What is your LEAST favorite setting?

Which setting do you most DISLIKE?

  • Birthright

    Votes: 7 2.4%
  • Dark Sun

    Votes: 25 8.7%
  • Dragonlance

    Votes: 44 15.3%
  • Forgotten Realms

    Votes: 56 19.4%
  • Greyhawk

    Votes: 15 5.2%
  • Iron Kingdoms

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • Kingdoms of Kalamar

    Votes: 19 6.6%
  • Mystara

    Votes: 12 4.2%
  • Planescape

    Votes: 20 6.9%
  • Ravenloft

    Votes: 14 4.9%
  • Rokugan

    Votes: 12 4.2%
  • Scarred Lands

    Votes: 9 3.1%
  • Spelljammer

    Votes: 46 16.0%
  • other (please specify)

    Votes: 7 2.4%

Homebrew all the way...

Except maybe Birthright, if I knew anything about it. I read the first novel in one day (500+ pages) for a book report and enjoyed it. Maybe the setting is fun too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Watch it, punk!

alsih2o said:



meepo, i am not offended at all that you don't like greyhawk, but as a player approaching 40, with a smelly beard... :rolleyes:

Make that 50! With a smelly beard. And long hair! Never played in Greyhawk. :cool:
 

One point (sure to start some friendly debate) is that each setting is only as unique, innovative, overpowered, underpowered, munchkin, power gamerd, or entertaining as the dm who runs it. I have seen exciting planescape, boring Greyhawk, distasteful Realms, exciting Realms, and horrid homebrews. Just some random thoughts.

SUBSRCIBE

I buy it! I agree 150% with the rest of your comment.

YES! I do wish to take advantage of this one in a lifetime opportunity to realise that the quality of a campaign is up to me as a DM, and my players. I realise that I may be disabused of the notion that a commercial campaign setting can be used as a primary determinant of potential campaign quality, and be introduced to the idea that if I identify with the core D&D archetypes, there's usually enough of them intact in a commercial D&D setting to fit my tastes.

Please rush me my clue! Enclosed is a cheque for the total of $10 for the privilege of this newfound insight.
 
Last edited:


It was tough choice for me between Dragonlance, Planescape, and Forgotten Relams, but I had to go with Realms in the end.

1. Too many dag-blasted powerful NPCs (esp Drizzt and Elminster) who too many DMs use to show up and save the day at the end.

2. Too much magic- its pretty bad when every 1st level FR adventure I have played in has the characters getting multiple permanent magic items. Its a powergamers paradise!

3. The lands, cultures, and geography make no sense- its too much of a melting pot with no thought as to how all of these wildly divergent places came about in the first place.

4. The horrible novels that inundated the market a few years ago. For all its faults, FR was still mostly playable if the DM re-worked it heavily, but with the novels, too many players took them as canon, and if a DM didn't incorporate everything in those books, players got offended, or told the DM he was running the Realms wrong! Of course the DM could tell his players he wasn't running the Realms according to the books, but I have seen that attitude make some players VERY angry, to the point of walking out of the game and/or intentionally causing trouble during the session.

Dragonlance is also a big offender to me as well- mostly for reasons other people pointed out (too scripted, only one major background story in the world, many players too familiar with the setting), but also because of the over-emphasis on dragons. With dragons being so common, they lose a lot of their charm and mystique.

Planescape never appealed to me either, mostly because it seemed overly factionized (too much like a WW game), and because of the silly slang terms and DiTerlizzi's artwork had completely the wrong feel for it to me.

Ok, enough ranting- my favorite published D&D settings were probably Greyhawk (lots of fond memories playing there when I was younger, and the world seemed bigger, more complicated, and more mysterious than the Realms) and Birthright (it had interesting cultures, the world made sense, and it gave the PCs the chance to do something they rarely did in other games- run a small barony and have to be responsible!). Kalamar looks pretty cool and well thought-out, but I never have had a chance to play/run a game set there yet.
 


Psion said:
Gotta be Dragonlance. Bitter memories of the most railroaded modules in the history of the *D&D game and Kender, and continual confusion by DL fanboys that Orbs of Dragonkind and Death Knights originated in Krynn combine to make it the most disdained setting ever for me.

I completely agree. I'd like to add that Kender and Gully Dwarves were the most game-disrupting character types ever concieved, and if I ever meet Hickman and/or Weiss, they can expect a some major disgruntlement on my part.:mad:
 

gamecat said:

WAAAAHHH Kalamar sucks. It seems too "I-Wanna-Be-The-Realms".

Damn, guy. Kalamar definitely does not want to be the Realms. There are no NPC's over 20th level, and every bartender in the world isn't over 10th level, as it is in the Realms. Kalamar wants to be, if anything, Greyhawk as it should have been: self-consistent, well thought-out beforehand, and decently supported.

Except for support, these things don't describe the Realms; the Realms and Kalamar have only the D&D label in common, and that's why it's one of the best settings around.
 

ForceUser said:
Greyhawk seemed boring, not to mention the names of half the places were stupid. The Duchy of Geoff? Jeff? Hello? Was this invented by a DM in junior high?


What? You didn't prounce it "Jee Off"?
 

I voted Kalamar, simply because at the moment I have no interest in it whatsoever, as anotehr of the 'generic fantasy game worlds'. I like things a bit more quirky or unique.
 

Remove ads

Top