Which of these games would you rather play (and why)?

[Remathilis]

Below are two possible campaign options. The details are a bit generic, that's intentional. Its designed to work with any edition of D&D, adjusting a little for individual quirks of that edition.

Option 1
[sblock]The Kingdom of Elaria's peace is threatened by war. Hordes of Nameless One gather, waiting to amass in such force that the Free Peoples of the lands are smashed under their boot. Other kingdoms have suffered such a fate already, and the King has wisely sought alliances from the elves, dwarves, and other goodly races. However, old grudges and petty vanities threaten to derail this alliance. A call is sounded to all corners of the kingdom looking for heroes armed with sword and spell to combat the Nameless One's advancing armies of goblins, orcs, giants, undead and dragons.[/sblock]

Option 2
[sblock] The Fallen Lands once was a prosperous land, but the fall of the Empire left many of the lords without backup to the merciless monsters of the land. Now, humanity exists in isolated pockets, huddled together in walled city-states desperate to survive against the pitiless creatures that roam the wild. The most powerful of these city-states is the Iron Eagle Barony, ruled by the Iron Warlord, a merciless lord who is both loved and feared by his people. It is a land full of ancient treasures of the lost empire, sought by warriors and wizards who seeking treasure and lost knowledge, provided they can live long enough to find it...[/sblock]

Now, assuming everything else is equal (good GM, favorite edition) which would you rather play and why?

 

[Oryan77]

Option #1 sounds a bit bland to me. If I'm going to play D&D, I'm going to already assume I will be fighting monster races. So this description doesn't really get me excited since I get no idea for any specific adventuring plots. I think, "So there are armies of monsters approaching? Where exactly will my character fit in with all of this?"

Option #2 seems more interesting because there are words like "ancient treasures" and "lost knowledge". It also has a more descriptive reference for what I might expect (dealing with rival treasure seeking warriors & wizards). Doing a treasure hunt isn't always expected when I play D&D. So wondering where this might take me & what I might see gets me more excited. I might even still encounter goblins, orcs, giants, undead and dragons.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Option Two is better, but they're both pretty bad.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

As I have little interest in war games, I voted for Option 2.

 

[fanboy2000]

Option Two.

Reason one: it matches up with my understanding of Europe after the fall of Rome. It's something I can relate to.

Reason two: it matches up with my reading of mythology. The world if filled with monsters and it's up to brave and strong heroes to tame it for civilization.

Reason three: it's feels less meta ploty. (There's a chance that that's an adjective.) It sounds to me like the kind of game where anything can happen and the "story" only become clear in hindsight.

 

[Gilladian]

Number one sounds like it will be a series of "same thing" over and over again; attack the army unit, run and hide, go back and do it again". It sounds bland and repetitive. It also sounds like the PCs have little chance to be the real stars. Also, only likely to attract a limited type of hero to play.

Two sounds a lot more like POL adventuring, with a whole variety of possible types of adventures, and with a wide variety of character types acceptable in the game. Much more appealing.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Option 2. I don't like war campaigns unless the are really well done. I've played the first installment of WotBS and it rocks, but previous war campaigns left me disappointed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Option 2 seems to allow for more player choice.

 

[Dice4Hire]

#2 for sure.

I do not like war campaigns, and D&D (any edition) does not have mass combat rules that I like at all. To me, there is little for an adventuring party to do in a game like this.

#2 offers a lot of things for an adventuring party to do, so i would pick that. #2 sounds a lot like Dark Sun, actually.

 

[Remathilis]

Interesting, not quite the responses I was expecting, perhaps because the examples were poorly worded.

So as not to spoil it for further voters.

[sblock] The first example was more geared toward a high fantasy, points-of-darkness style play; there is a good king in a just kingdom threatened by outside forces and the PCs are heroes trying to save their homeland. It could be run as a war game, but just as easily exploring (scout for new foes), diplomacy (negotiate between the races) and treasure hunting (find the Staff of Arrgggh! to stop the Nameless One for finishing the Disaster spell!)

The second was a more S&S/points-of-light world; things suck, humanity is on the ropes, and the most powerful authority figure in the world is a petty tyrant. Monsters live very close to home, villagers live in constant fear, and adventurers go out into the wilderness for more selfish reasons (personal wealth and power). There could be a lot of variance here as well; scouting out new territories (and ridding them of monsters), negotiating with hostile tribes (or even uniting human cities) and discovering awesome magic and treasure to found your own dynasties in the wilderness.

You could compare them point for point in some areas, but my intention was to see which sort of world has more appeal; a generally good world beset by outside evil, or a morally gray world where evil surrounds and power is not just a means, but an end. [/sblock]