Rich Burlew's Campaign Setting

[Ice&Fire]

Has there ever been any information about the campaign setting that Rich entered in the competition to find a new campaign setting (the one Eberron won)? I know it's probably unlikely due to the agreement he has with WoTC, but one can hope.

[Yora]

From what I know wizards owns it and has it in a drawer somewhere, to do with it as they like.

[Ice&Fire]

From what I know wizards owns it and has it in a drawer somewhere, to do with it as they like.

I wonder if they will ever do anything with it

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Now that 3.5 is over?

[BooNL]

What a waste... I'm pretty curious what his setting would have looked like, themes etc.

I still can't believe almost every setting published is a high fantasy, high magic one. Of course, they want people to be able to use every splatbook and option there is. In essence, every setting of theirs is Greyhawk with extra's on top...

Anyway, if Rich's setting was any good, chances are they might use the fluff for one of their 4e settings. Though I doubt it'll ever see the light of day again.

[Bayar]

Eberron is not Greyhawk, right ?

[Myou]

Eberron is not Greyhawk, right ?

Greyhawk is the original high fantasy and magic setting (although Blackmoor predates it, Greyhawk was the first to be published) and the default D&D 3.5 setting.

Eberron is a steampunk setting (magic-powered trains and the like) that was created much more recently. :3

[Morty]

Greyhawk is the original high fantasy and magic setting (although Blackmoor predates it, Greyhawk was the first to be published) and the default D&D 3.5 setting.

Eberron is a steampunk setting (magic-powered trains and the like) that was created much more recently. :3

I think Bayar's point was indeed that Eberron is so different from Greyhawk that "all settings are Greyhawk + extras" simply isn't true.
Anyway, I'm curious as to how would the setting look like too, but mildly. It'd certainly be better than Eberron, of course.

[BooNL]

Eberron is not Greyhawk, right ?

What I meant was that all the fluff in every book published is based on Generica (or Grayhawk), all the Races of books, Complete series, etc.

Consequently, because Wizards want to make lots of money, every official campaign setting (FR, Eberron) should be able to use every splatbook out there and even caters to it. For example, Eberron has a continent specifically for psionics. No other place in the world has psionics, but hey, they have to be somewhere...

I'm just slightly bitter that there's no dark, gritty setting, with limited options or at least a logical selection...

[Irreverent Fool]

What I meant was that all the fluff in every book published is based on Generica (or Grayhawk), all the Races of books, Complete series, etc.

Consequently, because Wizards want to make lots of money, every official campaign setting (FR, Eberron) should be able to use every splatbook out there and even caters to it. For example, Eberron has a continent specifically for psionics. No other place in the world has psionics, but hey, they have to be somewhere...

I'm just slightly bitter that there's no dark, gritty setting, with limited options or at least a logical selection...

There is. It's just not in D&D. There are other systems.

obnoxious
sig

[BooNL]

There is. It's just not in D&D. There are other systems.

obnoxious
sig

I know, there's also third party campaign settings which are way cooler than anything Wizards have ever created.

My point is that the Wizards only create high fantasy, high magic campaigns. Which in my opinion devolves into: campaign setting + "any Greyhawk stuff ever created 'cause we managed to fit it in somehow for you."

[woodenbandman]

Perchance then we should make a functional low-magic campaign setting, then.

Who wants to start it up? I'll contribute.

[Harperfan7]

[QUOTE=BooNL;6853914]I know, there's also third party campaign settings which are way cooler than anything Wizards have ever created.
/QUOTE]

LEEEEEEEEEENKSSSSSSSSSSS

EDIT: Apparently I'm retarded.

[kamikasei]

Perchance then we should make a functional low-magic campaign setting, then.

Honestly? 3.5 D&D is a high-magic game. Unless you want to play E6, I'd say you're better off trying a different system than trying to make it low-magic via setting alone. (Of course, E6 pretty much is a different system.)

[Mordokai]

Perchance then we should make a functional low-magic campaign setting, then.

Who wants to start it up? I'll contribute.

Throw in some horror elements(not Ravenloft, of course, though I'm not realy familiar with that setting) and you have my cooperation right there. But starting it I ain't.

[Optimystik]

It'd certainly be better than Eberron, of course.

So... you're starting a setting war over a setting you haven't even seen?

