Alright, I'm a fairly new D&D DM, I'm familier with the rules, but what sort of books are good for getting started with the fluff? I do like action-y books if that helps. (ask for any other relevent info, as I often badly word threads like this.) Much appreciated

Well, the fluff in D&D is fairly light as these things go. I would encourage you to check out some of the modules for the edition that you are playing. These often give you a good idea of the tone of the adventure.

One of the big things about D&D over the years is that it is a very open system. The core rulebooks try to stay away from too much description of the setting so that the players and DM have the ability to build their own setting. In this regard, any fantasy novels that you are familar with make a good base for your campaign.

When it comes to actual published material, the expansions (splatbooks), modules and campaign settings are really where you find a lot of the fluff. If you are looking for a well developed and completely populated world in 3rd/4th edition, a lot of folks are fond of the Forgotten Realms products. The place to start there would be the Campaign Setting book for FR.

Hope that helps!

Thanks pretre. So is the like a book for each setting? And what about stuff in the past, like the dawn war? (I heard of it but don't relly know much about it. It sounds cool though)

More like 'whole sets of books' for certain settings. If I'm not mistaken there were over a dozen Forgotten Realms sourcebooks in 3.x... at $40ish apiece.

Well, first off, what edition are you playing?

And yes, there are a number of D&D settings depending on what edition you are playing:

- Greyhawk (Default setting for 3rd ed and seen as a more 'traditional' swords and sorcery setting)
- Forgotten Realms (High fantasy, high magic setting used in most editions of the game)
- Eberron (Steampunky setting introduced in 3rd edition)
- Dragonlance (Darker and restricted setting)
- 4th Edition Default (Points of light in a field of darkness)
etc, so on.

Each setting generally has one initial book to decide the setting and then multiple expansions that give more information on pieces of the setting.

I play 4e and I have read the dragonlance books. I have read dragonlance though, and it is quite cool.

Nothing stopping you from running a Dragonlance game using 4th ed rules then.

play 3rd edition, but do so in the Greyhawk world... waaaay more "real" feeling fluff

@frginwntr: You don't like Dragonlance?

I've never actually played in it. I spent most of my time in Greyhawk in 1st through 3rd as well as custom campaigns in 2nd through 4th.

If you're playing 3rd Edition, there are already DragonLance sourcebooks available from Magaret Weis.

Read R. A. Salvatore's Icewind Dale trilogy. That's the very epitome of D&D "fluff."

My three favs:

1. World of Greyhawk ( Nostalgic/classic)

2. Eberron (love the '"feel" of this world )

Forgotten Realms (a very 'lived in" setting. Lots of material)

Keep i mind that if you are simply looking for fluff, lore or info about the setting that what edition a particular book comes from is largely irrelevant...

Also, what sort of stuff is there for the historical events in the setting? (I'm not too good with locations and stuff so bear with me)

Manchu wrote:Read R. A. Salvatore's Icewind Dale trilogy. That's the very epitome of D&D "fluff."

Yeah, very decent books. The first three Dragonlance are like that too. I never found a Greyhawk novel set that I liked as much as either of those trilogies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chuck Norris wrote:Also, what sort of stuff is there for the historical events in the setting? (I'm not too good with locations and stuff so bear with me)

Depends on the setting. Most of the settings have significant historical data in their campaign setting book.

This is one area where edition matters, since most of the settings have progressed when new books have come out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you have creative bones in your body, I cannot recommend enough creating your own setting. The games that are most memorable from our gaming group are the ones where the DM crafted his own world and immersed us in it.

I prefer published settings. I feel like DM-created worlds are often very proprietary but that depends on the DM, of course. By contrast, no one at the table owns a published setting no matter how much the know or claim to know about it.

I agree, I prefer a written setting. Darksun, Ravenloft and Planescape are my three favourites, though I enjoyed Eberron too, once I'd fiddled with it a bit.

Iron Kingdoms was let down by some wacky mechanics, and I always found Forgotten Realms a bit too vast to really wrap my head around.

As far as 4th edition goes, the settings are:
Base Setting: Stereotypical Sword and Sorcery adventuring. Some decent cosmological stuff (Dawn War and so on)in an otherwise fairly bland setting.
Forgotten Realms: High magic fantasy
Eberron: Steampunk Fantasy
Darksun: Post apocalyptic Fantasy

The Realms are a patchwork of novelists' ideas. You should pick a spot and play there without going all over. I'd recommend the Silver Marches.

My current group is having a lot of fun with the current Pathfinder settings, which uses their own modified 3.5 Edition D&D.

The adventure paths are pretty much plug and play, easy enough to GM and have enough background to get you going.

They actively support their system and have lots of adventures in the works.

The Pathfinder setting is an even messier patchwork. Each country is basically a genre, many of which are stolen from D&D. Ustalav, for example, is their Ravenloft. There's a French Revolution country and a laser-gun-and-flying-saucer country. It's like old episodes of Star Trek: Want to have a cowboy episode? Just go to the Cowboy Planet. Nazi Episode? Gangster Episode? We've got planets for those, too!

Manchu wrote:I prefer published settings. I feel like DM-created worlds are often very proprietary but that depends on the DM, of course. By contrast, no one at the table owns a published setting no matter how much the know or claim to know about it.

Heh. I do agree with this, but have found that 'borrowing' from other DMs settings is quite amusing.

It is really up to personal taste though.

NO! Spelljammer is the best choice for EVERYONE!

Manchu wrote:The Pathfinder setting is an even messier patchwork. Each country is basically a genre, many of which are stolen from D&D. Ustalav, for example, is their Ravenloft. There's a French Revolution country and a laser-gun-and-flying-saucer country. It's like old episodes of Star Trek: Want to have a cowboy episode? Just go to the Cowboy Planet. Nazi Episode? Gangster Episode? We've got planets for those, too!

