Quote from: Ronin;835585Is there a setting that you dig, but have yet to run/play in?

Planescape.  I've been paying the CRPG Planescape: Torment over the past few weeks, and I really love the setting.  Of the 'non-vanilla' A/D&D settings to have been published over the years, this one is the most impressive IMO.

I'm sad that I missed it when it first came out.  (By the early 1990s, to the extent that I was still following and playing RPGs, I had become something of an anti-AD&D snob.  Oh, the follies of youth!)

Quote from: Telarus;835694nearly every aspect of the mechanics have been revised.

Are the mechanics still tied closely to the setting... such as with how magic works? That was the main reason I was at all willing to put up with the complexities when I was playing Earthdawn... because the setting is so good and the mechanics tied into the cosmology.

Over the Edge - somehow this one escaped me when it was in print, and only lately have I collected the anniversary rules and some supplements. It's a bit rules-lite for my tastes but works well for what is intended. It's weird, because back in the nineties when I was completely all about Burroughs, Barton Fink, David Lynch and all that OtE would have been perfect, but instead I was using GURPS for my surrealistic adventures.

Birthright - it seems like the sort of stuff I would have loved to play in, or maybe run, but the timing of this setting was all off....burned too many times by TSR it was easy to ignore when it first came out. Regretted that decision later.

Shadowrun - I avoided this game for ages, and only recently with the CRPG Shadowrun Returns and Dragonfall did I realize the core conceit of the setting was a lot more interesting than I gave it credit for. Been messing with the 5th edition of the rules, but these days I don't have enough time to absorb the mass of content to run...and know one else I know has that kind of time or interest, either.

Quote from: Matt;835594Your description makes Kalamar sound tolerable, which, believe me, is a compliment, as I find most settings annoying when not flat-out shitty. Supposed "twists on D&D" and settings full of precious Mary Jane NPCs are tiresome. If you're gonna twist it, why are we playing D&D at all?

Does anyone really fill setting books full of precious Mary Janes anymore? I haven't noticed that phenomenon for ages. I mean, I assume there are lots of NPCs in the various and sundry setting books out there, but I haven't seen a game where those NPCs couldn't be eviscerated, at least for D&D, in a long time....like a decade or two. Barring official settings, of course.

As for twists....if you're playing D&D and it doesn't have twists....what are you playing? I thought D&D was all about the twists. Even in the good old days, when the twists were as simple as figuring out the house rules and special exceptions from one table to the next. The whole point was no one ever played it the same way....the idea of a codified "one process to rule them all" kind of D&D strikes me as really recent.

Quote from: Matt;835628I hope you guys are happy now: you've made me dig out my old copy of Space:1889 (GDW), a game I never got to play. Dammit. Now I really want to play this thing!

Thats another one I would like to run as well

Quote from: Ronin;835721Thats another one I would like to run as well

Let me know when you do!

Quote from: Telarus;835694I would encourage checking out Earthdawn 4th edition. One of the primary motivations for the new edition was "simplify and improve speed of play". Basically, while the Step Table is still there, every other part of the system has been re-done. You no longer need to look each roll Result up on a Success Level table (compare result to diff)... you now earn an extra success for every 5 over the target number! Also, you can use the optional rule of applying temporary modifiers to the Result (thus not changing the Step/Dice each combat round). Those are the two big ones that improved the game at my table, but nearly every aspect of the mechanics have been revised.

I'm honestly not sure if it's worth doing for me. To my knowledge, I have every print product that's been put out for both Classic and 3rd Edition, and they're good stuff. Enjoyable reads. But . . . I'm seriously starting to doubt that I'll ever get to play in a serious game. And while I've heard that the 4th edition was simplified in some respects, the people I've asked have said that it hasn't been simplifed all that much. I'm not sure how much they could change about thread weaving, for example, while still maintaining all the necessary flavor -- names, patterns, threads, etc. I'm not saying it can't be done -- I'd love for there to be a simpler magic system that still has the right feel -- but that I'd have to see it to believe it. There's also the fact that they stopped 3rd Edition way too fast(and didn't change enough to justify a whole new edition in the first place), and then the hastily-abandoned 3rd Edition revised and Savage Worlds and Pathfinder-compatible editions . . . yeah, I'm just not feeling a whole lot of trust for that company at the moment.

I also found Red Brick(now the new FASA)'s first truly-new-material attempt to be kind of disappointing. I'm not sure what I was expecting from Cathay, but overall it just didn't feel Earthdawn enough. I think it might have been too stereotypically oriental for starters. This happened sometimes in earlier editions, too, where they went outside of Barsaive proper and had some weirdness ensue. Like Talea(4th Age Italy), IIRC, resembling actual Renaissance era Italy quite a bit. On the flip-side, I have no problem with the metavariant Jackal-people of Creana or the monkey-people of Cathay; I actually think their existence makes a lot of sense and provides a great reason for future people of those territories to include said people in their stories and legends.

