What are the pros and cons of the different campaign settings?
- Thread starter MerakSpielman
- Start date
Pseudonym
Ivan Alias
It's the Welren of Cosdol I was referring to. His wizard levels were added in the Campaign Setting errata.http://www.kenzerco.com/rpg/kalamar/errata.phparcady said:
Buttercup
Princess of Florin
I guess I'll put my two cents on the table too.
Forgotten Realms: The production values of the 3e FR stuff are the highest I've seen anywhere. The campaign setting book is truly a thing of beauty, from cover to cover. And that map! However, the setting is so high magic and so detailed that it feels to me like there isn't anything left to do in that world. And then there is the problem of finding players who won't think they know exactly how everything is supposed to be. I own most of the FR 3e stuff, and it's fun to mine for ideas, but I doubt I'll ever run a game in it.
Kingdoms of Kalamar: This is the second most beautiful collection of books. The atlas is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I love the Orc book and the Hobgoblin book too. I think I have everything published for 3e Kalamar except for the recent book about pirates. The magic level is lower than FR, and in fact, you could run it with nothing but clerical magic if you wanted to. I love this setting, but I have yet to run a game in it, and until just the other day, I hadn't figured out what was holding me back. Like the realms, there is nothing left to explore. All the discoveries have been made. Now, there are a number of modules available for it, so you can just tie all of them together for a story, but if your players want to wander off, you might have a bit of a problem thinking of cool things for them to run across. At least I know I would. But if you're interested in Kalamar, talk to Wicht.
Freeport: Pirates and lizardmen and corruption, oh my! If you're into the pirate genre, I don't think you can do better than Freeport. Plus the setting is small enough that you can tack it onto just about any other world, if you decide you've had enough salty dogs in your game. I used a slightly altered Freeport in my previous campaign, and it went pretty well. One of these days, I will set an entire campaign in Freeport. It's good fun, matey!
Oriental Adventures/Rokugan: Nicely done, but doesn't interest me much. I'm not sure why I bought all the books. I want to like it, but I just don't, for some reason.
Scarred Lands: I was really excited about this setting when I read Relics & Rituals. That's an amazingly evocative book. I like some of the monsters from CC1 and CC2. But the campaign setting just killed it for me. As I read it, I kept thinking 'yeah, right' and 'oh, puleeze'. I just couldn't take it seriously or suspend my disbelief. I know many people like it, but I just don't.
Greyhawk: There's no there there. And the names are goofy. Furyondy? Verbobonc? How am I supposed to say Verbobonc without giggling? But even if the names didn't make me roll my eyes, Greyhawk is the campaign setting version of abandonware. So I couldn't recommend it.
Midnight: I want to like this one. I think it has some really cool ideas, especially the races. But I can't DM a game where there is no hope, and more than one of my players has said they will not play in it, because it's too depressing. We game for fun, not to work ourselves into a funk. I know other people think it's really cool, so you should probably listen to them instead of me.
Wilderlands: Just got this, so I can't say much. Except that I'm in love. I knew by page 15 that it was the campaign setting I've been waiting for. I love that there is plenty left to explore. I like the crunchy bits. I like that there is a Toad God, and a Goddess of Deepwater Fishes, and a Demon God of Disease. Ignorant superstitous people everywhere, amid the ruins of an ancient empire and marauding monsters. Evil rulers. Crime and disease ridden cities. What's not to love? I think I'm going to shove Freeport in there somewhere, and then my life will be complete.
Forgotten Realms: The production values of the 3e FR stuff are the highest I've seen anywhere. The campaign setting book is truly a thing of beauty, from cover to cover. And that map! However, the setting is so high magic and so detailed that it feels to me like there isn't anything left to do in that world. And then there is the problem of finding players who won't think they know exactly how everything is supposed to be. I own most of the FR 3e stuff, and it's fun to mine for ideas, but I doubt I'll ever run a game in it.
