Talk:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings

Articles merged

• Article merged: See old talk-page for Council of Wyrms here. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Article merged: See old talk-page for Jakandor here. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Article merged: See old talk-page for Hollow World here. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Article merged: See old talk-page for Pelinore here. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Article merged: See old talk-page for Savage Coast here. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghostwalk

There's no publisher details listed for Ghostwalk and there's a disproportionately large amount of detail compared to the other entries. If someone agrees me with, can it be pruned back and citations added?DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Two months later and no dissent, I've gone ahead and made the edit. The section's been brutally trimmed. Revert if you feel it's necessary but what would be better is for someone who knows the setting to add publisher info, notability, and some citations, please. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing brutal about it! It was a merge, and sometimes merges need to be pared down; the rest of the info is always there in the edit history if we need it for some reason. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-Official Settings

I'd like to add a list of non-offical campaign setting that are designed for use with D&D, would anyone like to help? Avador 20:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're thinking of adding fanmade settings, I would suggest only listing notable publisdhed settings. -Sean Curtin 04:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I was actually thinking of notable 3rd party settings like Scarred Lands, or Lone Wolf. Avador 22:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

wasn't scarred lands under the OGL and, therefore official?

No. The "OGL" (Open Game Licence) is a licence which allows publishers to use the System Resource Document. Using this licence does not make a product a Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting. The same applies to the d20STL, which is a licence that allows you to put the "d20 System" logo on a product. This trademark indicates compatibility with the d20 System (and therefore D&D), but does not make a campaign setting a D&D setting.

This stuff needs to be removed from this article and put into a separate d20 System article. Big Mac 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ravenloft

Ranveloft was not liciensed to White Wolf, it was liciensed to Arthaus Games, which has all of its works published under White Wolf's Sword & Soccery Label. The article should refelct this fact. Avador 17:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Arthaus was a studio division of White Wolf, though. oknazevad (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Al-Qadim

Unlike Kara-Tur and Maztica, Al-Qadim was not published under the Forgotten Realms label. So while Zakhara is located on Toril, shouldn't Al-Qadim be listed as its own campaign setting? If the argument is made that it's on the same world, then one could also try to argue that all settings should be listed as sub-settings of Planescape, which doesn't strike me as appropriate. But what do others think?

Please sign your comments. My personal view would be to group all of the campaigns on particular worlds, so I would put Al-Qadim with Forgotten Realms. It is a separate setting, but is partly based on the Forgotten Realms setting. As for the Planescape comments, I think that Planescape and Spelljammer are both special cases. Big Mac 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Each major setting should have its own page. Mergers almost always result in pruning, which means loss of usable data. And without pruning, the pages become large and unmanageable. It's a loss of usability either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.172.224.125 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Warcraft RPG

The original Warcraft RPG has the Dungeons & Dragons logo, though the revised World of Warcraft edition doesn't. I reckon that makes Warcraft a proper D&D setting, at least as good as KoK. Any opinions? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1588460711/ref=dp_image_0/104-3146894-8595951?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Agreed - I don't see the harm in a heading, a brief mention of this fact, and then a link to the Warcraft page. DustFormsWords (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Kalamar

Kalamar wasn't/isn't released under the OGL as the article implies, but is an official lisenced product released with the D&D logo. The section should be updated to reflect this. --Huyderman 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Topic cleanup and reevaluation

First of all, the readability of the article is very low due to the clattered look it has.

Furthermore, a more concise listing should be made.