Quote from: camazotz;835701Does anyone really fill setting books full of precious Mary Janes anymore? I haven't noticed that phenomenon for ages. I mean, I assume there are lots of NPCs in the various and sundry setting books out there, but I haven't seen a game where those NPCs couldn't be eviscerated, at least for D&D, in a long time....like a decade or two. Barring official settings, of course.

I'm comparing it only to "official" (well, published) settings.  I haven't yet across come someone else's homebrew setting that I'm jonesing to run (the topic of the thread).  Neither have I seen every published setting for D&D, so I'm not saying everything commits that error, just that KoK doesn't.

And... I'm not thinking only of Mary Sue-ness when I say Elminster-type, but scale as well.  "Scale" covering power, level and influence.  There's an assumption that becoming a mover in the world doesn't require even getting to name level, which interests me.

Quote from: camazotz;835701As for twists....if you're playing D&D and it doesn't have twists....what are you playing? I thought D&D was all about the twists. Even in the good old days, when the twists were as simple as figuring out the house rules and special exceptions from one table to the next. The whole point was no one ever played it the same way....the idea of a codified "one process to rule them all" kind of D&D strikes me as really recent.

I suspect we're not using "twists" in the same sense.*  I'm saying, at the setting-wide level, there's no attempt to make it steampunk, or modern-but-with-magic, or trains running on fire elementals, or everything's got the cold template like in Hellfrost, there's no big *gasp* reveal about the game world like in Sundered Skies.  It's medieval-tech D&D.  If you read the hooks, there are all kinds of local, adventure-level twists, but not the setting-wide theme kind I was talking about.

*(Actually from the insulting tone and the bringing in "one process to rule them all" out of nowhere I suspect I'm being trolled, but I'll give it one shot explaining.)

I didn't bother to answer because I thought the question was disingenuous.

Quote from: Saladman;835800I'm comparing it only to "official" (well, published) settings.  I haven't yet across come someone else's homebrew setting that I'm jonesing to run (the topic of the thread).  Neither have I seen every published setting for D&D, so I'm not saying everything commits that error, just that KoK doesn't.

And... I'm not thinking only of Mary Sue-ness when I say Elminster-type, but scale as well.  "Scale" covering power, level and influence.  There's an assumption that becoming a mover in the world doesn't require even getting to name level, which interests me.



I suspect we're not using "twists" in the same sense.*  I'm saying, at the setting-wide level, there's no attempt to make it steampunk, or modern-but-with-magic, or trains running on fire elementals, or everything's got the cold template like in Hellfrost, there's no big *gasp* reveal about the game world like in Sundered Skies.  It's medieval-tech D&D.  If you read the hooks, there are all kinds of local, adventure-level twists, but not the setting-wide theme kind I was talking about.

*(Actually from the insulting tone and the bringing in "one process to rule them all" out of nowhere I suspect I'm being trolled, but I'll give it one shot explaining.)

Well....makes sense. Okay then! Yeah I agree, "world wide twists" can get old because when every world has one then is it really a twist anymore?

Although, with an edit, I'll add that I really don't see why D&D can't accomodate all sorts of settings, including steampunk or whatever. D&D really isn't just medieval-tech D&D anymore, it's not even medieval in many regards. Over a spectrum that is one side of what D&D is, absolutely....and loving that side is fine. But there's a lot more to this game than that, which is why I like it.

EDIT 2: on the "one system to rule them all" I happen to strongly believe that 3rd and 4th edition especially (and even 5th to a certain degree) have an emphasis on conformity of design, and years of playing all of them demonstrate a concerted move toward mechanical and marketing design that gets players and GM's on the "same plate" to make it all more familiar and portable. That's what I am referring to in that context. Unlike the older editions of the game where my fantasy take could be remarkably different from your fantasy take....there was a great deal less effort at rigorous mechanical and setting enforcement in the old days, at least IME back then. (Final thought: you mention insulting tone. I'll try to curb it, but I think it was just in reaction to Matt's posts, which appear to be 95% borderline aggressive "I'm gonna say this and fuck you" sounding posts. But this is text and it's likely just me reading that in)

Quote from: Matt;835808I didn't bother to answer because I thought the question was disingenuous.

Hardly. I actually have no idea who you are beyond brief and provocative posts so no, I do not get your point and I am not being disingenuous. But thanks to Saladman for responding at least.

Tekumel - On the surface, Barker's masterpiece is almost precisely what everyone tells me would be perfect for me to run. I've never done it. I should.

Earthdawn - heard lots about it. Always wanted to check it out.

Deadlands - This has be crawling up my spine to run. I'm thinking when Rifts lands with the Savage Worlds edition - it'll be my chance to dig into Deadlands.