Kingdoms of Kalamar: This is the second most beautiful collection of books. The atlas is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I love the Orc book and the Hobgoblin book too. I think I have everything published for 3e Kalamar except for the recent book about pirates. The magic level is lower than FR, and in fact, you could run it with nothing but clerical magic if you wanted to. I love this setting, but I have yet to run a game in it, and until just the other day, I hadn't figured out what was holding me back. Like the realms, there is nothing left to explore. All the discoveries have been made. Now, there are a number of modules available for it, so you can just tie all of them together for a story, but if your players want to wander off, you might have a bit of a problem thinking of cool things for them to run across. At least I know I would. But if you're interested in Kalamar, talk to Wicht.
Freeport: Pirates and lizardmen and corruption, oh my! If you're into the pirate genre, I don't think you can do better than Freeport. Plus the setting is small enough that you can tack it onto just about any other world, if you decide you've had enough salty dogs in your game. I used a slightly altered Freeport in my previous campaign, and it went pretty well. One of these days, I will set an entire campaign in Freeport. It's good fun, matey!
Oriental Adventures/Rokugan: Nicely done, but doesn't interest me much. I'm not sure why I bought all the books. I want to like it, but I just don't, for some reason.
Scarred Lands: I was really excited about this setting when I read Relics & Rituals. That's an amazingly evocative book. I like some of the monsters from CC1 and CC2. But the campaign setting just killed it for me. As I read it, I kept thinking 'yeah, right' and 'oh, puleeze'. I just couldn't take it seriously or suspend my disbelief. I know many people like it, but I just don't.
Greyhawk: There's no there there. And the names are goofy. Furyondy? Verbobonc? How am I supposed to say Verbobonc without giggling? But even if the names didn't make me roll my eyes, Greyhawk is the campaign setting version of abandonware. So I couldn't recommend it.
Midnight: I want to like this one. I think it has some really cool ideas, especially the races. But I can't DM a game where there is no hope, and more than one of my players has said they will not play in it, because it's too depressing. We game for fun, not to work ourselves into a funk. I know other people think it's really cool, so you should probably listen to them instead of me.
Wilderlands: Just got this, so I can't say much. Except that I'm in love. I knew by page 15 that it was the campaign setting I've been waiting for. I love that there is plenty left to explore. I like the crunchy bits. I like that there is a Toad God, and a Goddess of Deepwater Fishes, and a Demon God of Disease. Ignorant superstitous people everywhere, amid the ruins of an ancient empire and marauding monsters. Evil rulers. Crime and disease ridden cities. What's not to love? I think I'm going to shove Freeport in there somewhere, and then my life will be complete.
Kichwas
Half-breed
I'm a little suspect of that Welren claim.
The person who posted the errata has also implied at a later date that he's just a level 13 aristocrat:
http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showflat.php?Board=KalamarErrata&Number=147653
http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showflat.php?Board=KalamarGeneral&Number=361436#Post215041
This is something I suspect still needs to be recorrected back to the way it is listed in the main book, or some other fix.
There's actually quite a vast amount of wilderness in Kalamar. The primary module series, the Coin Trilogy, takes you through three seperate wildland regions:
The area north of the initial town, which is unsettled.
The Obakasek jungle south of Zoa.
and the Kingdom of Skaarna later in the series, which is low on population density.
There are a number of jungle, mountain, desert, and tundra regions that have low settlement or are completely wild.
The above mentioned modules in fact have you discovering the ruins and dwindling survivors of an ancient culture in the first installement - the Belsona.
The difference between Kalamar and some other settings is that the wildlands aren't in the middle of the city or something... they're remote, or in places where people wouldn't logically go or be. Where they should be.
The person who posted the errata has also implied at a later date that he's just a level 13 aristocrat:
http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showflat.php?Board=KalamarErrata&Number=147653
http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showflat.php?Board=KalamarGeneral&Number=361436#Post215041
This is something I suspect still needs to be recorrected back to the way it is listed in the main book, or some other fix.
There's actually quite a vast amount of wilderness in Kalamar. The primary module series, the Coin Trilogy, takes you through three seperate wildland regions:
The area north of the initial town, which is unsettled.