Yeah, but a given adventure path will generally only cover one of these countries at a time. When you finish it, then you run another adventure path in another country. It'll be different, but not so different to be confusing.

There's nothing inherently confusing about the Realms, either, at least as far as most folks would notice for the sake of playing a campaign or two. The main issue I have with Pathfinder Land is that it's basically a theme park rather than a coherent world. But that's not a problem everyone will have, I know.

Manchu wrote:NO! Spelljammer is the best choice for EVERYONE!

I so heart SJ. I still include bits of it in a lot of my homebrew games. In fact, most of the main settings include elements from SJ in them (astral ships, etc).

Spelljammer is a hilarious concept, but I don't know that anyone I play with could ever run a serious campaign in it.

Realms is probably great, it's just that I get to the gazetteer bit and get bogged down in the descriptions of all these places and people and so on. It's almost too rich for me- I can't encapsulate it easily and therefore it is difficult for me to develop ideas around it.

That's certainly my issue, and not an issue with FR, I know that just from the sheer number of Realms fans there are.

The next campaign I run WILL begin with the crash of a Neogi DeathSpider into a village.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Spelljammer is a hilarious concept, but I don't know that anyone I play with could ever run a serious campaign in it.

I hate to say it to an Irishman but that's your British sense of humor getting in the way.

Da Boss wrote:Spelljammer is a hilarious concept, but I don't know that anyone I play with could ever run a serious campaign in it.

Seriously? That's kinda weird. It isn't like it is slapstick, just play pirates in space or use it as a method to get between planes.

Realms is probably great, it's just that I get to the gazetteer bit and get bogged down in the descriptions of all these places and people and so on. It's almost too rich for me- I can't encapsulate it easily and therefore it is difficult for me to develop ideas around it.

That's certainly my issue, and not an issue with FR, I know that just from the sheer number of Realms fans there are.

Agreed. It is really difficult to make FR yours because EVERYTHING in the setting has been written about. There are no blank spaces to make your own. And heaven forbid if you have someone in your group who is more knowledgeable of the setting than you. lol

Da Boss wrote:I can't encapsulate it easily and therefore it is difficult for me to develop ideas around it.

Like I said, if you ever want to play in the Realms, do a campaign set around Silverymoon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:And heaven forbid if you have someone in your group who is more knowledgeable of the setting than you.

Hey, at least I have a chance in a Realms game. When I'm playing in the DM's world he is by definition the someone in the group who is more knowledgeable about the setting than anyone.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:And heaven forbid if you have someone in your group who is more knowledgeable of the setting than you.

Hey, at least I have a chance in a Realms game. When I'm playing in the DM's world he is by definition the someone in the group who is more knowledgeable about the setting than anyone.

But that's the point, isn't it? The DM should be the most knowledgeable person in the game about the setting. Otherwise the players can run roughshod over the plot by saying 'nuh-uh Drizzt wouldn't do that as was clearly outlined in Splatbook X and reiterated in the Novel 'Drows are the Awesomes'."

I tend to think of D&D as a bit more cooperative than the DM handing down edicts. When I run games, I love to turn the tables:

Unsuspecting Player: "I want to go to the tavern."

DM Manchu: "Okay, what is the name of the tavern?"

Unsuspecting Player: "Whaaa-??"

I enjoy adding my own touches to the setting too, and I love it when my players take something and run with it and develop it themselves.

Manchu wrote:I tend to think of D&D as a bit more cooperative than the DM handing down edicts. When I run games, I love to turn the tables:

Unsuspecting Player: "I want to go to the tavern."

DM Manchu: "Okay, what is the name of the tavern?"

Unsuspecting Player: "Whaaa-??"

I don't think that there is any need to make it adversarial though. Are you saying that they should have researched what all the tavern names are in Silverymoon previous to asking? I guess my approach to it would be "Okay which tavern?" "Whaaa...?" "Well, there are three taverns in the town, the X, the Y and the Z, which one did you want to go to?"

My approach is available in either type of setting, but I try not to make my players do homework in order to have fun in their game. If they want to, that is great and I will provide them whatever they need, but the game is an escape, not another job.

pretre wrote:

Manchu wrote:NO! Spelljammer is the best choice for EVERYONE!

I so heart SJ. I still include bits of it in a lot of my homebrew games. In fact, most of the main settings include elements from SJ in them (astral ships, etc).

And I always thought I was the only one who liked spelljammer. How can you go wrong when the first sentance in the book is: "Everything you know about space is wrong" Its amazing the weird stuff I remember.

I also liked darksun, and ravenloft.

I cringe when I hear greyahwk, you want me to check out the temple of what? oh heck no, you can keep your elemental evil.

pretre wrote:Are you saying that they should have researched what all the tavern names are in Silverymoon previous to asking?

No no no. The idea is to involve them in building the world so it feels like theirs. And when I want them to feel alienated or unsettled, I just do it all as narration with no questions to them about what's around them.

I loved Greyhawk simply for the 1st edition campaign box. Two giant fold-out hex maps and two fake leather and jeweled books. I had those maps on my bedroom wall for so many years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:Are you saying that they should have researched what all the tavern names are in Silverymoon previous to asking?

No no no. The idea is to involve them in building the world so it feels like theirs. And when I want them to feel alienated or unsettled, I just do it all as narration with no questions to them about what's around them.

I'm really confused then. Why would you want a published setting if you are looking for a collaborative world building? Everything in FR is defined. If you go with a homebrew, then they really can have an impact on the setting and help develop it.