Finally, how on Earth is "Masque of the Red Death" a high magic setting? -- RaspK FOG 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

At this time there is some formatting inconsistencies in the article; I plan to fix these within the next few days, although if anyone else wants to merge the shorter setting articles into this one first, please feel free to. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Points of Light

I raised this issue on the WP: Wikiproject Dungeons and Dragons talk page, but this actually seems like the best place for it now. Points of Light is the official core campaign setting of 4th edition, and therefor merits a fair bit of coverage in my opinion. it of course doesn't have 1/100th the extant content of Greyhawk, but it is an interesting concept that has required a fair bit of explanation (to my surprise) even to people i have met who are seemingly quite familiar with roleplaying games and world-design. should i add a section here about it? it would really just be on the essentially vague and indeterminate nature of the campaign setting, what few elements of it ARE spelled out in the core rulebooks, and what various features it takes from eberron, greyhawk, the forgotten realms, and as of this month, ravenloft. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You can, or I can put something in once I'm done with the merging in a little while. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section; feel free to expand and modify it as you see fit. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my change to the section? Let me know if there's anything wrong with it. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mystara category

This article has been put into the Mystara category, but not categories for any of the other campaign settings. It should really either be in categories for every setting or the Mystara category should be pulled. I'm not sure which of the two options would be the most appropriate thing to do. Big Mac (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this is now the primary source for Hollow World and Savage Coast information on Wikipedia, it makes sense to have the Mystara category on this article. I'm not sure about the other campaign settings. If this article contains important information not presented on each setting's own page, then presumably we need the category label for that world.

Confusing, I know, but this is what happens when minor sub-settings are confined to this main page. Thorf (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Supported/Unsupported Campaign Settings

I added a blurb in each section stating if the campaign setting is currently supported. I think this is kind of clunky, so would any object to me (or others) reordering the format like this?

Company Name

Currently Supported Campaign Settings

Unsupported Campaign Settings

The above format could also be used to include companies/settings other than TSR/WOC, such as Judges Guild's City State of the Invincible Overlord and others. Comments anyone? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to reorder the campaign settings by whatever is currently going on, nor is it necessary to state "this is no longer being supported" in every such case. However, I do think it's worth noting which ones are being currently supported, either by a single blurb in the article lead, or a note under each one like you have now. I think the list should stay in alphabetical order, although I don't object to you separating the non-TSR/WotC settings into an "other publishers" section for example. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then, when I get a chance, I'll simply add two new sections; one for TSR/WOC settings, and one for "other". Thanks for the input. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Kalamar and Wilderlands of High Fantasy are really the only settings published by other companies. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a bunch of other settings, but now that I think about it, it would probably be best just to keep them all in one section and in alphabetical order. So, never mind.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant those are the only two currently on the list, but yeah I see what you mean. :) Also, hopefully you understood my note about the Underdark? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood. I thought about making the distinction in this article, but decided against it since, given how Underdark came to be, it would take up too much space. So, maybe I'll add it to the actual article on Underdark (if it's not already there) when I get a chance. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's in there - I drew my explanation from a combination of my own memory and from the Underdark article. :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Conan & Historical

I recall reading somewhere about official TSR Conan supplements for AD&D. Also I remember some books describing historicals settings for AD&D (e.g. Celts, Crusades...) anybody got any info on those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DNEP (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct on both counts! For Conan, there was a series of modules such as Conan Against Darkness!, Conan the Buccaneer, Conan the Mercenary, Conan Triumphant, and Conan Unchained!. There was a series of historical-based sourcebooks, but unfortunately I don't have the time to look them up at the moment. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nentir Vale/points of light

Isn't the Nentir Vale just a portion of the new default setting? Most of the books use the term "points of light" (usually unofficially) or even just "Dungeons & Dragons".--Ragestorm (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackmoor

The OD&D Blackmoor supplement could arguably be for it's own world or one shared with Greyhawk. There was a Blackmoor release by the orginal author through a non-TSR publisher (as part of the Judge's Guild setting) and then as part of Mystara. That's three different ways it was presented. Now it exists on it's own as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.96.38.41 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal 1