The Obakasek jungle south of Zoa.
and the Kingdom of Skaarna later in the series, which is low on population density.
There are a number of jungle, mountain, desert, and tundra regions that have low settlement or are completely wild.
The above mentioned modules in fact have you discovering the ruins and dwindling survivors of an ancient culture in the first installement - the Belsona.
The difference between Kalamar and some other settings is that the wildlands aren't in the middle of the city or something... they're remote, or in places where people wouldn't logically go or be. Where they should be.
Last edited:
I love to muddy the waters, so I'll throw in a setting that nobody else mentioned.
Planescape. If you're not familiar with it, it's a setting where the prime plane is inhabited mostly by dimwits who don't realize what a cosmopolitan place the multiverse can be. The way that races and alignments mix introduces a wealth of character development and roleplaying opportunities. With the way portals work and the variety of planar cultures, you could run a campaign in any style, and give the players a new setting each session, or keep them in the same setting for months. With a bit of creativity, you can hop between the other campaign settings for quick samples of the good parts without getting mired in the sloppy parts.
Besides all that, Planescape has an absolute wealth of source material. Dozens of supplements and modules for all levels. And all of it is wonderfully written in a way that makes perusing a rulebook like reading a story.
The only drawback is that all the material is 2E and out of print. But there is an upside. First, most of the books are available on WotC's website as .pdfs for a couple of bucks each. Second, most of the worthwhile material isn't statted out, so it doesn't even need conversion. Third, most of the crunchy material has been reprinted in a variety of other 3.0/3.5 sources, so if you own a lot of books much of your work is done. The only really tricky part is working with the new crunch, because a lot of it is balanced differently between 2E and 3E. But Planescape has been my favorite setting in either edition, hands down. I recommend it.
Planescape. If you're not familiar with it, it's a setting where the prime plane is inhabited mostly by dimwits who don't realize what a cosmopolitan place the multiverse can be. The way that races and alignments mix introduces a wealth of character development and roleplaying opportunities. With the way portals work and the variety of planar cultures, you could run a campaign in any style, and give the players a new setting each session, or keep them in the same setting for months. With a bit of creativity, you can hop between the other campaign settings for quick samples of the good parts without getting mired in the sloppy parts.
Besides all that, Planescape has an absolute wealth of source material. Dozens of supplements and modules for all levels. And all of it is wonderfully written in a way that makes perusing a rulebook like reading a story.
The only drawback is that all the material is 2E and out of print. But there is an upside. First, most of the books are available on WotC's website as .pdfs for a couple of bucks each. Second, most of the worthwhile material isn't statted out, so it doesn't even need conversion. Third, most of the crunchy material has been reprinted in a variety of other 3.0/3.5 sources, so if you own a lot of books much of your work is done. The only really tricky part is working with the new crunch, because a lot of it is balanced differently between 2E and 3E. But Planescape has been my favorite setting in either edition, hands down. I recommend it.
Psion
Adventurer
I would have to say that this notion is mistaken. It certainly not better than the likes of Malhavoc or Green Ronin.
Kenzer & Co often touted the conceit that their rules were gone through with a fine tooth comb by WotC; a WotC R&D person came forward and said this was not the case, they made only the most cursory rules inspections and much of their approval process had more to do with logo image types of things.
At any rate, when I say "lackluster to bad", I should clarify when I say bad, I am speaking specifically of the villain design handbook. While not a bad advice book, the rules material is horrid. Anti-feats grant bonus feats but have every possibility of being an insignificant impairment. Feats in it regularly exceed the guidelines for the power of feats, and the book makes dubious design decisions like making save DCs based on skill ranks. Combat manuevers are also laughably powerful for the penalty you take.
