Why bother with Vanilla?

[jdrakeh]

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.

Well, they don't seem exactly alike to me, though those subtle differences seem to be largely negligible -- incidentally, this is why I like Vanilla settings, as tweaking them to suit personal preference is very easy. I guess my issue is that I don't see a reason for many Vanilla settings to exist as, aside from geography or a setting-specific pantheon, they don't seem to deviate very far from many of the other Vanilla settings out there.

 

[Celebrim]

Vanilla? You think that is what it is?

It's a campaign that isn't a planet of hats.

Go find a 'non-vanilla' setting, and what you'll typically find is a campaign which has blown up some region of 'vanilla' campaign setting and turned it into the whole campaign. One possible tech level, cultural trope, or biome among many as the whole campaign world.

See Midnight, Dark Sun, Eberron, Kara-Tur, Dragonlance, Scarred Lands, or any other campaign world where you can describe the campaign's 'hat' in a few sentenses.

Any of those could happily fit into a corner of a campaign setting. The campaign's 'hat' can become that region, country, or continent's hat, and whatever story you want to tell, you can find a spot for it. What you are calling 'vanilla' is better described by a different 'v' word - varied.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I guess my issue is that I don't see a reason for many Vanilla settings to exist as, aside from geography or a setting-specific pantheon, they don't seem to deviate very far from many of the other Vanilla settings out there.

OK, now I'm having trouble understanding something.

When you say (essentially) that they don't seem to differ, what exactly do you mean? IOW, in what way(s) do they not seem to differ? And, more to the point I suppose, what kind of portion of their total mass or content are we talking here?

 

[jdrakeh]

When you say (essentially) that they don't seem to differ, what exactly do you mean? IOW, in what way(s) do they not seem to differ?

I guess the original Wilderlands and the first printing of Greyhawk (as a setting versus the original rule supplement for OD&D) illustrate best what I mean. Both were essentially collections of maps and small footnotes detailing major town/cities. They both assumed the use of core AD&D rules and thus were nearly identical on a mechanical level, sharing more points of commonality (e.g., races, classes, spell lists, etc) than they did points of divergence. That is, aside from geography, both settings were pretty similar.

Now, granted, settings (even Vanilla ones) have evolved quite a bit since then and it would be dishonest of me to say that all Vanilla fantasy settings share this many points of commonality today, though I do still feel that the points of commonality outnumber the points of divergence. For the most part, settings such as the Wilderlands and Aldea still cleave to the core RAW with little divergence. In modern Vanilla settings, the major points of differentiation are still geography and cosmology, though a small peppering of slightly tweaked core classes or race variants (none of which are very wild departures from the core counterparts) have been added to the mix.

Now, for the record, I am not saying that this is bad -- to the contrary, sharing a vast many points of commonality makes Vanilla fantasy setting ideal for many people, as there isn't a great deal to re-learn when you move from one such setting to another. This makes such settings far more accessible than Talislanta or Tekumel, wherein the points of commonality with other settings are so few that you really have to work in order to find them. Settings like that can be a total PITA for the gamers in a time-crunch, hobby newcomers, or any other number of people who would benefit from this familiarity.

And that's the flipside of the coin.

Vanilla settings are all very familiar (hence the term Vanilla) due to the large number of commonalities that they share. This can be a total PITA for the jaded sensationalist who is looking to experience something new and different every time that they sit down to play. Which, I guess, is where I fall on the spectrum -- hence my inability to identify on a personal level with the people who prefer Vanilla to a wide selection of flavors and/or new and different flavors that haven't been tried (hey, I tried squid-flavored ice cream a month or two back).

Basically, I want to know why people who prefer Vanilla do so. And, yeah, "I think chocolate tastes like ass!" is a valid reply. As I mention earlier, I'm not looking to judge anybody or dictate that everybody like squid-flavored ice cream (I did, BTW). I'm just trying to better understand the reasons that one may be inclined to stick exclusively to Vanilla. And while "I like it!" is certainly a valid response, it doesn't actually explain much of anything to me. Why do you like it?.

