What is Greyhawk?

Coroc

Explorer
@Coroc - Must be nice. :'( Wish I had players that cared.

Hell, I just had a player lose his cool and walk out of our group and one of the bitches that he had was the fact that I actually DO take the time to embed my characters in the setting. Called me a spotlight hogging so and so.

It really is frustrating sometimes. All I can do is continue to lead the horses to water.
Darn, I have players who require lots of spotlight also, and who do not feel well if they cannot present their characters in a meaningful way. Luckily my group is very mature, and some other guy might get some more combat orientated spotlight another time.
Maybe your fellow players actually was greedy for your well done representation of you char. Still everybody wants to shine now and then even the most quiet player and I had some similar "conflict " where it was a topic that both player x and player y require a lot of "master-time" for themselves.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
If I ran FR outside of a 5E AP I would revert back to 1357 DR or maybe the 3.0 timeline.

I would apply the same logic to pre inhuman war Spelljammer, Pre grand conjunction Ravenloft, pre Dragons of Summer Flame Dragonlance, pre From the Ashes Greyhawk, pre Prism Pentad Darksun.

Burn the while lot down go back to the original. Here's this new campaign world that's interesting, nvrmind they just blew it up.

Or just give me some Baltika 9 makes all sorts of things not matter.
 
@Coroc - Must be nice. :'( Wish I had players that cared.

Hell, I just had a player lose his cool and walk out of our group and one of the bitches that he had was the fact that I actually DO take the time to embed my characters in the setting. Called me a spotlight hogging so and so.

It really is frustrating sometimes. All I can do is continue to lead the horses to water.
I find that wanting to know deep lore about a game is very easily predicted by what sort of game/edition the first 1 to 3 campaigns someone played in were.

If those games were d&d and older than 4e (especially if older than 3e but you start signifficantly seeing it at the former cut off at least) its much more common to find players who do this. Ive noticed it isnt an age thing for the most part too.

Also i actually have no clue why this is a thing ive noticed...ummm...maybe because of how patterns of informational availability intersect with plot and the justifications thereof? Yeah. Actually i really have no idea.
 

S'mon

Legend
If I ran FR outside of a 5E AP I would revert back to 1357 DR or maybe the 3.0 timeline.

I would apply the same logic to pre inhuman war Spelljammer, Pre grand conjunction Ravenloft, pre Dragons of Summer Flame Dragonlance, pre From the Ashes Greyhawk, pre Prism Pentad Darksun.

Burn the while lot down go back to the original. Here's this new campaign world that's interesting, nvrmind they just blew it up.

Or just give me some Baltika 9 makes all sorts of things not matter.
I definitely prefer "fixed time point" settings like Wilderlands to 1990s style "Metaplot timeline" settings.

I recently ran some AD&D 1e FR set in 1358 DR and that was a lot of fun.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I definitely prefer "fixed time point" settings like Wilderlands to 1990s style "Metaplot timeline" settings.
Same I think most of the settings offered something interesting in the initial boxed set. Then the hacks and freelancers got hold of it.
 

Coroc

Explorer
I find that wanting to know deep lore about a game is very easily predicted by what sort of game/edition the first 1 to 3 campaigns someone played in were.

If those games were d&d and older than 4e (especially if older than 3e but you start signifficantly seeing it at the former cut off at least) its much more common to find players who do this. Ive noticed it isnt an age thing for the most part too.

Also i actually have no clue why this is a thing ive noticed...ummm...maybe because of how patterns of informational availability intersect with plot and the justifications thereof? Yeah. Actually i really have no idea.
Yep, my experiences can confirm that. At least afaik the D&D editions most of my players including myself came into contact first was 1e 2e 3e. But they did some 4e too afaik although no one started with it.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Yep, my experiences can confirm that. At least afaik the D&D editions most of my players including myself came into contact first was 1e 2e 3e. But they did some 4e too afaik although no one started with it.
Same locally it's mostly 5E and the old salts are 3E.

