William Ronald
Explorer
In light of all of the threads on settings of late, I thought it might be a good idea to discuss how we use different settings and setting materials. Personally, I am a homebrew sort of person, but I will adapt something from a setting book if I like it.
So, what do you think are the good points, the bad points, and the useful things in each setting? How do you use settings and setting materials? What makes for a good setting and for a bad setting?
For example, I think the Forgotten Realms has a great deal of materials, but I do not always like how some things in the setting are implemented -- such as the way that some of the cultures seem to be distributed across Faerun. I enjoyed the FRCS book, as it included regional feats and discussed such issues as trade, life in the Realms, a variety of groups for PCs to interact with and some localized prestige classes. As for the issues of powerful characters, there are usually powerful non-player characters in each campaign setting. I think that the 3rd edition FRCS book put the focus of the action on the PCs as opposed to the NPCs. (I think that one good rule for any setting is that the PCs can make a difference.)
The World of Greyhawk has lots of room for DMs to place their own creations, and has a somewhat different feel than the Forgotten Realms. Many of the powerful NPCs seem to be a little more in the background than they are in the Realms. I think that the World of Greyhawk has some great adversaries for player characters, such as Iuz and the Scarlet Brotherhood.
Eberron has some very good ideas, such as action points and has a sense of wonder. I only played in one Eberron game at an EN World Gameday, but the setting seems to have a feel somewhat like film noir. (On a side note, I suspect that the lightning rail and other innovations were only possible in a place with the long stability of the Empire of Galifar. In some respects, this resembles the Roman Empire which was able to build aqueducts and a good road network over its centuries of dominance in parts of Europe, Asia, and North Africa.) I really can't judge the races in Eberron or the classes, so I hesitate to make much of a judgement on it in play. I do think it has an interesting approach to planes, deities, and the role of some creatures -- such as dragons -- in the setting.
In the end, I think it is up to each DM and the players to breath life into a setting. Like much else in D&D, a great deal depends on the individual gaming group as to how much fun they are having in a setting.
SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
So, what do you think are the good points, the bad points, and the useful things in each setting? How do you use settings and setting materials? What makes for a good setting and for a bad setting?
For example, I think the Forgotten Realms has a great deal of materials, but I do not always like how some things in the setting are implemented -- such as the way that some of the cultures seem to be distributed across Faerun. I enjoyed the FRCS book, as it included regional feats and discussed such issues as trade, life in the Realms, a variety of groups for PCs to interact with and some localized prestige classes. As for the issues of powerful characters, there are usually powerful non-player characters in each campaign setting. I think that the 3rd edition FRCS book put the focus of the action on the PCs as opposed to the NPCs. (I think that one good rule for any setting is that the PCs can make a difference.)
The World of Greyhawk has lots of room for DMs to place their own creations, and has a somewhat different feel than the Forgotten Realms. Many of the powerful NPCs seem to be a little more in the background than they are in the Realms. I think that the World of Greyhawk has some great adversaries for player characters, such as Iuz and the Scarlet Brotherhood.
Eberron has some very good ideas, such as action points and has a sense of wonder. I only played in one Eberron game at an EN World Gameday, but the setting seems to have a feel somewhat like film noir. (On a side note, I suspect that the lightning rail and other innovations were only possible in a place with the long stability of the Empire of Galifar. In some respects, this resembles the Roman Empire which was able to build aqueducts and a good road network over its centuries of dominance in parts of Europe, Asia, and North Africa.) I really can't judge the races in Eberron or the classes, so I hesitate to make much of a judgement on it in play. I do think it has an interesting approach to planes, deities, and the role of some creatures -- such as dragons -- in the setting.
In the end, I think it is up to each DM and the players to breath life into a setting. Like much else in D&D, a great deal depends on the individual gaming group as to how much fun they are having in a setting.
SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