 

[Crothian]

I don't see any vanilla settings. Even Wilderlands and Greyhawk these days have enough depth and definition that they are more then just plain old settings.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I guess the original Wilderlands and the first printing of Greyhawk (as a setting versus the original rule supplement for OD&D) illustrate best what I mean. Both were essentially collections of maps and small footnotes detailing major town/cities. They both assumed the use of core AD&D rules and thus were nearly identical on a mechanical level, sharing more points of commonality (e.g., races, classes, spell lists, etc) than they did points of divergence. That is, aside from geography, both settings were pretty similar.

Mechanics-wise, most settings for any given system are going to basically use that system, I suspect. Therefore, the thing with the races, classes, etc.

But when you say geography, is it possible that you mean geography, ecologies, history, personalities, religions, education systems or related assumptions, aesthetics. . .

Fluff, then?

IOW, the setting, when you get right down to it?

Note: I'm not really very familiar with those earlier[/earliest?] versions of these settings, so I might be way off here. :\

(. . .) hey, I tried squid-flavored ice cream a month or two back[.]

You, sir, are certifiably a rank animal. And now I see why alla vanilla tastes the same to ya.

Basically, I want to know why people who prefer Vanilla do so. And, yeah, "I think chocolate tastes like ass!" is a valid reply. As I mention earlier, I'm not looking to judge anybody or dictate that everybody like squid-flavored ice cream (I did, BTW). I'm just trying to better understand the reasons that one may be inclined to stick exclusively to Vanilla. And while "I like it!" is certainly a valid response, it doesn't actually explain much of anything to me. Why do you like it?.

Oh gods, it gets worse. No, there are no words for *you*, mister.


Uh yeah, as to why people stick with 'vanilla'? Haven't a clue! And wouldn't dream of doing so, as it happens.

I suppose it could be down to the implication of reduced read/grok/prep time. Actually, that's probably it.

 

[Gilladian]

I prefer a vanilla campaign. My own homebrew is pretty vanilla overall. But it's MY vanilla. I have my bit of "roman empire" down here, and my bit of "merry olde england" up here, and a "points of light" area over there...

When I choose to run a new trope, I just tuck it in.

What I don't have in my world are things I personally dislike - paladins, gnomes, drow, demon invasions, psionics (getting closer to vanilla every day), and 3rd edition halflings.

I DO have the requisite "new races" in my lizardmen and catfolk. They fit tropes I was interested in pursuing when I created them, or they make me happy (I love my kitties...).

I'd possibly vary further from vanilla (chocolate syrup, maybe?) if I could, but I'm no longer a college student with time to burn. As someone else said, vanilla is easier to prep for - there's a lot out there that fits with very little work.

 

[EricNoah]

Vanilla is a great base to add other interesting flavors to. Add some chunks of this or a hint of that and voila you have another flavor. Instead of changing "everything" you change a couple of things and explore -- as deeply as you want -- the ramifications of those changes.

 

[Reynard]

If I am reading the real question right, I think the naswer is that people like vanilla settings in general, and people like new stuff -- whether just for reading, or for idea mining, or to actually play in -- and therefore a good chunk of the new stuff is vanilla. it really is a simple as that, I think.

I mean, fans of any particular vanilla setting might have 2 or 3 versions of that setting sitting on their shelves. Rules aside, even, the differences in the authors, the context of creation (1977 vs 2007) and the like will make them very different to the reader.

 

[Phlebas]

Vanilla is a great base to add other interesting flavors to. Add some chunks of this or a hint of that and voila you have another flavor. Instead of changing "everything" you change a couple of things and explore -- as deeply as you want -- the ramifications of those changes.

I thinks that the real reason - its a lot easier to customise a vanilla setting to suit yourself than to take a really fantastical setting and vanillarise it (ie take out the things you don't like).

So if anybody's producing a setting then they're probably going to make it as customisable as possible to suit the maximum number of purchasers. Just plain ole economics rather than any comment on the desirableness or not of vanilla vs fantastical