You don't have to know how many cobblestones pave the streets of Waterdeep to play in the Realms. The point is that everyone does or can know something about the setting, chiefly the style and tone of it. When I ask what the tavern the player wants to visit in Silverymoon is like, it's to let the player riff off the setting just as I am doing as the DM. World building is too much effort with not enough benefit; you can achieve everything that's good about within a published setting.

Also just because you personally think your world is cool ... well, you get the rest. Better to play in a generic setting already enjoyed by millions than a derivative version of it enjoyed by one.

Manchu wrote:Also just because you personally think your world is cool ... well, you get the rest. Better to play in a generic setting already enjoyed by millions than a derivative version of it enjoyed by one.

Oooh, burn... You been talking to my players? Did they say they didn't like my setting? OMG!

:SOB:

I'm actually going to focus a bit on collaborative stuff because of this conversation.

Da Boss wrote:I'm actually going to focus a bit on collaborative stuff because of this conversation.

In all seriousness, I let players get away with a lot when they make an effort to build something. I don't think I have ever told a player in one of my D&D games 'Yeah... You can't do that with your character background.' We just find a way to make it work. Especially easy when you're the one designing the setting.

Also, I think World Building is a misnomer, M. Don't think that I build every detail of my world. I build what I need for the adventure and then the rest is built on demand.

In one game, where everyone was playing a vampire member of warring noble houses (le sigh), one of my players said he wanted to grab a human off the street to interrogate. I asked him to basically play the human as his partymates did the interrogation. Made for an interesting role-reversal.

See, that's a good time, right there.

pretre wrote:I build what I need for the adventure and then the rest is built on demand.

Same here. But I always find myself wondering about larger and larger issues. "The campaign begins in a poor village. The players are ... farmers? But why are they poor? What kind of farming do they do and why is it so unprofitable? Maybe the farming would be profitable but for raiders that make the town inaccessible to traders. Who is doing the raiding? " and on and on. It's helpful to say: "Okay there's this poor village. I'll set in the northern Silver Marches because there are all those roving Orc bandits there. [Could go on at length about why.]"

You may find yourself getting too far into the weeds in that case. If it comes up in the game, I'll handle it. Too much realism can kill a game just as surely as too little. As long as you can make the story make sense, that's good enough for me.

Well, I'll give you an example. I'm about to start a game set in the world of the Last Airbender using a ruleset I've cooked up just for this occasion. The geographical, political, and cultural details mentioned throughout the show have been a tremendous help in allowing me to construct flexible but coherent storyline for the session.

Manchu wrote:Well, I'll give you an example. I'm about to start a game set in the world of the Last Airbender using a ruleset I've cooked up just for this occasion. The geographical, political, and cultural details mentioned throughout the show have been a tremendous help in allowing me to construct flexible but coherent storyline for the session.

Sure, theft is the sincerest form of flattery. I have played and run many games in published settings, don't get me wrong. I just think the most memorable ones are the homebrew collaborations.

You missed me again. I'm not stealing. The game is set in that world. What I mean is that although I am telling my own story in my own town, the town and the story make better sense (not to mention have more appeal) because they are set in a wider world that already exists.

Manchu wrote:You missed me again. I'm not stealing. The game is set in that world. What I mean is that although I am telling my own story in my own town, the town and the story make better sense (not to mention have more appeal) because they are set in a wider world that already exists.

'Borrowing' then. You're using someone else's framework for your world, hence borrowing from their setting to save yourself work. There's nothing wrong with that.

Well, more than there being nothing wrong with it, what I have been saying is that it's a lot better for almost every purpose than starting from scratch.

Manchu wrote:Well, more than there being nothing wrong with it, what I have been saying is that it's a lot better for almost every purpose than starting from scratch.

I don't see why though. Do your players ever ask 'Gee, that country over there that we have no stake in... What's their social structure like?' And if they did, couldn't you just wing it? Sure, it is easy to have a pre-made setting for use, but I don't know that it is 'better'. It is just easier. And for someone with good improvisational skills, or a conception of their game world already formed than it isn't even easier.

Manchu wrote:The Pathfinder setting is an even messier patchwork. Each country is basically a genre, many of which are stolen from D&D. Ustalav, for example, is their Ravenloft. There's a French Revolution country and a laser-gun-and-flying-saucer country. It's like old episodes of Star Trek: Want to have a cowboy episode? Just go to the Cowboy Planet. Nazi Episode? Gangster Episode? We've got planets for those, too!

Doesn't like the Pathfinder setting? - IGNORE!

kronk wrote:Doesn't like the Pathfinder setting? - IGNORE!

Assumes I don't like the Pathfinder setting -- IGNORE.

Manchu wrote:

kronk wrote:Doesn't like the Pathfinder setting? - IGNORE!

Assumes I don't like the Pathfinder setting -- IGNORE.

Ignores another user. - IGNORE.

pretre wrote:Do your players ever ask 'Gee, that country over there that we have no stake in... What's their social structure like?'

Players never ask that specifically. But EVERYTHING that they do ask assumes I have knowledge of all that.

Also, we're talking about playing in a world that only exists in our imaginations. It's not only easier but also better if the world exists there prior to any session. Familiarity, authenticity, verisimilitude -- these things make for a deeper experience.

By all means, if you are an artistic genius ready to regale me with the next big thing in fantasy publishing, don't let my practical advice get in the way of it. But don't be surprised when I can't manage any interest in your Forgotten Realms knock off.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:Do your players ever ask 'Gee, that country over there that we have no stake in... What's their social structure like?'

Players never ask that specifically. But EVERYTHING that they do ask assumes I have knowledge of all that.