I propose that Hollow World Campaign Set be merged into Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings#Hollow World. It seems like the article was created back in 2010. However, there had been a previous move regarding merging for the now redirect Hollow World back in 2008; all article information was moved from Hollow World to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings#Hollow World, making Hollow World a redirect to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings#Hollow World. For this reasoning, I believe this merge should happen. Steel1943 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That article is more of a description of the boxed set's contents than of the actual campaign setting, so I am unsure that it should be merged here. We do have one solid indpendent source but there don't appear to be any reviews so I am neutral on this one; I will trust your judgment. Do try to retain the image if you do merge. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and counter proposal of dermerge: The Hollow World, that got merged into the Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings article was a stub that should have been expanded. Merging it was a mistake, IMO, as it has helped to make an already long Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting article even longer. It would have been better if the Hollow World Campaign Set article was merged into the Hollow World article, so that things were more logical. If that was done, there could be a larger Hollow World article that explains more about the campaign setting, without the Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings article getting made to be any longer than it already is. Restoring that Hollow World page, pulling any other Hollow World content into it and then shortening this page would make for a better experience for readers. Big Mac (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

I propose that The Savage Coast be merged into Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings#Savage Coast. It seems like the article was created back in 2010. However, there had been a previous move regarding merging for the now redirect Savage Coast back in 2008; all article information was moved from Savage Coast to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings#Savage Coast, making Savage Coast a redirect to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings#Savage Coast. For this reasoning, I believe this merge should happen. Steel1943 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to oppose this one because that article is about an adventure module, not a sourcebook about the (much later) Savage Coast setting. If it was going to be merged anywhere at all, it should not be merged here. 17:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and counter proposal of creation of an article about the Savage Coast/Red Steel Campaign Setting: The Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings article is getting too long. It would be better if campaign settings that have more than one product could get their own articles, so that the content here could be transferred elsewhere and the sections here can then be made into a shorter summary of the setting (or even just a Further information line that links to the main article. Big Mac (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mackay2001":

• From Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture: Mackay, Daniel (2001), The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performing Art, Jefferson, N.C: McFarland, pp. 18–19, ISBN 0-7864-0815-4.
• From Forgotten Realms: Mackay, Daniel (2001). The fantasy role-playing game: a new performing art. McFarland. p. 6. ISBN 0-7864-0815-4.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary italics

Given that the campaign settings themselves are not works such as games (or movies/TV shows/books), it seems the italics for the name of each campaign setting are unnecessary and somewhat improper. Is there a reason they're italicized, or can the formatting be safely removed?

(I also removed the excessive and unnecessary bold of the setting name in each section - well, some of the sections had it bolded, at least.) V2Blast (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the names of campaign settings do not need to be italicized. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:49AC:FDAE:9686:BD46 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing Worlds

There should probably be some mention of Mythic Earth, where the historic campaign splatbooks are set (Glory of Rome, Vikings, Charlemagne’s Paladins). Even at least a mention of the loosely sketched out settings in ‘’Creative Campaigning’’.

Moreover, though, Gothic Earth ‘’’’’should’’’’’ be mentioned distinctly. Despite being branded as Ravenloft, it’s a very ‘’very’’ distinct setting with its own set of classes and specific rules for weapons, magic, and technology.

Finally, arguments can be made for Buck Rogers XXVc being a 2nd Edition AD&D setting, including that such had been basically acknowledged by TSR in The Dragon, and by Jeff Easley working for hire in his “Worlds of AD&D” painting. 67.168.228.147 (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Were any D&D books actually published featuring the Buck Rogers world, or is that more of an inference? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a separate. Buck Rogers game published by TSR; apparently then-TSR head Lorraine Williams had family ties to the owners of the IP. I wouldn't consider it a D&D setting.

Gothic Earth is the one from Masque of the Red Death, and is covered under that header. Should it be separate from Ravenloft? Well, it was published under the Ravenloft label, so people looking for it would likely look under there. I think it's in the best spot for that.

