# Spelljammer...just wow



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

So I've been going through some Spelljammer books I bought as PDFs and bought through Ebay and been going through them and I just wondered to myself this:

*This setting is pure awesome. Why didn't it do well?! *

I have to say one thing about Spelljammer. There're many reasons I think it's such a great setting, but one of the things I must point out is its myriad of creatures.

I'm reading through the *Spelljammer Monstrous Compendium* and the creatures in other Spelljammer books and I say to myself "Wow!" It's absolutely stellar! (no pun intended) The creatures in this book are just inspiring. Sure, some of it was goofy (giant space hamster anyone?) but you'll always have a goof monster in any book. And that's actually just fine.

Again, why didn't it do so well? I'd really like to run a 3E Spelljammer setting but all I got is that Polyhedron issue which has a bare minimum conversion to 3E Spelljammer. I also don't believe I can do the campaign any justice without conversions of those Spelljammer monsters, either.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Just speaking for myself, I disliked having Spelljammer forced down my throat as a gamer -- look at the secret toy surprise at the bottom of the Ruins of Greyhawk -- and rejected it out of resentment.

If some of the goofiness was gone (I'm not impressed by having a common race's name spelled backwards and pretending it's not the case), I'd be interested in it. I was pretty interested in the (somewhat reviled, I gather) Spelljammer Polyhedron setting as a result.


----------



## MerricB (May 9, 2007)

It had Giant Space Hamsters. They're the only thing I like about the setting, because the demonstrate how stupid it was.

More to the point, Spelljammer really had a problem of a Grand Unified Theory to get all of the D&D worlds together... and they really shouldn't be.

Cheers!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 9, 2007)

Maybe it was too far removed from Tolkienesque D&D.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

I always thought it was awesome to have a Fantasy/Star Trek/Star Wars mix for D&D. It's new and creative. I never got a chance to get into it back in 2E, but I just have to give my opinion on it and I think it could've done very well.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (May 9, 2007)

A lot of folks found to goof to be too much for them to handle, which caused me to point and laugh at them...  Others found the mixing of settings to rub them the wrong way (a similar complaint was sometimes levelled at Planescape).  Still others disliked the ship to ship combat mechanics.  

I have to admit, that I was pretty thrilled with all of the above, and just adore Spelljammer.  Of course, the setting glut that helped to kill TSR was brought about partly by Spelljammer, which makes me sad...  Sometimes you just can't win for losing.

If you go to The official spelljammer website You can find all kinds of goodies, including (probably, its been a while since I've been there) links to 3e conversions to greap heaping piles of the Spelljammer critters.

Later
silver


----------



## MojoGM (May 9, 2007)

I was always a huge fan of Spelljammer.  Hell, my longest running campaign was a SJ game with 2 core players (and occasional "guest stars") that lasted something like 5 years of almost weekly play.

And as far as the elements that I deemed "silly", I just ignored them.  No space hamsters in my game.  I never understood the hatred of the Giff though, british bipedal hippos are no more silly than any other anthropomorphic animals D&D has.  

That is one setting I really hope they revisit in this DI that they're working on...


----------



## Erik Mona (May 9, 2007)

Spelljammer's biggest problem was that it was presented as a way to tie together the "Big Three" (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and the Forgotten Realms) rather than as a setting in its own right. Some of this was ameliorated later on, but the damage was done.

If an ounce of the art direction and flavor they later gave Planescape had been applied to Spelljammer, it probably would have done a lot better. There is a LOT to like there, and some of the critters from those MC appendices are great.

But fans of the Big Three saw it as a goofy imposition on their worlds (which it was), and they rebelled.

--Erik


----------



## DragonBelow (May 9, 2007)

it was awesome, it's like Pirates of the Caribbean but in space, plus Mind Flayers, Drow, Beholders, Neogi, and firearms!

If you didn't like SpellJammer it was very easy to ignore, since "core" setting material  seldom included any SJ references.

Regarding the Unifying theory, that's baloney, some Crystal Spheres, such as Krynnspace,   were isolated for all practical purposes, however, if you as a DM wanted to open it, then so be it.


----------



## Pants (May 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Spelljammer's biggest problem was that it was presented as a way to tie together the "Big Three" (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and the Forgotten Realms) rather than as a setting in its own right. Some of this was ameliorated later on, but the damage was done.



QFT

Get your damn Spelljammer outta my Greyhawk/FR!    

I, at least, would've been much more receptive to the SJ concept if SJ stuff wasn't constantly popping up in GH or FR source material. I know that I can change it and ignore it if I want to, but I'm being irrational and the way the SJ stuff was just thrown willy nilly into different settings annoyed the hell out of me.

If I wanna play in a wacky space-D&D with anthropomorphic british hippos, flying trees, and giant space hamsters, I'll decide that when I start up a new campaign.