Also, we're talking about playing in a world that only exists in our imaginations. It's not only easier but also better if the world exists there prior to any session. Familiarity, authenticity, verisimilitude -- these things make for a deeper experience.

Sure, sure. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that you can achieve all of these things with your own homebrew. My gaming group has been playing in my homebrew world (in different time periods, etc) off and on for almost 10 years now. There is familiarity. They understand how it works, even if it is a different time period and the names and faces are different.

By all means, if you are an artistic genius ready to regale me with the next big thing in fantasy publishing, don't let my practical advice get in the way of it. But don't be surprised when I can't manage any interest in your Forgotten Realms knock off.

Damn, dude, harsh. I never said I was a genius but you're getting all in a twist. I'm just saying that my group and I prefer homebrew and that I am able to improvise when someone asks a question about part of the setting that isn't developed yet. In addition, when did I ask you to play in my game or buy something related to it? I didn't. Lay off the nasty, I thought we were having a nice conversation.

"You" as in the generic plural, not you specifically, pretre.

Also, you will need improvisational skills no matter if you are playing in a published setting or not.

Manchu wrote:"You" as in the generic plural, not you specifically, pretre.

Also, you will need improvisational skills no matter if you are playing in a published setting or not.

Okay, now I feel better. /hug

Absolutely. I just think that a lot of folks who make homebrews or use published settings have TOO much information available and put TOO much work into it. I think that improvisation makes for a better game. You build the skeleton. You build the adventures and the stuff the players need to see and then you go from there. Otherwise, you just end up with piles of stuff you wrote (or splatbooks you bought) that you'll never use.

The only time that improvisation has really failed me was in a recent supers game where the players went in a completely different direction. I think the main problem there is that I had only a single backup plan and the concept of the world / theme of the game wasn't really very cemented in my head. It is also much more difficult to anticipate what a player will want to do in a 'modern' game than in a fantasy game, in my opinion.

Here's another trick:

A published setting will basically become "homebrew" in fact by the time players have had at it for a year or so as a result of your own adventuring. The Silver Marches published material is a set up for you to mix it up and change it.

Going back to the Avatar setting, pre-existent settings also allow people to visualize their expectations for the game. If my friends tell me that they want to play in that setting then I already have a great idea of what they expect out of the sessions. That's a lot better for everyone than me going up to the group and saying "alright guys, my world is an Asian-based fantasy where martial arts are magical."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Okay, now I feel better. /hug

Few things warm my heart like hugging it out digitally in digital public.

Manchu wrote:Going back to the Avatar setting, pre-existent settings also allow people to visualize their expectations for the game. If my friends tell me that they want to play in that setting then I already have a great idea of what they expect out of the sessions. That's a lot better for everyone than me going up to the group and saying "alright guys, my world is an Asian-based fantasy where martial arts are magical."

No argument, they know what they are getting. Sometimes though, it is nice to get something you didn't expect.

pretre wrote:Sometimes though, it is nice to get something you didn't expect.

This is where personal experience throws down all the red flags it can. I suppose if I had seen some even tolerable homebrew settings, I'd agree wholeheartedly but thoughtlessly.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:Sometimes though, it is nice to get something you didn't expect.

This is where personal experience throws down all the red flags it can. I suppose if I had seen some even tolerable homebrew settings, I'd agree wholeheartedly but thoughtlessly.

Yeah, I think they can be pretty terribad if not done well. But the same kinds of DMs that do bad homebrews, do bad DMPCs and the like, so you're getting the whole terribad package.

I have a former friend who was renowned for his homebrew games and he really set me on the path. I, in fact, continued to borrow bits and pieces from his mythos and included them in my games, which lent continuity for our group even after we were far away from that original place. At this point, my worlds have their own flavor and even when it is a new game, my players have that same touchstone that your players do in having published settings. They know what to expect based on the game synopsis and are able to interpret that.

I'm not actually saying published settings are bad, just that I don't prefer them because I feel straight-jacketed. I still use them occasionally, just putting my own spin on it.

My theory is that every experience of playing in a published setting necessarily involves putting your own spin on.

Manchu wrote:My theory is that every experience of playing in a published setting necessarily involves putting your own spin on.

Well yeah, with the exception of Fascist Setting DMs.

I had to decide between Pathfinder and D&D. Ended up going for D&D 3.5 as its more open for Monstrous characters. Had to make my own setting cause the *** DM wouldn't let me use my Gnoll character. Ended up making a Ravnica-like setting (from MTG) in which Gnolls are one of the 6 most numerous species that inhibit there.

Suck that DM.

The trouble with both systems is that they weren't designed to handle monstrous classes. The published options, such as level adjustment, are basically band aids over systemic issues.

I would have started a dialog with you about why you wanted to play such a character and we could figure out a way to make it happen. I did this once with a player who wanted to play a Thrikeen. It turned out he was just angling for power gaming so I rejected the idea. Given your username, I doubt that was your reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Well yeah, with the exception of Fascist Setting DMs.

That kind of fascist does the most damage against players in his own homebrew setting.

I was going to post a campaign guide for a new world I had been developing for people to play around in but thanks to Manchu I've realized not using already published settings from major companies is foolish so I set fire to all the materials and started working on a shrine to R.A. Salvatore.

At least I won't have to lie about liking your shrine.

Manchu's just cranky because of R.A's restraining order.

FWIW, I don't like R. A. Salvatore that well. Or Ed Greenwood. Or really any of the FR novelists. I like FR in the same sense that I like a hammer when I need to drive a nail. It's the right tool for the job.

Manchu wrote:FWIW, I don't like R. A. Salvatore that well. Or Ed Greenwood. Or really any of the FR novelists.

I don't either, but he is a well enough known author that I can just use his name and most will know who I am referring to.

