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

[Philosopher]

I have no preference. But I did not vote "Neither", because I would be quite happy to play in either setting.

I was a little surprised at the reasons people gave for not liking option one. When I read it, it did not strike me as necessitating a particular type of game. The PCs could join and perhaps later lead an army - on either side. They could become diplomats. They could become profiteers. They could raise a mercenary company and sell themselves to the highest bidder. They could be trying to carve out their own power base and find that this war is getting in the way. Or anything else.

I'm reminded of the Dragonlance Classics 15th Anniversary Edition, which reprinted (and modified) the original modules. It included options for "playing the novels" (which I didn't care for), but also had options for joining the Dragonarmies along with suggestions on how to run the campaign. While it didn't give too much detail on this (and understandably so), I appreciated the acknowledgement that it was a possible course of action.

I think it would be fun to say, "Screw going to Mordor, I wanna explore the Mines of Moria some more!" or "Hey, while we're in Minas Tirith, I wanna try to contact the local thieves' guild."

 

[Jack Daniel]

Option One all the way.

I have no interest in Conan, swords & sorcery, Crapsack Worlds, or sandbox campaigns. Nothing cheeses me off more than a campaign setting that's dark/edgy/gritty for the sake of darkness/edginess/grittiness, where the DM has made sure by fiat that good simply can't win (whether because evil is too powerful or because the setting is so amoral and shades-of-gray ambiguous that Good™ technically doesn't exist). In my experience, these games tend to be a vicious exercise in screwing over the odd player who actually wants to run a good-aligned, heroic character.

I'll take LotR over Conan, thanks. When I roll up a character, I want to save the world and banish the Dark Lord of Darkness for another thousand years. I want high fantasy, Big Damn Heroes and Villains, Good vs. Evil, and by Jove the DM had better have a bloody plot up his sleeve. That's my D&D game.

 

[Klaus]

Option 2. It describes a setting where many stories can take place (including the story from Option 1). Option 1 describes only a single storyline.

I'd love to DM or play an actual sandbox game, with the PCs slowly unveiling the map around them. All games I played in were far too inspired by Tolkien/Dragonlance and devolved into a "single storyline to save the world" that never managed to end because we got tired of it after a year or so.

 

[Klaus]

Which option is this:

The last great human kingdom was sundered centuries ago. Humanity exists in isolated pockets of civilzation, while other races also keep to themselves. Undead stalk the abandoned boneyards of old, while pirates prowl the coasts. The coutryside is dotted with ruins of golden ages, now filled with demonic horrors and evil beings. Forests are haunted places where men dare not enter. Mountains are the hunting grounds of savage giants and covetous dragons.

Answer:

[sblock] Lord of the Rings, which is Option 2 rather than Option 1. [/sblock]

 

[Philosopher]

I have no interest in Conan, swords & sorcery, Crapsack Worlds, or sandbox campaigns. Nothing cheeses me off more than a campaign setting that's dark/edgy/gritty for the sake of darkness/edginess/grittiness, where the DM has made sure by fiat that good simply can't win (whether because evil is too powerful or because the setting is so amoral and shades-of-gray ambiguous that Good™ technically doesn't exist). In my experience, these games tend to be a vicious exercise in screwing over the odd player who actually wants to run a good-aligned, heroic character.

I love a gritty game, but, like you, I wouldn't want to play in the sort of game you describe. While I enjoy playing the anti-hero sometimes, I also like to play the heroic character. It can be very rewarding to bring about good by your own hand, not because the Gods of Good aided you, but because someone (namely your character) cared enough to do something against the odds.

But you're right, you need the right kind of DM to pull that off, not the kind looking to screw over the hero.

 

[Remathilis]

Upon Thinking of it, I think LotR vs. Conan is a poor way to frame these options.

This is Eternia (from He-Man) vs. Diablo.

The former is a generally good place to live, and you are fighting to keep it that way from "outsiders". The latter is a dangerous place to live, and you are trying to make it better against the corruption that abounds.

Both can be places of heroism or places of selfish betrayal. One just assumes the PCs start out on strong footing and will fight off the badness, the other assuming a weak opening but PCs will fight to make it better (for themselves at minimum).

 

[Klaus]

Upon Thinking of it, I think LotR vs. Conan is a poor way to frame these options.

This is Eternia (from He-Man) vs. Diablo.

The former is a generally good place to live, and you are fighting to keep it that way from "outsiders". The latter is a dangerous place to live, and you are trying to make it better against the corruption that abounds.

Both can be places of heroism or places of selfish betrayal. One just assumes the PCs start out on strong footing and will fight off the badness, the other assuming a weak opening but PCs will fight to make it better (for themselves at minimum).

Or...

Eternia (He-Man) vs. Etheria (She-Ra).

In Option 1, Good rules the world and you fight to keep it that way.

In Option 2, Evil has the upper hand and you fight to beat it back.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted for option 2. Option 2 sounds closer to how I prefer my D&D. The big sweeping grandiose plots of option 1 don't do it for me. I like a story and I like to be the epic hero but on a smaller scale than huge wars with monsters.

 

[Holy Bovine]

While option 2 is miles better than 1 I wouldn't be terribly interested in either. I voted neither but could be persuaded to at least try 2.

 

[Verdande]

Option One all the way.

I have no interest in Conan, swords & sorcery, Crapsack Worlds, or sandbox campaigns. Nothing cheeses me off more than a campaign setting that's dark/edgy/gritty for the sake of darkness/edginess/grittiness, where the DM has made sure by fiat that good simply can't win (whether because evil is too powerful or because the setting is so amoral and shades-of-gray ambiguous that Good™ technically doesn't exist). In my experience, these games tend to be a vicious exercise in screwing over the odd player who actually wants to run a good-aligned, heroic character.

I'll take LotR over Conan, thanks. When I roll up a character, I want to save the world and banish the Dark Lord of Darkness for another thousand years. I want high fantasy, Big Damn Heroes and Villains, Good vs. Evil, and by Jove the DM had better have a bloody plot %