Why bother with Vanilla?

[jdrakeh]

I like Vanilla ice cream, however, I'm not certain that I need dozens of nearly identical products taking up space in my freezer. I mean, there isn't much difference between Blue Bunny Vanilla ice cream and Bryer's Vanilla ice cream, save for the carton. The same thing seems to be true of Vanilla campaign settings. Yet, for some reason, people seem to clamor for exactly this in D&D.

I guess I may just be stupid, as I don't understand this at all.

Why pay for a setting that isn't, in any notable way, different from dozens of other settings already available? I mean, if a given setting contains all of the same old tropes of Vanilla without variation (which pretty much has to be the case for it to qualify as "Vanilla" in the first place), is it really worth $40+ for a new map and geography (i.e., the carton)? Wouldn't it just be easier to buy the core rulebooks and do it yourself?

 

[GAAAHHH]

Some brands of vanilla taste better than others. For example: Bryers makes the best vanilla ice cream.

On a campaign setting note, I like Greyhawk. I don't like Forgotten Realms. Some people would consider both settings as vanilla D&D (which I don't, by the way). If you like a setting, buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[ShadowX]

Is this yet another feckless rant or are there actually people clamoring for a "vanilla" setting? Another poster is claiming that D&D is getting more fantastic and yet you think that D&D players currently crave bland, faceless settings? Such incongruent views of the hobby crop up on these boards nearly daily and indicate to me that any generalization of the hobby is almost inexorably doomed to failure. Instead, we should stop making judgments about other hobbyists preferences or, in unfortunately too many cases, their lack of intelligence. Which is not to say that you are at fault, but this type of post where the author grows exasperated with his fellow hobbyists' habits is growing far too frequent around these parts.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Some brands of vanilla taste better than others. For example: Bryers makes the best vanilla ice cream.

On a campaign setting note, I like Greyhawk. I don't like Forgotten Realms. Some people would consider both settings as vanilla D&D (which I don't, by the way). If you like a setting, buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Bingo.

I have a whole slew of settings (Kingdoms of kalamar, DCC 35, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms) I pick and choose elements that I want to use and leave what I don't. I don't have the inclination to create my own settings anymore and the fact that someone else has done most of the work and I can pick and choose appeals to me.

 

[reanjr]

Could be the fact that when most people basically want a Vanilla setting, they all have their little pet preferences which may not be drastic but provides a market for the "perfect" setting. FR and GH, for example, to me seem very similar except in their covered depth. So if you want to play a high magic, generica fantasy setting you can choose either, but if you are the type to fill in the blanks, you'd prefer GH, while if you want alot of the legwork done for you, you'd prefer FR.

 

[reanjr]

Is this yet another feckless rant or are there actually people clamoring for a "vanilla" setting? Another poster is claiming that D&D is getting more fantastic and yet you think that D&D players currently crave bland, faceless settings? Such incongruent views of the hobby crop up on these boards nearly daily and indicate to me that any generalization of the hobby is almost inexorably doomed to failure. Instead, we should stop making judgments about other hobbyists preferences or, in unfortunately too many cases, their lack of intelligence. Which is not to say that you are at fault, but this type of post where the author grows exasperated with his fellow hobbyists' habits is growing far too frequent around these parts.

Sales seem to imply that people prefer Vanilla settings. Otherwise we would have seen 3e Planescape, Spelljammer, and Dark Sun instead of 3e Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Greyhwak.

As to the incongruency you mentioned, I think it has to do with evolution vs. revolution. Evolutionists believe things aren't remaining true to their roots, revolutionaries believe the game is old and tired.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I like Vanilla ice cream, however, I'm not certain that I need dozens of nearly identical products taking up space in my freezer. I mean, there isn't much difference between Blue Bunny Vanilla ice cream and Bryer's Vanilla ice cream, save for the carton.

To your taste buds maybe, but I can taste a difference. Just like my gaming buddies used to try to tell me that there's no difference between Schwepps Ginger ale, Seagrams ginger ale and the White Rose brand ginger ale. Ginger ale is my beverage of choice when I'm not drinking oodles of bottled water so I can taste the difference. For that matter I can taste the difference in brands of bottled water as well. We recently moved from one area of Queens NY to another part of Queens and yes the tap water tastes different.

Wouldn't it just be easier to buy the core rulebooks and do it yourself?

If youre not really inclined to do so then no.

When I was younger and had loads of time on my hands I used to create campaign settings. What I found was that my players could give a crap, they cared about adventuring and what ever it was that they were involved in at the time. All of the history, backstory and what not meant nothing to them. Even when it was something that was slowly revealed over time in was secondary even tertiary to what was going on at the time. It was at that point I realized that with my players and the type of player that I enjoy playing with that detailed background and even a detailed / defined campaign setting was a waste of time.

Right now I'm running the Age of Worms adventure path from Dungeon Magazine. The players are only familiar with the area that they're starting in and the nearby city. World politics mean nothing to them, their only desire is to get out to the crap hole that is Diamond Lake. Right now they are fighting some cultists but as soon as they're done they've expressed a desire to see to go to the nearby Free City.

When they get to the Free City then things will open up for them a little more as far as their exposure to world goes. But unless its relevant to their character or their immediate goals there's no reason to waste my time fleshing that sort of thing out unless one of my players have specifically expressed a desire for this.

Part of my point is this I never said what campaign world we're playing in even though in the adventures it's implied that the world is Greyhawk (and you really only get the implication if you're already familiar with Greyhawk and actually reading the adventure). I haven't said what world, and the players to thier credit DONT CARE. It doesn't make them bad players and I'll take to task any man that says otherwise. They care about what's going on with their PCs and thier immediate surroundings, they care about not getting caught up in the corruption of Diamond Lake and they care about eliminating that cult that may pose a danger to the people that they do care about in Diamond Lake.

World? Honestly, not that important.

 

[jdrakeh]

In light of another person's attack on my character futher up the thread, I apparently need to clarify a few things:

1. This is not a rant. In point of fact, this topic was inspired by another thread currently on the front page of this forum, in which the majority of posters (thus far) have expressed a preference for baseline fantasy grounded heavily in Tolkien (and, yes, they specifically mentioned Tolkien -- I am not attempting to use this as a perjorative).

2. I'm not passing judegement on anybody here. I'm just trying to understand the sentiment. As I note above, I'm missing the appeal and asked for people to explain it. I didn't say that anybody was wrong or that I was right. All I said was that I noticed a particular leaning, didn't understand it, and asked that it be explained to me.

So, to sum up, I'm trying to understand a leaning that I don't personally have, not dismiss this leaning as wrong or my own as The One True Way.

 

[ivocaliban]

First of all, this thread is making me hungry!

Second, let's try hamburgers instead of vanilla ice cream. Lots of places sell hamburgers, but that doesn't mean all hamburgers are alike. A hamburger from McDonalds and a hamburger from Red Robin are very different indeed, though basically a hamburger is still just meat-inna-bun. It's what goes into the hamburger, how it's prepared and what you put on it that makes it different or unique.

I think the same is true with campaign settings.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have a Greyhawk burger!

 

[trancejeremy]

I think the problem is, to someone who is not really a fan of 'vanilla', then yes, all of them seem exactly alike. But in reality, there are key but subtle differences that might not be apparent to casual fans

Secondly, in the case of fantasy settings, I think elves and dwarves and such strike a chord, because they are based on real world mythology. Indeed, many people still believe in them, just the backstory has been updated a bit (they're aliens, instead of magical).