I'm not crazy about any of the settings, honestly. Again, they're generic fantasy backdrops. The important thing is the characters and their stories. I've never encountered an even tolerably good homebrew setting but I am entirely open to new experiences.

One of my issues with published settings is that it feels like there's a hurdle there in terms of study needed. The entire benefit of using an established setting is that players can know it, and learn about it, on their own. Which is cool, but then puts you in the position of being obligated to know it all better than they do, or abandon the benefit every time you tell them that your version doesn't have/match a detail that they're referencing or trying to use.

Most of the good DMs I've known over the years do homebrew. I've rarely encountered bad homebrew worlds. At worst they're somewhat generic, but then in that respect no worse than GH or FR.

@Mannahnin: I still use the Queen of Night and Labyrinth type stuff in my own homebrew games. I think that several of the PCs have wielded one version or another of Murder at this point, as well. Damn, but he could run an engaging game.

As I said earlier in the thread, borrowing is the sincerest form of flattery. My game world has borrowed from a lot of different published and unpublished settings to get where it is.

Making me want to run another game, but baby related things keep me too busy. Right now we're playing a game run by one of the other guys in the group. He's running the 4E Elisar Vale modules, which have been pretty good so far.

I have a 11th Level Invoker / Adept of Whispers who is obsessed with preventing a coming apocalypse (which I don't think is actually part of the series, but he took a good head injury a few years back and now he speaks to the gods). It has been a pretty good time. We constructed the party to try a 'full court press' approach to combat encounters where we push REAL hard the first two turns in order to make combats shorter. It works really well. We have a Battlerager Execution Axe Goliath for Defender, a Dagger Thief, a Fey pact Warlock, my Invoker and a Ardent. Things go down fast.

Mannahnin wrote:The entire benefit of using an established setting is that players can know it, and learn about it, on their own. Which is cool, but then puts you in the position of being obligated to know it all better than they do, or abandon the benefit every time you tell them that your version doesn't have/match a detail that they're referencing or trying to use.

I don't think the DM has to know the setting better than the players. But the DM should do his research on the parts of a published setting that he wants to use. I think you're making the question too absolute one way or the other. The idiosyncratic version of the setting at the actual table usually differs as a matter of small-scale plot rather than culture, history, religion, etc.

Meanwhile, the homebrew setting hinges completely on the personality of the DM. (I hate this DM-centric model, if you can't tell.) One DM may not care at all about the "big picture" issues while another wants to account for everything in his setting. Trouble is, players want different things from settings rather than just wanting whatever the DM happens to want. Published settings are great for this. For example, let's say I want to play a druid but the guy who is DMing thinks druids are pretty lame. If I have to play in his homebrew setting, my druid now inhabits his anti-druid worldview. But if I get to play in a published setting, I don't need to justify being a druid at all.

Ideally, a DM will allow players to be a part of the world building process when a homebrew setting comes up. In practice, I find that people are very stingy about letting others set up their fantasy worlds. That's sort of the issue: why should my fantasy character have to live in someone else's own personal fantasy world? The published setting offers a common ground and also an even playing field.

Manchu wrote:Ideally, a DM will allow players to be a part of the world building process when a homebrew setting comes up. In practice, I find that people are very stingy about letting others set up their fantasy worlds. That's sort of the issue: why should my fantasy character have to live in someone else's own personal fantasy world? The published setting offers a common ground and also an even playing field.

It sounds more like your problem is bad DMs and not homebrews. A bad DM will ruin a game in a published setting just as quick as in a homebrew. If they don't like druids, they can drop DM fiat in Silverymoon just as quick as DM-land.

DMs don't create homebrews to have a 'personal fantasy world', in my experience. They create homebrews to have a shared fantasy world with the players.

I think you had some bad experience with homebrew DMs and are attributing that DM's failings to all homebrew games, which is unfair. He can't hurt you any more, Manchu. He can't hurt you anymore.

Rhetorically, everything can be reduced to "bad players" or "bad DMs." But that doesn't bear out in experience. As I already mentioned, the fascist DM is far worse when you have to play in his world -- because his world is Nazi Germany.

Manchu wrote:Rhetorically, everything can be reduced to "bad players" or "bad DMs." But that doesn't bear out in experience. As I already mentioned, the fascist DM is far worse when you have to play in his world -- because his world is Nazi Germany.

Well sure, it also is a lot worse if you have to play at his house, because then you're playing in Nazi Germany. C'mon.

That's a total non sequitur.

Manchu wrote:That's a total non sequitur.

You're a total non-sequitor.

Also, constantly trying to relate homebrew DMs to Fascists and Nazi Germany was a bit off the beaten track.

You're the one who brought up fascists in the first place.

Point? And you bought us a ticket to Nazi Germany.

I don't understand what's going on here.

You brought up DMs being "fascists" about published settings.

My counterpoint is that DMs who are sticklers for detail in published settings are ten times (at least) worse when they get to make up the details in homebrew settings.

So it's not really a matter of "bad DMs being bad." Homebrew settings allow bad DMs to be even worse.

Manchu wrote:Homebrew settings allow bad DMs to be even worse.

In your opinion. My experience is the opposite. IME, Published settings draw more fluff-zealots than homebrews. Homebrews tend to be more collaborative.

Whoa there. That's a different hypothesis and one that clearly cannot be said to be more or less plausible on its face.

The argument at hand is whether fluff-zealots are worse when running someone else's fluff or their own.

