WotC comes to you and asks you to pick a setting...

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Greyhawk is definitely my first choice but Kalamar is very close. Kalamar has a similar feel to Greyhawk but is much more internally consistent and better developed.

I honestly think that Kalamar has become what Greyhawk should have been.

I'm inclined to agree -

Kalamar deserves a poll spot!

 

[nato9]

You've replied to half a dozen posts saying, essentially, "But Scarred Lands does this too!"

I'm just saying, man, everyone knows you like Scarred Lands. You don't need to bring it up half a dozen times in a poll thread.

I know just how you feel; a long time ago I finally got so sick of it I went to the rarely used ignore list. Now I can lurk this great forum all the time and never have to hear Scarred Lands or OD&D spamming no matter how totally unrelated the topic is!

 

[Nightfall]

You've replied to half a dozen posts saying, essentially, "But Scarred Lands does this too!"

I'm just saying, man, everyone knows you like Scarred Lands. You don't need to bring it up half a dozen times in a poll thread.

Yeah well I took some time off and thus my rep as a Pimp died a little. So I'm trying to work it back up.

Core,

Not necessarily but I meant I didn't say outloud what I thought of "geography making sense."

Nato,

Right...and this means what?


MM,

No I've forgotten the question!

 

[Mercule]

Greyhawk is definitely my first choice but Kalamar is very close. Kalamar has a similar feel to Greyhawk but is much more internally consistent and better developed.

I honestly think that Kalamar has become what Greyhawk should have been.

I think you just prompted me to find and purchase Kalamar.

 

[Wombat]

Eberron was written specifically with the current rules in mind, in that sense it really is the best fit.

I have to agree with this.

Unlike the other settings, Eberron was specifically designed to fit the RAW, while the other core settings (FR, GH) were settings first, rules after -- this shows up particularly with the 3.X rules.

My feeling is also this -- WotC paid a fair amount of change for the contest that found Eberron. It put of a lot of publicity into it. And in the end the whole notion of the Eberron-project was to find a setting that incorporated all of the core rules (even rules that some people are not as fond of using, such as psionics) and make it fit as a seamless garment; on top of this are added "setting specific" rules, thus showing how the rules can be expanded, rather than contracted. On top of this, the setting shows that D&D doesn't need to be Tolkein-esque, which breaks down a lot of stereotypes. Finally there is the notion that something like Midnight or Iron Kingdoms might be amusing to take, but these are developed by other companies and they would probably squeeze WotC pretty hard if their setting were to become the default setting.

Overall, I would be amazed if WotC used anything else. This is the setting their marketing department aimed for. Why use a setting that does not use all the rules? Why use a setting that was not created by WotC? In the end, Eberron makes the most rules and financial sense.

 

[diaglo]

With those constraints...either Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.

Greyhawk... leave the Realms forgotten

 

[cmanos]

I'd like to vote for dropping Forgotten Realms into the deepest abyss of the ocean, Alex.

 

[Ed Cha]

World of Greyhawk, of course.

But, of course, I also like my own World of Whitethorn "build-as-you-play" adventure setting series.

 

[PJ-Mason]

I voted for CSIO, although its actually a whole world with a ton of maps and cities, etc. Not just the one city. Why? Because it emotes the true core D&D style...hack and slash. Look at Necro's Lenap preview, its a list of evil stuff scattered around the area to kill, with the ocassional neutral or good settlement to heal up at. Though you wonder how they manage to exist with all that surrounding them. D&D isn't about internal consistency and all that junk.

That is what D&D is/was/will be. 1st through 3.5th editions. I don't see 4th being any different and it would be a mistake to do it any different. I mean if 3.0/3.5 didn't jam minis down our throats enough, just imagine what 3.75 or 4.0 will be like. Maybe you won't be allowed to buy the handbooks without pack of minis, or maybe the book will burst into flame without the presence of minis.

Anyway, thats the setting i think models the D&D style and experience the best. The others are pretenders or have strayed from the core D&D path.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I had to vote Greyhawk.

Because it's a non-entity. Eberron, while flashy, has alot of ,not just non-core, but non-genre material in it. It's very SPECIFIC. It is, at its foundations, a NICH PRODUCT for an extremely nich game.

To make Eberron "D&D", I.E. when you pick up D&D you pick up Eberron, would be alienating way too much of the potential market. Not that Eberron doesn't sell, mind you, but I think it needs D&D RAW to kick start interest in it. Greyhawk WORKS because you can have all those bazillion little free adventures from WotC that really have nothing beyond the immediate story-line to place them ... and you can place them. Same with modules, same with your own adventures. That becomes harder to do when you have very culture-specific rules in place ... like Dragonmarks.

In essence, I think the simpler the better.

Average man-off-the-street doesn't know what a Dwarf is, maybe. But average Dork-Off-The-Street probably does. The guy who played WarcraftIII and World of Warcraft and is now interested in RPGs, he can "get" Greyhawk ... but the average person DOESN'T know what a "Warforged" is or why sentient "constructs" are odd or what a "Dragonmark" is or why that's different or why that's the same as Vanilla Fantasy. Action Points are beside the point ... if they make a 4e, maybe that's a good enough idea to catch Core RAW, but I don't think some core things like: "Well 'constructs' are built machine-like things created with magic, based originally off of golems, which is an old Jewish myth, but which D&D expanded to take in Frankenstein, and which has been further expanded into a minor sub-theme of Magical Technology, but a defining aspect of these "constructs" in the game has been that they have no Constitution score and are fully under the control of their creators while Warforged are constructs as well but they DO have Constitution scores and are free-willed" ... that whole long-winded concept sort of ruins the "Core Setting" appeal. We all "get" Warforged because we already "get" core D&D.

--fje