There's a few ex AD&D players but I'm almost unique that I never stopped playing from AD&D to 5E.
 

QuentinGeorge

Explorer
Dragonlance was far, far better the bigger the more distance it put between itself and the War of the Lance. The novels tended to suck the originality and creativity from any play in that era. There were far more interesting concepts explored further down the road. Unfortunately a large part of the player base kept trying to drag the world back to its original state - a mistake in my view.
 
Players and dms shape games and game settings
But it goes a little the other way around too
Maybe this is one of those things @Hussar
Maybe its one of the examples of when the game actually primes people to be affected in some way instead of the other way around. Such situations exist. Doesnt even have to happen every time. If it happens some of the time thats enough to cause a noticeable shift in general trend.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Dragonlance was far, far better the bigger the more distance it put between itself and the War of the Lance. The novels tended to suck the originality and creativity from any play in that era. There were far more interesting concepts explored further down the road. Unfortunately a large part of the player base kept trying to drag the world back to its original state - a mistake in my view.
Early Dragonlance is the main appeal IMHO. Lost all interest post Dragons of Summer Flame.

5th Age that mystic of whatever may as well be a complete mystery.

Uber dragons and mystics bleah. Total turnoff.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
And the Red Box and all editions afterwards were superior to the original Ravenloft "black box".
Not a Ravenloft fan but definitely lean towards I6 and the red box. Grand Conjunction stuff meh.

Don't really care about Ravenloft one way or another. To make it appeal to me would just alienate Ravenloft fans. Let them sort it out.
 
Don't really care about Ravenloft one way or another.

To make it appeal to me would just alienate Ravenloft fans.

Let them sort it out.

That middle line is rare wisdom in marketing these days. This rare bit of wisdom is yet another reason i think semi-independant sibling editions is the way forward. Just saying.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Don't really care about Ravenloft one way or another.

To make it appeal to me would just alienate Ravenloft fans.

Let them sort it out.

That middle line is rare wisdom in marketing these days. This rare bit of wisdom is yet another reason i think semi-independant sibling editions is the way forward. Just saying.
I don't get Gothic horror it holds 0 appeal.

IDK what Ravenloft fans like so I don't think I'm qualified to have a strong opinion one way or another.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
I don't get Gothic horror it holds 0 appeal.

IDK what Ravenloft fans like so I don't think I'm qualified to have a strong opinion one way or another.
And I detested Dragonlance from the day it first came out. (I remember being all excited, and buying the first supplement and thinking "....really?")

So, yeah, no product is going to please everybody.
 

Urriak Uruk

Explorer
I understand the point you're making here, but, you're forgetting an important side point. Settings, by and large, are for DM's. The players don't care that much and most of their knowledge of a setting will come from that DM. This is particularly true in smaller settings like, say, Primeval Thule, where, outside of maybe reading the player primer (and that's a BIG maybe), the players know nothing about the setting and, really, don't care that much. The DM, OTOH, is trying to do all these things to bring the setting to life for the players and is likely thinking, at least in the back of the mind sort of way, about the setting every time an adventure is written or whatnot.
Obviously this depends from table to table, but honestly IMO your game is going to be way more fun and you're more likely to tell an interesting story if your players embed their characters into the setting in some way.

I find this especially true for magic casters, who need to get their magic from something, either a god, patron or schooling.

If you have a warlock who just wants to play as "My patron is a demon but has no impact on the story, I know nothing about him, and he's never going to bother us." That is a lot less interesting that a character who needs to keep the source of their powers secret because he knows his patron is secretly an imprisoned god, defeated from the last war etc. etc.

Does that mean the players need/should know all the intricacies, histories and geography of the setting? Nope, just like I don't know everything about every culture or the history of every nation on earth. But just like a real person, a character should know elements of the setting that are relevant to the person their playing, otherwise they are setting themselves up for a less-optimal character story.
 

Advertisement

Top