As for the Mythic Earth/historical reference guides from 2e, they didn't really form a campaign setting as such. They were essentially mechanics for using real-world historical paces and eras, not a setting per se. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Furondy

I remember hearing this is the world the drow demi-goddess Kiransalee lived on prior to becoming a demi-deity, is there anything about it, or is it just mentioned? Should we mention it here? 71.184.110.64 (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting! Furyondy is a kingdom in the Greyhawk setting but some search revealed Threnody as the world of Kiriansalee's origin: [1]. There is a short description on p. 23 of Demihuman Deities, which suggests very strongly that this is only a background detail for this goddess, not a world fleshed out in any way. As this article deals with full (more or less) campaign settings, I think Threnody does not fit in here. Daranios (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is that homebrew, or something that was actually published? BOZ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@BOZ: That story is officially published in a paragraph of Demihuman Deities. I don't know where the "at least 30.000 years in the past" in Greyhawk Wiki comes from, though. Maybe there's more in Greyhawk material, or that factoid is homebrew? Daranios (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

structure

This page looks like an article, but really is a list article.

It lists campaign settings alphabetically, with no indication of relative importance.

As an article it should focus 90% on Forgotten Realms, which really is the only actively supported campaign world, and then mention (and link to) the others very briefly.

An alphabetical listing of campaign worlds is of course permissible, but we should then not use section headers. We should use a list or a table.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I am not sure if changes in the structure/a list format would really be better. As the size of the individual sections is significant in many cases, I don't think a table is the best choice. Although, thinking about it, one advantage would be the possibility of sorting alphabetically and by time of introduction. But I do object against "should focus 90% on Forgotten Realms". Wikipedia is not concerned only with the world's situation currently, but also with the past, so no need to exclude anything based on the Forgotten Realms being the only currently supported setting. Which is not entirely true, either, as Eberron, Ravenloft and Greyhawk (Ghosts of Saltmarsh) having gotten some treatment in 5th edition, as well as new settings being introduced: Exandria, Ravnica, Theros, Strixhaven. Sure, the Forgotten Realms are, and have been for a long time, the most extensive game world. I don't object to that being reflected here, but it does not need to be in getting a dominating section, as it has it's own article to stand up for itself. As for relative importance of settings, that's not something that we as Wikipedia editors can decide (would be WP:OR, then). We would need sources. So sorting alphabetically is much safer and clear-cut. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Also object to 90% on Forgotten Realms because that hasn't been true for 5E for a while (and it wasn't even the default setting for 4E). I think keeping section headers makes sense because not every campaign setting has its own article. Reorganizing the settings to release years could be a good option because it shows the development of the game over time. Otherwise, alphabetical is a pretty standard way to organize things on Wikipedia. There's also an argument to made to change the article title to "List of Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings"; based on the age of the article (created 2005), I'm assuming that's why the article title isn't in that format. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

