, but after the campaign went through those three modules, my group at the time lost interest. Their take on orcs and hobgoblins was a nice twist, as was creating a darker sort of realistic world, where slavery was common and evil deities and cults were actually evil.

My Kalamar stuff now sits unused in my storage area. I really should eBay it sometime, as I'm never going to use it again.
 


I love the Kalamar. We played in it for three years and hands down it is my favorite setting. I never read the setting books all in one bite I would read parts of it that pertained to what we were doing in game. It is kind of dry.

Some of the things I really liked about the setting were the language rules, the deitys and that there was only one pantheon for the setting no seperate gods for the various races. I liked the rule that clerics had to be the same alingment as their god it is a house rule I use for my home brew.
 

It's OK. I've owned both versions (the "systemless" one that was nonetheless quite compatible with AD&D 2e and the 3.0 edition). To me, it was very paint-by-numbers generic. It didn't give me the feeling of depth I get from other settings. For some folks, that's cool. It didn't float my boat.
 

Remove ads

Top