[BooNL]

I know, there's also third party campaign settings which are way cooler than anything Wizards have ever created.
/QUOTE]

LEEEEEEEEEENKSSSSSSSSSSS

Can't really help you there, sorry. I have played a couple, but never owned any books and I'm not in touch with the dm I played them under anymore.
I remember a setting with a spy based class, different flavours of humans and mongol-like halflings. It felt a bit like FR, only done right. I think it had Stones or something in the name, can't say for sure.

Most of my campaigns have always been homebrew. In fact, I should start working on one again. I have some ideas that could end up as a nice setting.

Also, to further illustrate my point on Wizards. Planescape was cool as it had a very distinct feel to it. Despite being able to draw from any source of inspiration. But Spelljammer? Come on...

[Morty]

So... you're starting a setting war over a setting you haven't even seen?

No, not really.

Honestly? 3.5 D&D is a high-magic game. Unless you want to play E6, I'd say you're better off trying a different system than trying to make it low-magic via setting alone. (Of course, E6 pretty much is a different system.)

This, pretty much. Trying to make a low-powered D&D setting is hammering it into something it hasn't been made for. It'd be like running a high-powered, comicbook-inspired game in WFRP or Riddle of Steel.

[woodenbandman]

I love adding horror elements. It just seems to make the game more fun to me.

Anyway, low magic settings in DnD can work.

For starters, you need to kill the magic mart mentality. No market for magic items at all. You can't just buy them, you take what you can get. Obviously you can't suck as a DM to pull this off, you have to work with the players and give them items that will help them. Make it harder to craft them as well, and charged items are right out.

Then you BAN 9th level spells. And certain other gems, like polymorph, because, let's face it, they need it. Make magic more subtle and less flashy. Charm spells are good, as are illusions, and maybe a bit of transmutation, but cut back on evocation and make summonings a bit harder.

THEN you need to fix CR. Dragons are too good. Skeletons aren't good enough. Just toss that out the window and stick with your gut. Test out fights beforehand if you have to.

Gutting a large part of the game? Entirely possible. But consider that it is adding quite a lot to the game as well. For starters, it helps out the lower classes quite a lot, by taking away some of the megatoys that casters play with. It makes magic items more fun, because they are more unique and cool.

This is kinda like a return to 2.0. Anyway I will think about this a bit more and I'll start up a thread over in homebrew.

[BooNL]

No, not really.



This, pretty much. Trying to make a low-powered D&D setting is hammering it into something it hasn't been made for. It'd be like running a high-powered, comicbook-inspired game in WFRP or Riddle of Steel.

There's also the difference is how you power it.

Seriously, why do Eberron and FR need access to every method of spellcasting?
We have prepared casting, spontaneous casting, invocations, binding, incarnum, truespeak, shadowcraft, psionics, strange oriental casting (wu jen et al), Wis based casting, Cha based casting, Int based casting...

For me, a setting would make a lot more sense if they just selected one, maybe two, sources of magic and stuck with it.

The problem I mostly have with those settings is not really the amount of high poweredness (as you said, that's a given), but more the crazy amount of options. A lot of them not even making sense within the context of the world.

In FR, Magic and Psionics are treated as the same thing. Why not use one system then? Because Wizards thought up two systems at the time and consequently, had to use both of them.

[kamikasei]

Gutting a large part of the game? Entirely possible. But consider that it is adding quite a lot to the game as well.

Maybe so, but to my mind, gutting one large chunk of the game and radically altering another means you might as well have started from a different system closer to your destination.

[woodenbandman]

^That is perfectly valid, but also consider that classes are not supposed to automatically be included no matter what (where would you find a monk in a campaign setting with no monks, or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?) As written, those classes wouldn't work in those settings. Same could go with a system where magic must be innate, and can't be learned. This would make the magic system much more exclusive, and would limit casters to being spontaneous, probably charisma based casters.

That's fine with me. I'm not saying that low magic = no magic, I'm saying maybe you don't want to have wizards that destroy the world before breakfast and build it again to eat for dinner.

I like the idea of magic being more exclusive, and not like (forgive me for this horrible comparison) Harry Potter, where there is exactly one spell to do everything and any wizard can learn it and cast it, and it's never explained at all, so everyone just takes it for granted and goes back to work. Actually, that's a valid comparison. Give me a sorceror any day.

