The Future of the DFRPG

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

If there's a one true DF setting chances are good some people will love it and some will hate it

That's one advantage D&D had in the beginning; you had Greyhawk and Blackmoor, then along came Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Dark Sun.


For GURPS we have Banestorm, Pax Roma, the Mad Lands, and... none of those really fit DF.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

I concur. But why not have the product focus on them instead?

I don't know how that would be any different and still be adventures. They already do focus on locations.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That's one advantage D&D had in the beginning; you had Greyhawk and Blackmoor, then along came Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Dark Sun.


For GURPS we have Banestorm, Pax Roma, the Mad Lands, and... none of those really fit DF.

As I said earlier. Build the setting as a high level overview and you can then flesh it out with a modular approach, be it modules, race books, dungeons, towns, adventure paths or whatever. A high level overview to spark imagination and provide general guidance but leave room for flexibility as it grows to determine what the audience seems to like.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

For GURPS we have Banestorm, Pax Roma, the Mad Lands, and... none of those really fit DF.

There are Pyramid settings that work better. I have been thinking about setting my next DF game in "The Qanat Pirates of Old Than".

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't know how that would be any different and still be adventures. They already do focus on locations.

All the adventure paths I've had the misfortune of dealing with focused on NPCs machinations. Which can be interesting, except when the GM is given a few pages of background information on an NPCs deepest motivations and background, but zero way to expose this information to the players before they get into a lethal combat situation with them.

They really were quite painfully railroady.

[lvalero]

I will for sure buy a "classic" setting for DFRPF. With "classic" I mean all the troopes related with dungeon fantasy worlds: gods, orcs, evil necromancers, minotaurs, old ruins, more evil wizards, dragons, ... and so on.

[(E)]

I would like a slice of the world add on personally, a bit of dungeon, a dash of culture, a couple of new monsters, maybe a new rule etc. I know that this is very different to the current GURPS structure however.
I have nothing against the current set but I think a suppliment with readability as a higher priority would be best for the target audience.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Bruno

All the adventure paths I've had the misfortune of dealing with focused on NPCs machinations. Which can be interesting, except when the GM is given a few pages of background information on an NPCs deepest motivations and background, but zero way to expose this information to the players before they get into a lethal combat situation with them.

They really were quite painfully railroady.

That isn't my experience with Iron Gods, where I have been easily able to extrapolate enough, including the various instances where the party has allied with someone that the adventure assumes that they might fight.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There are Pyramid settings that work better. I have been thinking about setting my next DF game in "The Qanat Pirates of Old Than".

What issue?

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by lvalero

I will for sure buy a "classic" setting for DFRPF. With "classic" I mean all the troopes related with dungeon fantasy worlds: gods, orcs, evil necromancers, minotaurs, old ruins, more evil wizards, dragons, ... and so on.

With all that, does there even need to be a setting? Setting-less material makes it easier for GMs who aren't using a pre-published setting (which will be the majority, as it always is) to use printed adventures.

Originally Posted by (E)

I have nothing against the current set but I think a suppliment with readability as a higher priority would be best for the target audience.

That would be a good thing for RPGs in general. (And writing in general.) RPGs often have complicated concepts nestled inside other complicated concepts, with complicated writing to boot. Everyone taking care to simplify his writing would help outsiders understand RPGs better. We've come a long way from the Mentzer Red Box, and we're not the better for it. There's a reason that era was a high time for RPGs.

The DFRPG needs to be simple, as it is a subset of a more complex RPG, GURPS. Folks wanting more complexity can add stuff from GURPS. Any material needs to limit itself to glomming off the core box, as few folks playing will ever touch a supplement.