Okay, same answer, in my experience fluff-zealots are worse when running someone else's fluff than their own. Of course, I've never run into one of the fluff-zealots for homebrew, like I assume you have, and have run into several published fluff-zealots.

pretre wrote:Okay, same answer,

But it's a different question ... ? Oh wait, no you insist that it's the same one:

pretre wrote:in my experience fluff-zealots are worse when running someone else's fluff than their own

the bait

pretre wrote:Of course, I've never run into one of the fluff-zealots for homebrew

the bizarre self-contradiction

pretre wrote:and have run into several published fluff-zealots.

and that's the switch.

So let's try it once more:

There is a DM who is a fluff-zealot. We take his existence as a fluff-zealot in our hypothetical situations below for granted. Consider that this means not only knowing all the trivia of the setting but also insisting that his interpretation of all of that trivia is objective fact.

In one hypothetical, this person is running a published setting where the ideas at hand did not come out of his head so he ultimately has no special claim to their legitimate interpretation.

In the other hypothetical, this person is running his own homebrew campaign where he is the only one who has any claim, legitimate or otherwise, as to what's actually going on.

Okay, yes, I accept your hypothetical and contend that the Published fluff-zealot is worse. You think this is crazy-talk, but I do.

I think it is crazy talk because you aren't giving an argument to support it.

I mean except for the one that goes, "I prefer apples to oranges. I may never have eaten an orange but I have eaten plenty of apples."

The argument I make above is not contingent upon my own (lack of) experience playing in an enjoyable homebrew campaign. Rather, the argument is premised on the ability of the fluff-zealot DM to monopolize legitimate interpretation of the setting. This is ultimately impossible for him to accomplish in a published setting. Conversely, it is the very basis for his creation ofthe homebrew one.

Manchu wrote:The argument I make above is not contingent upon my own (lack of) experience playing in an enjoyable homebrew campaign. Rather, the argument is premised on the ability of the fluff-zealot DM to monopolize legitimate interpretation of the setting. This is ultimately impossible for him to accomplish in a published setting. Conversely, it is the very basis for his creation ofthe homebrew one.

In theory, it is impossible to monopolize a published setting, but in practice it is very possible to monopolize legitimate interpretation by DM fiat. In my experience, fluff-zealots are more zealous about published material and THEIR interpretation of that material than they are of homebrew. If you are the DM and you say that Drizzt loved puppies, no amount of citation by players is going to change that. People get more worked up about published settings than homebrews every day of the week.

The difference is, I can provide a citation opposing the DM's interpretation with a published setting. This is not possible given his own hombrew one.

It is reasonable to object to something with evidence. You have no evidence when the DM is the sole arbiter of evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:As well, you are stating your argument as FACT, when it is OPINION.

An argument is neither a fact nor an opinion. It is an argument. Rookie mistake.

Manchu wrote:The difference is, I can provide a citation opposing the DM's interpretation with a published setting. This is not possible given his own hombrew one.

It is reasonable to object to something with evidence. You have no evidence when the DM is the sole arbiter of evidence.

But we're not debating the presence or absence of supporting evidence for debating the DM's position, we're debating who's worse. In my experience, which is the only thing we can really speak to here, published settings themselves are more restrictive, which in turn makes restrictive DMs (fluff zealots included) worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:As well, you are stating your argument as FACT, when it is OPINION.

An argument is neither a fact nor an opinion. It is an argument. Rookie mistake.

I edited it out because it was a mistake to make the statement, not because the statement was false. Regardless of whether an argument is an argument or a puppie, how you present it is a different thing. You are presenting your argument as FACT and hence mine cannot be right. Whereas the truth is that your argument is based on opinion, so is only different than mine.

How is a published campaign more restrictive? I assume you mean, with regard to the players. If you mean, with regard to the DM -- yes, I agree and that restraining of the DM puts him on more equal footing with the players, who are restrained either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:You are presenting your argument as FACT and hence mine cannot be right. Whereas the truth is that your argument is based on opinion, so is only different than mine.

No, I am not presenting my argument as a FACT. I am presenting it as an ARGUMENT. (Are all the caps helping you? Because they do nothing for me.)

Manchu wrote:How is a published campaign more restrictive? I assume you mean, with regard to the players. If you mean, with regard to the DM -- yes, I agree and that restraining of the DM puts him on more equal footing with the players, who are restrained either way.

A published campaign is more restrictive because all of the rules of the setting, along with the places, the things, etc so on are defined. In the case of a zealot, this means that these are set in stone, making them equally restrictive for players and DMs.

In a homebrew campaign, things are not set in stone, hence less restrictive. The DM creates and provides things to the players. In the case of a zealot, this means that his world works the way he wants it to, but not necessarily set in stone.

A homebrew can change in the hands of a zealot since they dictate what canon is.
A published setting is unchanging in the hands of a zealot because they do not want to violate canon.

pretre wrote:In a homebrew campaign, things are not set in stone, hence less restrictive.

So in a homebrew campaign, there are no such things as elves in session one but in session three there have always been elves everywhere?

A homebrew can change in the hands of a zealot since they dictate what canon is. A published setting is unchanging in the hands of a zealot because they do not want to violate canon.

Canon is by definition an a priori consideration. Generating canon is not the same as changing canon. Our fluff zealot will be just as zealous about cleaving to canon in either case. Again, the real difference is that only he can generate and interpret his own stuff whereas I have just as good a claim on the Realms, etc, as him.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:In a homebrew campaign, things are not set in stone, hence less restrictive.

So in a homebrew campaign, there are no such things as elves in session one but in session three there have always been elves everywhere?

Yes. It is very possible for a rigidly defined or zealous Homebrew DM to say 'You know, I said there were no elves, but there is a country of elves off the eastern border of Pretre-stonia.' In a published campaign run by a zealous DM, you literally cannot change the setting, hence it is more restrictive.