[Hijax]

^That is perfectly valid, but also consider that classes are not supposed to automatically be included no matter what (where would you find a monk in a campaign setting with no monks, or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?) As written, those classes wouldn't work in those settings. Same could go with a system where magic must be innate, and can't be learned. This would make the magic system much more exclusive, and would limit casters to being spontaneous, probably charisma based casters.

That's fine with me. I'm not saying that low magic = no magic, I'm saying maybe you don't want to have wizards that destroy the world before breakfast and build it again to eat for dinner.

I like the idea of magic being more exclusive, and not like (forgive me for this horrible comparison) Harry Potter, where there is exactly one spell to do everything and any wizard can learn it and cast it, and it's never explained at all, so everyone just takes it for granted and goes back to work. Actually, that's a valid comparison. Give me a sorceror any day.

this. i agree wholeheartedly. count me in if you're making this.

[Dublock]

^That is perfectly valid, but also consider that classes are not supposed to automatically be included no matter what (where would you find a monk in a campaign setting with no monks, or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?) As written, those classes wouldn't work in those settings. Same could go with a system where magic must be innate, and can't be learned. This would make the magic system much more exclusive, and would limit casters to being spontaneous, probably charisma based casters.

That's fine with me. I'm not saying that low magic = no magic, I'm saying maybe you don't want to have wizards that destroy the world before breakfast and build it again to eat for dinner.

I like the idea of magic being more exclusive, and not like (forgive me for this horrible comparison) Harry Potter, where there is exactly one spell to do everything and any wizard can learn it and cast it, and it's never explained at all, so everyone just takes it for granted and goes back to work. Actually, that's a valid comparison. Give me a sorceror any day.

I would like to help as well ;).

[Mystic Muse]

I think if enough people wanted Rich to get his campaign setting back and they all did something about it wizards would be inclined to give it back.

[kamikasei]

woodenbandman, were you responding to me or to BooNL?

[HealthKit]

I wonder if they will ever do anything with it

Anyway, if Rich's setting was any good, chances are they might use the fluff for one of their 4e settings. Though I doubt it'll ever see the light of day again.

Maybe they already have, but we just don't know what it is.

I still can't believe almost every setting published is a high fantasy, high magic one.

Well, if you ask me, that's what D&D is all about. And it's not like you can't adjust the magic system to suit your own purposes for one of your homebrew games.

If not, then maybe Dungeons and Dragons isn't the right game for you.

[Optimystik]

I think if enough people wanted Rich to get his campaign setting back and they all did something about it wizards would be inclined to give it back.

They'll probably (hopefully) publish it after his death... but I doubt it will see the light of day before that.

[AslanCross]

There's also the difference is how you power it.

Seriously, why do Eberron and FR need access to every method of spellcasting?
We have prepared casting, spontaneous casting, invocations, binding, incarnum, truespeak, shadowcraft, psionics, strange oriental casting (wu jen et al), Wis based casting, Cha based casting, Int based casting...

Err, you don't have to include the optional books if you don't want to. You can play Eberron without psionics at all if you want to. Stick to Khorvaire, Xen'Drik, Argonnessen, or even the parts of Sarlona where the Inspired aren't hanging out. At least the setting has a logical explanation for why psionics (should you decide to use them) are different from arcane and divine magic, given the presence of the Quori and to a lesser extent, the Daelkyr. The ECS simply assumes that you are using the XPH.

Same thing with FR. It has its own setting-specific assumptions (the Shadow Adept, the Weave, etc), but it never really says you have to include psionics just because of House Oblodra.

I think it's not so much that the settings include every single optional ruleset but more of the optional rules being usable anywhere.

[Hijax]

Err, you don't have to include the optional books if you don't want to. You can play Eberron without psionics at all if you want to. Stick to Khorvaire, Xen'Drik, Argonnessen, or even the parts of Sarlona where the Inspired aren't hanging out. At least the setting has a logical explanation for why psionics (should you decide to use them) are different from arcane and divine magic, given the presence of the Quori and to a lesser extent, the Daelkyr. The ECS simply assumes that you are using the XPH.

Same thing with FR. It has its own setting-specific assumptions (the Shadow Adept, the Weave, etc), but it never really says you have to include psionics just because of House Oblodra.

I think it's not so much that the settings include every single optional ruleset but more of the optional rules being usable anywhere.

you dont need to have dragons in eberron either. Its just that some people will consider altering campaign setting(like erasing sarlona) to not really be using that campaign setting anymore.