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

[Haltherrion]

After reading both, I prefer the second but I will say as I read the first it seemed fine. But between the two, I've always loved "dark age" kind of settings. I find them an interesting period. My current campaign setting is a dark age period and I've used them a number of times.


From a campaign construction point of view, I would also offer:

• Setting #2 is a "smaller" world. That is, there are isolated pockets of civilization and presumably, fewer people. This has several campaign effects:
  • You can create less of the world initially and fill in the pieces as the players discover them.
  • Dark Ages make for more strife and chaos with no over-arching authority to preserve order and fewer resources. This makes for more campaign hooks and more for adventurers to do.
  • Power centers are small and plentiful (lots of petty kings and the like) which puts them on a footing that players can more easily effect giving them more say in the world. Possibly they can even become a new power center themselves. (As an example think of the 'king' in 13th warrior versus the Roman Emporer. The former anyone could walk up to and ask for a meal, the latter you might never see except at a great distance).
• From the players' perspective, there is going to be concern that in setting #1 they will be ordered around by some military authority ("Go here, kill this. Now go there."). This is something most players really hate. Although there are ways to do this that should be fine with most players, they just hate the thought of it. Setting #2 will appear to offer much more free will to the players.

 

[Haltherrion]

I think the "war" terminology is hanging some people up; I was looking less for a war-game related world of mass battles, sieges and conscripted soldiers and more of a prolonged border-skirmish against guerrilla-like foes. The emphasis is less "Call of Duty" and more "backdrop to explain why goblin raids are becoming more common".

Later on, it could develop into a more traditional clash of armies, but to start, it would've been more occasional battles with Nameless One's minions alongside traditional dungeon quests.

That's the way I read it, myself. One might still expect some authority to order the players to various places but it need not be for large unit combats. In wars, you still need scouts and there are still small skirmishes.

The authority need not exist at all of the party is acting on its own but even if there is one, it need not be so oppressive as to annoy the players but players do seem to be pathologically averse to any authority telling them what to do so be careful with that

 

[Haltherrion]

While I certainly get your point about option 1, allow me to play devil's advocate for option 2 here...

To start a campaign, you really don't *need* a setting, coherent or not. All you really need is an adventure, perhaps a town as a base of operations, a vague idea about the local culture (Norse, medieval, Aztec, etc.) and climate (desert, temperate, jungle, etc.), and away you go. All the rest can be filled in later, as you go along.

Both options, truth be told, give more information that I as player would expect to get when going in to a campaign. All I'd expect could be as little as "Desert climate, somewhat Egyptian culture where you're starting, Hobbits are banned, metal armour is rare and very expensive thus you cannot start with it. Roll 'em up." Simple, huh?

The story will unfold (I hope) through play.

Lan-"Hobbits in metal armour probably *should* be banned, come to think of it"-efan

Simple but not necessarily very effective for a campaign meant to last a while.

It's possible to start a game without much setting work but I wouldn't recommend it for anything except for a short throw-away campaign. For me, a setting is key to the sense of verisimilitude that I expect in a D&D campaign as much as in a good novel or movie. As a ref, I also find it a very useful framing device to help fill in the detail. In any case, the OP seems to like the idea of a setting, which I heartily support, so let’s help him with it.

Regarding your second point, I think players deserve to know enough of the setting to make intelligent character decisions which is typically more than a one or two liner referencing Earth analogs which might not be all that useful (for one thing, a history buff’s idea of ‘vaguely Egyptian’ might be very different from someone whose main source of information on Egypt is “The Mummy”). Typically, this might be the equivalent of a few paragraphs of background or it might be a lot more (I tend toward the latter myself).

There are also perfectly good settings where the players would not know a great deal about the setting (most Dark Age settings come to mind) and that is a useful device that minimizes the work the referee needs to do up front. And there are even “fill in the world” settings that can be used where the players explore disjoint, lightly connected realms again requiring little explanation or upfront work (perhaps a setting of island, be them land in a sea or shards floating in the sky). But in general, if you put the players in some bigger interconnected world, I think you owe them more than a few cursory lines.

 

[Mircoles]

I chose 2 because it seems that the adventures would be more open ended and varied than 1.

 

[billd91]

I voted option 2. I've played variations on option 1 before and while they can be fun, they can also be pretty oppressive. It's very easy to get into the PC-reactive mode, reacting to events rather than taking your own pace and exploring. So I'd probably avoid that campaign based on that short description.

 

[NN]

I prefer Option 2

More open ended, sandboxy, flexible, and player led.

But thats just my opinion.

I can however give you an objective logical reason to go with option 2.

It would be much easier, and make more in-game sense, to mutate Option2 into Option 1 than vice versa.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I voted option 1 because it sounded like it could be a great political/diplomatic game, finding ways to forge disparate allies into a united force, with tonnes of roleplaying opportunities.

Option 2 sounded like a typical cool points of light scenario - OK, but not as interesting to me as the possibility of playing a political/diplomatic game with a great DM

 

[Diamond Cross]

Option 2 for me. I can't stand political intrigue. There's no clear sides, and everything's ambiguous. When I play fantasy games, I prefer things to be clear. Being tricked to work for one side is one thing, but when everything's ambiguous, well, what can one really do to make an impact?

I also like to have real impact in my games as well, with positive results. Why should I play when I free a group of slaves that will just be put right back into slavery? Why should I try anything when nothing matters? Where's the incentive?

In "Dark" settings, things tend to be a lot more ambiguous. It's like the difference between WW II and Vietnam. WW II is the least ambiguous war in the last century. Vietnam is all about the politics and shady politics as well with no clear winners.

So, I'd much prefer option 2.

Plus I also like dungeon crawls. Option 2 suggests frequent dungeon crawls.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

I voted 2, but mostly because is more likely to lead to games I love.

But if well managed, I'm sure I'd play option 1 too.

 

[Pseudonym]

Option two over option one, but I'm not especially excited about either choice.