Lackluster more applies to the players guide and some other books, but I'll focus on the player's guide. It's really not a bad book, but it owes most of its strength to borrowed material. I generally dislike their prestige class designs, and they make up prestige class abilities that seem rather cut and dried for some effects that arguably would require some sort of roll, and others are confusingly worded and apparently overpowered. They make lots of little errors and bad judgement here and there. For example, they make celerity a basic domain, which has overpowered written all over it. They make new classes based on the flimsiest of justifications. For example, the gladiator was made because they didn't buy that you needed to be a prestige class to be a gladiator. Fair call, but they failed to notice that a gladiator can really be any character class that is thrown in the arena; the prestige class (in S&F) merely represents seasoned gladiator.
Last edited:
Kichwas
Half-breed
+1 stat races? Where? None of the ones in the main book nor player's guide are +/- 1 stat built. All use +/- 2.
Anti-feats are for NPCs only. DMs are told that it is unadvised to give them to PCs. Considering that it takes two anti-feats to earn one feat, and only I will use them for my NPCs, I'm not worried.
Kenzer has added new core classes once. While you may not like the logic they used for them, it has worked well enough for many others. Recently they put out "Stealth and Style" which took two of their new classes and updated them to 3.5 as well as provided a very solid integration for the classes that gives them, frankly, more logic to exist than the Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian have by a long stretch. All of those could just as easily be fighters, with the odd level of cleric, or prestige classes.
As for their prestige class design, I've liked some and not others. Something I could say of any book I've bought.
Only two of their books are rules heavy - Villain Design and Player's Guide. A third is all new monsters, and two new ones have a fair mix of rules (Salt and Sea Dogs and Stealth and Style). Most of what they publish is in the source material end - which has always been steller.
Anti-feats are for NPCs only. DMs are told that it is unadvised to give them to PCs. Considering that it takes two anti-feats to earn one feat, and only I will use them for my NPCs, I'm not worried.
Kenzer has added new core classes once. While you may not like the logic they used for them, it has worked well enough for many others. Recently they put out "Stealth and Style" which took two of their new classes and updated them to 3.5 as well as provided a very solid integration for the classes that gives them, frankly, more logic to exist than the Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian have by a long stretch. All of those could just as easily be fighters, with the odd level of cleric, or prestige classes.
As for their prestige class design, I've liked some and not others. Something I could say of any book I've bought.
Only two of their books are rules heavy - Villain Design and Player's Guide. A third is all new monsters, and two new ones have a fair mix of rules (Salt and Sea Dogs and Stealth and Style). Most of what they publish is in the source material end - which has always been steller.
Last edited:
Psion
Adventurer
arcady said:
Mea Culpa. I thought I had remembered the half-hobgoblins using odd stat modifiers. Wonder what I was thinking of.
I didn't let green ronin's secret college of necromancy slide by with the "it's okay to be unbalanced if it's NPC" excuse either. It's not okay. It's bad design. I wouldn't want to make an NPC with these rules and more than allow a PC with these rules.
And as long as we are talking about DM territory, what DM is really going to dice for the weaknesses of his villains? That's ludicrous. And if you choose, you will quickly find some are clearly preferable so as to cause no impact at all to a given villain.
I have already said I can't judge the newer books, not having them. That said, you seem to think the old classes were justified, so I won't take your word on it here, either.
Nightfall
Sage of the Scarred Lands
Some people I think equate Pr-classes with flavor. And while that's true for some, I don't think it needs to be for EVERY campaign setting book.Psion said:
I also agree with the whole anti-feat thing. If I want a villian to have a flaw, I don't NEED a damn feat to tell me. Plus the whole "rolling for flaws" reminds me way to much of WoD's excuse to power up PCs and NPCs.
The need for new core classes amazes me. I mean look at Dragon lance. They only added TWO and dropped WAY more than Kalamar. So you tell me, which setting has to have more core classes to be "better"
Thirdly I despised Secret College of Necromancy, and their core classes and I don't again see a need to make some crazy Pr-classes that have the flavor akin to vallina compared to some others such as Machine Mage or even Ruin Priests. At least there was some focus. KoK pr-classes just do some wonky things and their rules aren't any better or worse than S&SS at times.
This is of course all my opinion. I'm willing to say I could be wrong. But I doubt it.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