Canon is by definition an a priori consideration. Generating canon is not the same as changing canon. Our fluff zealot will be just as zealous about cleaving to canon in either case. Again, the real difference is that only he can generate and interpret his own stuff whereas I have just as good a claim on the Realms, etc, as him.

Exactly! He can create new canon. A fluff zealot for FR cannot create new things because he is zealous about the actual canon. Hence, it is more restrictive.

My face is starting to sting from the facepalms.

Making "new canon" is not the same thing as changing what has already been established. The fluff-zealot cannot be a zealot about what doesn't yet exist. If he says "there are no elves" then he cannot say "actually, there are elves."

Manchu wrote:My face is starting to sting from the facepalms.

Cry me a river.

Making "new canon" is not the same thing as changing what has already been established. The fluff-zealot cannot be a zealot about what doesn't yet exist. If he says "there are no elves" then he cannot say "actually, there are elves."

Of course he can, in a homebrew run by a zealot, he is the ultimate authority for the homebrew, if he says 'Yeah, there were no elves, but that was just what your characters know. There actually are elves.' then no one can contest that. So hence a zealot has the abilty to create or change canon at his (or the player's) whims.

In a published setting run by a zealot, you cannot create new canon or change canon because everything is defined.

Wrong on both counts.

(1) if he's always changing his own fluff, he ain't a fluff-zealot

(2) a published setting is still just a setting; you change it, if only in small ways, by virtue of playing in it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

Manchu wrote:My face is starting to sting from the facepalms.

Cry me a river.

I suppose you can take solace in the fact that your points are causing me to repeatedly smack myself in the face. ):

Manchu wrote:Wrong on both counts.

(1) if he's always changing his own fluff, he ain't a fluff-zealot

(2) a published setting is still just a setting; you change it, if only in small ways, by virtue of playing in it

1) Sure he is. I didn't say he constantly changed it; I said he could change it. Don't put words in my mouth.
If something isn't defined or was previously defined by him, he can change it because there isn't canon book printed to contradict him.
2) But he is a zealot for the published setting, so he doesn't want to change it because it is already defined. By definition, if he changes something he is no longer a published fluff zealot because the published fluff contradicts what he is presenting.

pretre wrote:I suppose you can take solace in the fact that your points are causing me to repeatedly smack myself in the face. ):

Aww baby, why you make me hurt you?

pretre wrote:I said he could change it.

If he does change it, then he's not a fluff-zealot. By changing it, he is contradicting canon. It does not matter that the canon was created by him.

pretre wrote:By definition, if he changes something he is no longer a published fluff zealot because the published fluff contradicts what he is presenting.

The things being changed don't contradict the canon. There is no canon that says "your character was never rewarded by Alustrial for saving Silverymoon from the shat goblin raiders." And yet, despite canon being in tact, the setting itself has changed from the one presented in the book.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:I said he could change it.

If he does change it, then he's not a fluff-zealot. By changing it, he is contradicting canon. It does not matter that the canon was created by him.

This is going to end in a 'we have to agree to disagree'. If he created the setting, than he can change whatever he wants and still be true to the setting. He defined it; he is still zealous about it. He isn't contradicting canon because he is canon.

pretre wrote:By definition, if he changes something he is no longer a published fluff zealot because the published fluff contradicts what he is presenting.

The things being changed don't contradict the canon. There is no canon that says "your character was never rewarded by Alustrial for saving Silverymoon from the shat goblin raiders." And yet, despite canon being in tact, the setting itself has changed from the one presented in the book.

That's moving forward and a true published fluff zealot would even restrict how the players move forward if their actions do not fit the setting. ("You can't save the harpers from X because of Y.") I wasn't really talking about moving forward, however, I was talking about the setting as it exists currently and in the past. Of course you can change the future, because in most cases the future for any setting hasn't been written.

And in your example, the setting hasn't changed because there is no canon or information in the setting for who saved Silverymoon since it happens in the future.

The author is not the canon. What the author writes is the canon.

Manchu wrote:The author is not the canon. What the author writes is the canon.

Until he determines that something he wrote is no longer canon.

What is canon in the Forgotten Realms? Ask Wizards, that's up to them.
What is canon in Dave the Zealot DM's Realms? Ask Dave the ZealotDM, that's up to him.

Can Dave the ZealotDM, change which written works are canon in the Forgotten Realms? Not unless he works for Wizards.
Can Dave the ZealotDM, change which written works are canon in Dave's Realms? Yes, yes he can.

Your experience of these fluff-zealots is that they're okay with companies retconning the canon? I'd say you need to get out more but we nerds do not get out at all. So I guess you need to stay in more. At best, fluff-zealots tolerate retconning as an exercise in writers tying up everything that was formerly canon (which really gets them worked up because it's never done well, as they can tell you). But they don't seem to like retconning in and of itself.

A fluff-zealot who contradicts himself is no fluff-zealot at all.

Manchu wrote:Your experience of these fluff-zealots is that they're okay with companies retconning the canon? I'd say you need to get out more but we nerds do not get out at all. So I guess you need to stay in more. At best, fluff-zealots tolerate retconning as an exercise in writers tying up everything that was formerly canon (which really gets them worked up because it's never done well, as they can tell you). But they don't seem to like retconning in and of itself.

They may not be okay with it, but they eventually accept it.

A fluff-zealot who contradicts himself is no fluff-zealot at all.

No, a fluff-zealot who contradicts the fluff is no fluff-zealot at all. Contradicting himself is irrelevant.

pretre wrote:They may not be okay with it, but they eventually accept it.

Only because they are not the ones in control.

No, a fluff-zealot who contradicts the fluff is no fluff-zealot at all. Contradicting himself is irrelevant.