7th Sea - I know all about it from the d20 edition which I loved (Swashbuckling Adventures). But I need to play the real deal.

Azeroth - This has been an irksome no-brainer. I've played WoW since beta, and I still raid in it. I know a shit-ton about the lore. Hated the d20 edition. I've always said I could run this as a fantasy game and make it kickass. But I've never done it. Some friends and I were joking about it this past weekend... I need to move on this too. For a system - I'm thinking of converting FASERIP for fantasy-use. It would be perfect for WoW. I could scale it beautifully to do high-end enounters with the Burning Legion etc.

Midkemia - Always wanted to do a fantasy game set in Raymond Feists world (and Kelewan which is a Tekumel rip-off).

Quote from: tenbones;8358197th Sea - I know all about it from the d20 edition which I loved (Swashbuckling Adventures).

You're the first person I've encountered who liked it. I'll admit some of its ideas were intriguing and occasionally useful, especially when I made my personal second edition of the Roll and Keep version of the game, but overall I found it to be a poorly tuned affair.

Still, I may yet draw inspiration from it if I ever adapt the 7th Sea setting to 5e D&D.

Quote from: tenbones;835819But I need to play the real deal.

I tried. I really tried. After a lackluster first campaign I studied that system inside and out, back to front and re-wrote it for mechanical rigor while trying to stay true to the source. Still a mess. I really don't think you would get much out of playing it. If you still feel like it eventually, contact me in two weeks so I can send you my notes.

Quote from: Simlasa;835698Are the mechanics still tied closely to the setting... such as with how magic works? That was the main reason I was at all willing to put up with the complexities when I was playing Earthdawn... because the setting is so good and the mechanics tied into the cosmology.

Definitely. That's one of the core draws of the game, and it's still very much the case. You can use mechanical terms in-character like "Circle (level)" and "Discipline (class)". Patterns and threads are still the core of the magical metaphysics. Spellcasting is actually one area that got *some* simplification, like standardizing Thread Weaving difficulties, the spell list got cut down a bit, spell designs for each Discipline have been re-focused on their themes, etc. Thread #s for spells got cut overall - but it did get "more robust" by adding the Success Levels mechanic, and also an "Extra Threads on the fly" mechanic that gives spellcasters "combat options" each round by giving them the choice of powering the spell up more if they are higher Circle. This has cut out the *whiff* moments of playing a spellcaster and rolling turn after turn just to beat a target number. They've also introduced a similar "special maneuver" system for all Creatures based on the new success mechanic. Examples include creatures spending combat attack successes to trigger Knockdown rolls if the target has a lower Strength score, or giving defending characters opportunities that cost attack successes like targeting a wing or leg to slow movement. Each creature has at least one thing it can do on the fly and one thing that can be done to it on the fly. A lot of thought seems to have gone into this latest reboot.

(Also, I agree with the earlier poster about Cathay. Loved some of it, some was meh. Hank Woon - lead writer on Cathay - is no longer writing for Earthdawn. Really, the team changed pretty radically when the new line developer came in. Looking forward to the focus on new material also, we can convert the older stuff ourselves.)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;835837You're the first person I've encountered who liked it. I'll admit some of its ideas were intriguing and occasionally useful, especially when I made my personal second edition of the Roll and Keep version of the game, but overall I found it to be a poorly tuned affair.

I've often had to explain my position on Swashbuckling Adventures (and I realize you're not asking me to). We all know that 3.x was a hot fucking mess for non-casters RAW. When I read SBA, it dawned on me, this was the way that 3.x should have handled non-casters. Specifically the 5-level PrC's. They were, by comparison, *massively* more powerful than the standard 3.x shitpiles of PrC's, in that they frontloaded all the good shit and mechanically exemplified the exact concept it was trying to let you explore. Instead of nickel-and-diming you with silly shit... meanwhile casters can just do whatever the fuck they want.

The irony was that SBA was a "low-magic" setting. So why in the fuck should non-casters not have this kinda of juice in "standard" 3.x games? It doesn't make casters less powerful after all.

I remember having this long discussion with Mearls talking about SBA specifcially - and this was before he did Iron Heroes. And he was with me on this, and we always talked about how we wanted our Dragon material to reflect this more (that's why you'll see a lot of our martial stuff in Dragon we're trying to push the envelope a bit in that direction.)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;835837Still, I may yet draw inspiration from it if I ever adapt the 7th Sea setting to 5e D&D.

I'm already doing that. A lot of the 5-level PrC's can easily be translated into Feats representing a fighting style.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;835837I tried. I really tried. After a lackluster first campaign I studied that system inside and out, back to front and re-wrote it for mechanical rigor while trying to stay true to the source. Still a mess. I really don't think you would get much out of playing it. If you still feel like it eventually, contact me in two weeks so I can send you my notes.

Definitely will take this into account. Maybe I'll just use the fluff and a different system! Thanks for the heads up.