Why bother with Vanilla?

[Woas]

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.

Just like ice cream. How do companies make strawberry, chocolate, mint chip, vanilla itself or any other flavor? They make huge batches of base vanilla and then add to it.
And I suppose that is why people want vanilla campaign settings.

 

[EricNoah]

Plus I think a lot of players want to be the oddballs in a relatively "normal" world. That's a pretty consistent (sometimes cliched) theme of fantasy fiction.

On the subject of cliches, though... everyone says "drow and Underdark adventures have been done to death". Yet I have never had the chance to play a drow or play in an all-Underdark campaign (ran one -- yes; played as a player, no). I would love to take a ride on that cliche and do all of the cool things I've heard is so "typical."

 

[Glyfair]

Well, they don't seem exactly alike to me, though those subtle differences seem to be largely negligible...

That's the key there. They seem largely negligible to you. To other people they don't seem largely negligible.

To me, and most I've have discussed this with, vanilla is a bad analogy. These settings are vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and maybe even flavors like butter pecan. The settings you are describing they see as flavors like onion, raw horse flesh, corn, balsamic vinegar, tuna and sardine-brandy ice creams (all real flavors, BTW).

 

[Nifft]

IMHO Vanilla isn't any individual's favorite, but most importantly, it also isn't anyone's least favorite.

The most common flavor is going to be one the whole group can enjoy -- and for group activities, least-hated may be superior.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ivocaliban]

IMHO Vanilla isn't any individual's favorite, but most importantly, it also isn't anyone's least favorite.

If were going to keep using the Vanilla explanation for something which is plain, typical and relatively dull, I think we should all read this.

 

[Crothian]

If were going to keep using the Vanilla explanation for something which is plain, typical and relatively dull, I think we should all read this.

That's great!! So it's like the thread is asking: "Why bother with the most popular setting?"

 

[DragonLancer]

It's a matter of individual taste. I don't like settings that have everything spelled out for me, or deviate away from the perceived standard (hence my loathing of Eberron). Generic vanilla settings are more interesting to me as a GM, because they allow me to make the setting what I want it to be.

 

[Twowolves]

When you get a bunch of guys together and say "Let's play D&D", then certain things are expected the group, most of which you consider "Vanilla". Orcs, dwarves, elves, magic, clerics, combat, etc etc etc. Diverge too far from that norm, and it's less immediately recognizable as "D&D".

The vast majority of D&D players expect that common thread of ingredients, so that's why the vast majority of published campaign settings cleave to that model. Not everyone wants to do something radically different, so few publishers take a risk on something that's "kinda like D&D, but not very recognizable on it's face".

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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?

I dunno. I wrote a campaign setting that was a psionic world set on floating islands in the upper atmosphere of a gas giant, in which arcane magic had been purged by the gods ages ago for mysterious backstory reasons, leaving fragments of powerful arcane artifacts scattered around the world. I like a good amount of "fantastic" in my fantasy, although I tend to run games in Greyhawk a lot. Go figure.

A lot of my worldbuilding aesthetic comes from comic books, video games, and other media that depends on hooking its readers/viewers with really far-out concepts. I'd rather put a giant mountain of singing crystal in a game world than another "spiky dwarf-ridden peaks of barrier snowcaps."

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

IMHO Vanilla isn't any individual's favorite, but most importantly, it also isn't anyone's least favorite.

The most common flavor is going to be one the whole group can enjoy -- and for group activities, least-hated may be superior.

Cheers, -- N

Vanilla has the property of being able to take any kind of sauce and still taste good. If each player brings their own sauce, then if they've got vanilla to work with, they'll be happy.