Wilderlands too old?

[Psion]

There seems to be a misconception forming here. Wilderlands is not just a random listing of random encounters. It is a very detailed list of locations which are connected together with subtle plot threads. For example, town X may produce a mineral F that is shipped to a city in hex Z, but a wizard from hex B is scheming to steal it.

Well, that doesn't sound so bad. But let me ask this: is there any indication of these intracacies without doing a thorough reading? Something summarizing the whole plot, or references to other regions? If not, it sounds difficult to actually use in a pro-active way.

It's a skeleton framework that you flesh out, and that's fun. Many people don't have the time to build even a skeleton, but don't want a muscular package like the FR because it interferes with their own plans. Wilderlands fills that gap.

What I am not seeing here is, as I alluded to earlier, Wilderlands is supporting "my own plans." It sounds like the intent here is that the characters experience the world serendipitously, and the DM is primarily a facilitator. What am I missing here?

 

[Krypter]

So if you have the free time of a teenager you can modify the Forgotten Realms but at the same don't you don't need to flesh out the Wilderlands with that same amount of Freetime?

All these years I've been playing the Forgotten Realms wrong by ignoring huge swathes of canon! My poor players. Denied!

Joe, you have a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths. Why don't you make your point (whatever it may be) by simply saying what you mean, instead of twisting people's words in order to sound clever.

The "teenager's amount of free time" I was referring to was for constructing a world from whole cloth on your own. The other extreme is to have an incredibly detailed world laid out for you, ala the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. The Wilderlands is in the middle. All those are valid options depending on your preferences.

 

[The Shaman]

So if you have the free time of a teenager...

You touched on time earlier in the thread, I believe.

It didn't take the "free time of a teenager" for me to come up with the possible plot hooks in my previous post, based on a single encounter that you described from the setting book.

Now I can add flesh to the bones of my ideas and write the adventures and campaign, which is what I'd probably do since I like that aspect of GMing above just about anything else, and I'm willing to make the time to do that.

Or I could sift through the adventures in Dungeon to find something appropriate, file off the names and the serial numbers and plug it into the Wilderlands - I'd hazard a guess that a GM who takes this approach would do the same thing with any published setting.

Or I can complain that the setting lacks detail and support, in which case I'm going to look for a setting with pre-written adventures so that I can read the shaded boxes to my players and roll the dice when the rules call for it.

The Wilderlands are not written for the last gamemaster.

 

[DaveMage]

Psion, why don't you go to the Necromancer Boards (if they're back up - they were down earlier) and just look at the two preview chapters they put up?

I think those sample chapters (and maps) will help you decide if this product is useful for you or not.


I like the product because reading it not only sparks my imagination, but provides me with a nice backdrop to put in any published (or self-created, should I ever have the free time of a teenager again) adventure.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Joe, you have a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths. Why don't you make your point (whatever it may be) by simply saying what you mean, instead of twisting people's words in order to sound clever.

It's a skeleton framework that you flesh out, and that's fun. Many people don't have the time to build even a skeleton, but don't want a muscular package like the FR because it interferes with their own plans. Wilderlands fills that gap.

You did say that right? A skeletal framework that you flesh out. That takes time. Perhaps as much time if not more than it would take to remove/change elements of a more detailed campaign setting. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Perhaps your message wasn't so clear?

The "teenager's amount of free time" I was referring to was for constructing a world from whole cloth on your own. The other extreme is to have an incredibly detailed world laid out for you, ala the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. The Wilderlands is in the middle. All those are valid options depending on your preferences.

Ignoring metaplot and setting plots in FR, on the other hand, can have nonsensical results. That's hard for one GM to do unless they have a teenager's infinite amount of free time.

Because if you look at what you first wrote above here, it's not the same as constructing a world whole cloth. These two are very different things.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

So what happens if your adventurers go to the same hex again?

Aren't you kind of out of encounters for that place? And need to do your own work? I mean, it's cool that these hexes are all interconnected but is there built-in replay value that still doesn't need additional work?

Cheers,
Cam

What do you do with any printed setting after defined encounter is completed?
You move on from there. You look at what sort of monstrs are noted as dwelling in that general region, you look at who lives nearby and then decide what or who would move in (if anyone) sould hte ginat frogs be slain. Those giant frogs could have been keeping some goblins away from some minor ruins in that hex and what do you know those minor ruins turn out to be an ancient tomb guarded by a host of venegful undead.

 

[JoeGKushner]

What do you do with any printed setting after defined encounter is completed?
You move on from there. You look at what sort of monstrs are noted as dwelling in that general region, you look at who lives nearby and then decide what or who would move in (if anyone) sould hte ginat frogs be slain. Those giant frogs could have been keeping some goblins away from some minor ruins in that hex and what do you know those minor ruins turn out to be an ancient tomb guarded by a host of venegful undead.

This is a good point but it's certainly not a selling point for Wilderlands if it's not a selling point for every other printed campaign no?

 

[JamesDJarvis]

This is a good point but it's certainly not a selling point for Wilderlands if it's not a selling point for every other printed campaign no?

Well yeah. My point was this complaint about "what happens after the frogs in hex XXXX are killed?" is in no way unique to the setting and while it may take some work the answers can in fact be derived from what is already there in the printed materials.

Ruins once occupied by a horrible beast may find a minority population from a nearby village moving in after the monster is slain. (for simple example).

 

[rounser]

I know that I have this much material in notes alone for old campaign worlds and doubt that I'm the only one.

Uh huh.

If you think I need to, you are being completely unrealistic. All I need to come up with is ~ 4 encounters per session. Albeit I do beleive in "status quo" encounters, I don't beleive that one's entire gaming experience should be made up of them.

This makes no sense; just because the wilderness actually has something in it, and isn't some huge void like it is in your average campaign, doesn't mean that that's the only adventures you can run there.

The reason why this approach is arguably better than your "4 encounters per session" is that the PCs can pack bags and ignore the 4 that you've prepared as set pieces for the adventure they've been railroaded into and go see what's in the next town....and actually find something interesting there, and something interesting along the way, heaven forbid.

So what happens if your adventurers go to the same hex again?

They'll find the remains of what happened there last time, or since, which is far better than there being nothing there to begin with, as is the case with most campaign worlds.

This is a good point but it's certainly not a selling point for Wilderlands if it's not a selling point for every other printed campaign no?

See above. And they get to realise that they've had an effect on the landscape, which doesn't mean much to the DM, but players remember that.

The level of opposition is kind of weird, really; it seems to be offending some sort of unspoken D&D culture assumption about what settings should be. I'm quite happy to suggest that the current status quo assumptions have it wrong and are backward. Meanwhile, watching the clutching at straws in this thread in seemingly desperate attempts to prove that the Wilderlands approach is wrong is kind of weird.

 

[BWP]

The level of opposition is kind of weird, really; it seems to be offending some sort of unspoken D&D culture assumption about what settings should be. I'm quite happy to suggest that the current status quo assumptions have it wrong and are backward. Meanwhile, watching the clutching at straws in this thread in seemingly desperate attempts to prove that the Wilderlands approach is wrong is kind of weird.

Oh, there's plenty of room for all sorts of settings. What works for one DM is poison for another. It's silly to think that one is "superior" to any of the others.

What I think is weird in this thread, though, are the people who don't want to buy the Wilderlands set aggressively defending their reasons for not buying it. You don't need to defend anything. If you don't think you'll like it, no-one's going to hold you to account for that -- just don't buy it and concentrate on the things you do like.