sorting alphabetically is much safer and clear-cut When discussing a list article, that is appropriate. But not a regular article. For a regular article, we would, for instance, discuss the earliest settings first, using sources to discuss how "settings" took form. Then newer ones, talking about various support etc. (Or your preffered approach, this was just an example)We would definitely note how many of these settings are incredibly niche - they do not in any way shape or form merit a whole subsection of their own. It should be obvious to the layman which settings have consistently gotten the lion's share of the publisher for, what, thirty years now. Either way, the reader expects an article on the topic of Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings, as opposed to just a collection of summaries with links to settings articles! that's not something that we as Wikipedia editors can decide (would be WP:OR, then). We would need sources. We do not need sources to justify writing several sentences on a plainly more important topic and just one sentence on a plainly obscure topic. So no. Rewriting the article with focus on the important bits is our job, not something we hide behind sources for. But again, restructuring to a simple list article would be easier. CapnZapp (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: If you put it like that, then I think I agree with Sariel Xilo that this is in effect a list article and should be treated like that. We do have the timeline prominently displayed, so that those interested can see which ones where introduced first, even though the article content is not organized according to that. If you have a concept and enough sources for a more generalized stand-alone article Campaign setting (Dungeons & Dragons) (which can include discussion of relative importance), that could be a nice addition, go for it if you like. If sources for that should be scarce, maybe what you have in mind can improve the lead section here. I also would have no objection to shift this to List of Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings, if you'd prefer to create and name such a generalized article Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. However, none of these solutions should replace our article here, because I think it is valuable as it is. Aside from what may be in the individual setting description, it actually does have one distinguishing indicator between more prominent and more obscure settings already: Readers are directed to separate articles for the more prominent ones. I do object against wholesale removal of sections for the less known settings. As Sariel Xilo said, the more obscure ones don't have a separate article, so their place on Wikipedia is here based on common selection critria for lists. Lastly, that of course does not mean that our list here cannot be further improved, e.g. by adding more sources, possibly including statements about relative importance, if we can find them. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you put it like that, then I think I agree with Sariel Xilo that this is in effect a list article and should be treated like that. Eh... I'm the one suggesting to rework this article, such as into a list article! :-) Possibly there's a misunderstanding here... since we seem to agree? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It is de facto a list article already, and it's structure is fine and neutral. Maybe a move is appropriate, maybe not; there's really nothing that can be said about D&D campaign settings that isn't true about campaign settings for RPGs in general and I'd expect such a separate article to be quickly brought to AFD for deletion or merger to either the general campaign setting article or this article. Regardless, the idea that it should be "90% FR" is an absolute non-starter. oknazevad (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My point was that it was already a list article (see also the top of the this talk page which lists it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists) and didn't need structural change. I disagree with we should then not use section headers. We should use a list or a table. There are lots of list articles in this style with section headers. We could perhaps add an overview section which touches on the more generalized parts of the development of D&D campaign settings with a Main Link to campaign settings. The biggest thing it needs is more secondary sources but that's not a structural problem. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the article does not need a structural change. I do think that we could reorganize a bit though, so that maybe the settings which did not have actual product lines (used in three or fewer publications, only appeared in magazines or on the WotC website, etc) could be in a "other settings" subsection perhaps? BOZ (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Exandria not descriptive enough

It seems the section for Exandria is focused more on the creation of the setting and its current resources that are being released rather than on explaining what sets it apart as a setting. A small amount of space could be spent on explaining it's the setting for Critical Role, but rather than listing all the books coming out about it, why not say what makes it distinct from other settings? Abelhawk (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Abelhawk: I had trouble finding sources which compared it to other settings. Most of what I found described it as high fantasy so I added that in. In terms of real world influences, the only sources I could find talked about that in context of Wildemount and not Tal'Dorei. If you can find more specifics (ie. comparing it to the Forgotten Realms, etc), please update the section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

First setting to tackle D&Ds problem with monstrous races?

Im sorry but despite the article sighted, Exandria wasn't the first setting to change how some D&D races were seen. It was actually Eberron that had given monstrous races a more favourable seat at the table. If you knew anything about the setting you'd know that. Also info on the setting is lacking, especially since it was the default setting of 3.5e and had a ton of splat books & is still updated by Keith Baker himself. Also Eberron is Magepunk not Steampunk, since all tec is still run via magic. That's why it was unique in the first place.

101.115.135.168 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Amethyst?

I'm confused about Amethyst. Sure it used 4e's rules with the GSL, but does that really make it a setting for d&d? Or is it just it's own game with it's own setting? Plenty of games with built-in-settings use the OGL and GSL.

I ask because I'm genuinely unfamiliar with amethyst, the current information on the page isn't answering this question, and my cursory googling leads me to be unsure of any real reason for it to be considered "official". It doesn't seem to have ever been published by dnd rights-holders nor ever been officially endorsed - it just uses the GSL/OGL and by that nature is allowed to say "for use with" but I think if that's all then that set's an untenable precedent.

But I'm not going to start a dumb editing war A) because that'd be rude and unproductive and B) I recognize a massive chance that I'm just wrong and unaware of some detail. In the case of B, I think someone with relevant info should edit the Amethyst portion. HopefulHyena (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)