That's true unless by contradicting himself he is also contradicting the fluff.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:They may not be okay with it, but they eventually accept it.

Only because they are not the ones in control.

No, a fluff-zealot who contradicts the fluff is no fluff-zealot at all. Contradicting himself is irrelevant.

That's true unless by contradicting himself he is also contradicting the fluff.

Not if he changes the fluff. Then he is not contradicting the new fluff. That's the 'less restrictive' part of having a homebrew.

New canon is a contradiction of old canon. This is called a retcon. Fluff-zealots don't like this. The homebrew setting is not less restrictive in these terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think we've gotten a little afield.

Let me reiterate my point with the benefit of the ground we've covered:

Published settings are better for everyone because no one at the table has a unique claim to legitimately interpret them. In a homebrew setting, the person who makes it up is the only one with that legitimacy. Bad DMs are bad no matter what but bad DMs are the worst when the have more "power" to abuse.

Okay, I guess we're on closing statements, so let's go with mine.

Published settings are more restrictive for everyone since everything has been defined and the gaming group is not in control of canon. In a homebrew setting, the person who makes it up and anyone they choose to allow access, are the ones with that legitimacy. Bad DMs are bad no matter what but bad DMs are the worst when they have an established setting to lend them legitimacy.

Well, I didn't intend a closing statement. So here's my response:

Canon is a starting point. You have to have it in any setting. Is there a tree in the middle of the village or isn't there -- that sort of thing, even, is a part of canon. But a published setting doesn't define everything, as you suggest. There may or may not be a tree in the middle of the village.

Of course, in a homebrew setting the DM could say "of course there is no tree in the middle of the village -- because in Elven culture that's blasphemous." If the players were in the Realms they could just laugh in the DMs face. Of course it isn't. In the DM's world, the players can't say squat about it.

In fact this:

pretre wrote:In a homebrew setting, the person who makes it up and anyone they choose to allow access, are the ones with that legitimacy.

is a great example of how homebrew settings allow the DM (or whoever does the brewing) to monopolize control. A dictatorship doesn't become a democracy just because the dictator let's his cronies do some of the oppressing.

Heeey... You're starting back up again.

You can have it. I made my statement.

I only posted a summary because I felt, as I said, that we were getting a little lost in the details. Also, I felt like after a couple of pages, my ideas were getting a bit more clear for me. But if you yield, you yield.

Manchu wrote: But if you yield, you yield.

I don't concede the point; I just am done arguing.

(Da Boss is a bit drunk, and it's been a long fething day)

Ah gak, two posters I respect and often follow the posts of, having a big ole argument.

I can see both sides, and while I kinda fall on Manchu's side, I would love to have the experiences that Pretre has had to form his opinions.

I think a bad DM is a bigger deal than any setting related problem. I think I was a worse DM when I ran my homebrew, though my players insist that they loved it. I also think I've been a poor DM with some defined settings, when they haven't suited my style. Mostly though, I'm a decent DM and that's what counts, not whether I run homebrew or established. Established is just easier for me, and my creativity seems to be enhanced by having something to bounce off of.

As to playing, I don't think I've ever played in a homebrew setting. I am the perennial DM, so I guess I never will, either.

Da Boss wrote:(Da Boss is a bit drunk, and it's been a long fething day)

Ah gak, two posters I respect and often follow the posts of, having a big ole argument.

Aww. You a friendly drunk? /hug

I can see both sides, and while I kinda fall on Manchu's side, I would love to have the experiences that Pretre has had to form his opinions.

I'll forgive you.

I think a bad DM is a bigger deal than any setting related problem. I think I was a worse DM when I ran my homebrew, though my players insist that they loved it.

And that's the real test... Did your players enjoy the game?

As to playing, I don't think I've ever played in a homebrew setting. I am the perennial DM, so I guess I never will, either.

And that is a sucky position to be in. I'm the fallback DM, but luckily not the only one. You need to get some new talent.

Sorry i think this may have been touched upon... but ever try consider Pathfinder ? i know WOTC is great.. but to be honest... fourth ed. killed it for me, having run 2 rather failed campaigns running 4th ed, trying to make the transition from 3.5 was really hard. However Paizo have released countless modules such as "Rise of the Rune Lords" and "Legacy of Fire" both really awesome modules that are both well thought out and are faithful to the old 3.5 rules that we all know and love so well

Chuck Norris wrote:I play 4e and I have read the dragonlance books. I have read dragonlance though, and it is quite cool.

Dragonlance hasn't been ported to 4th edition, but pretty much the 4th edition system is adaptable enough to cover all the necessary classes in a DL world. Only thing you won't have specifically available are some special race rules related specifically to dragonlance, like kender, gully dwarves or Irda which do not currently have a 4th edition equivilent. They can be represented pretty easily though. A kender would be a halfling perhaps with free training in thievery. A gully dwarf can be represented by using a standard dwarf, but limiting their Int and Wis scores. Finally an Irda could use the base Goliath stat, perhaps replacing the goliath racial power with the changling's shape change ability.

There are plenty of Dragonlance novels out there that you can read for "feel", and there are enough Dragonlance sourcebooks available for earlier versions of the game. The boxed War of the Lance set for AD&D 2nd edition is an awesome resource for details about Krynn during the War of the Lance recounted in the Dragonlance Chronicles. There are some books for the post war of the lance time frame available for 3.0 and 3.5 that can give you further details on the setting as the Gods "disappear".

Also draconians are detailed in the Draconomicon 2: Metallic Dragons, because dragonlance just wouldn't be dragonlance without draconians involved.

Skriker

Edit to remove comments on changing canon to avoid reopening an argument that seems to be closed now.