----------



## Imruphel (May 9, 2007)

I always liked the idea of Spelljammer but the silly stuff was too much.

To the OP: try acquiring a copy of Dungeon 92. The Polyhedron part of that issue has an updated version of Spelljammer albeit without any monster conversions. I'm tossing up including some Spelljammer in my ongoing FR campaign. If I do, I'll be using these rules.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> But fans of the Big Three saw it as a goofy imposition on their worlds (which it was), and they rebelled.



I blame the "goofy". It was a bit like Planescape, with all the interesting weirdness replaced by wacky goofiness.

I mean... "Giff". Seriously. But the setting had potential... Clockwork Horrors, Neogi, Nautilus ships... yeah, but it went too far on the "random strangeness"-scale. It needed more grit, more teeth, more... menace? More mystique? Something grander... like Planescape.


----------



## Arkhandus (May 9, 2007)

He already mentioned having that issue of Polyhedron, in the original post.  It's very minimal.


----------



## Jer (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> *This setting is pure awesome. Why didn't it do well?! *




Spelljammer was about 75% cool, 20% goofy and 5% WTF?.  I liked a lot of things about the setting -- space roving beholders and mind flayers, the neogi with their umber hulk slaves, the fairly cool looking ships, the giff, the importation of the Star Frontiers races into the setting.  There was some easily ignorable goofy stuff like giant space hamsters, but at the core of the setting is the whole "crystal sphere/phlogiston" cosmology they cooked up to link all of the different campaign worlds together.  For a lot of folks, the travel between crystal spheres really stretched the setting to the breaking point.  

Personally, we had a lot of fun with the setting by setting things just in space, ignoring the connection to other campaign worlds, and playing up the swashbuckling pirate in fantasy space aspects.


----------



## Andor (May 9, 2007)

I always loved spelljammer. There was so much goodness, and as for whackiness... Gimmie a break. The average D&D game reads like an issue of the Weekly World News with swords.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

DragonBelow said:
			
		

> If you didn't like SpellJammer it was very easy to ignore, since "core" setting material  seldom included any SJ references.



Having the ultimate reward in the Ruins of Greyhawk be a ticket to the stars was a pretty hard-to-ignore element in what was arguably TSR's flagship setting.


----------



## IanB (May 9, 2007)

Spelljammer had a number of good idea kernels but they were all caught up in a fairly crappy overall whole. One nice thing is a lot of the 'good' can be adapted to the Astral Plane without having to bring the 'bad' along with it, IMO. Just say no to crystal spheres and the phlogiston, and yes to neogi as interplanar slave traders and mind flayer astral warships, and you're OK.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> *This setting is pure awesome. Why didn't it do well?! *



It started off as a crossover setting linking TSR's many published settings together.

It later have its own setting but by then, not everyone is interested in crossovers.

If anything, it needs its own signature setting and do away the sciences of phlogiston and crystal sphere. The _Polyhedron_ mini-setting _Spelljammer: Shadow of the Spider Moon_ is as good as _Omega World_ mini-setting.


----------



## Andor (May 9, 2007)

Out of genuine puzzlement why are people so annoyed by the crystal spheres being linked by the phlostigen, by not by all the primes being linked by the planes of shadow, Astral, Deep ethereal, Sigil, and the infinite stairway?


----------



## IanB (May 9, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Out of genuine puzzlement why are people so annoyed by the crystal spheres being linked by the phlostigen, by not by all the primes being linked by the planes of shadow, Astral, Deep ethereal, Sigil, and the infinite stairway?




Because they're not, unless you want them to be.

The thing that makes people get upset when Spelljammer (and to some extent Planescape) are mentioned is that they _explicitly_ say the settings are all linked.

Contrast to the now-normal 3E method of keeping all settings in their own separate unconnected cosmologies.


----------



## Andor (May 9, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Because they're not, unless you want them to be.
> 
> The thing that makes people get upset when Spelljammer (and to some extent Planescape) are mentioned is that they _explicitly_ say the settings are all linked.
> 
> Contrast to the now-normal 3E method of keeping all settings in their own separate unconnected cosmologies.




*Shrug* I fail to see the significance. There was no map of the crystal spheres that I can recall. If you wanted your greyhawk campaign to steer clear of the realms then it could be a thousand year trip from Greyhawk to the realms, or the route could be simply unknown. You had total control over where your players went.

Plus while Eberron has it's own setup, both Greyhawk and the Realms use the Great Wheel cosmology and so default to being linked.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Plus while Eberron has it's own setup, both Greyhawk and the Realms use the Great Wheel cosmology and so default to being linked.



via an explicitly long, difficult and uncertain journey through the darkest parts of the Plane of Shadow.

"Mr. Chekov, set course for Oerth," it is not.


----------



## s.j. bagley (May 9, 2007)

'If an ounce of the art direction and flavor they later gave Planescape had been applied to Spelljammer, it probably would have done a lot better.'
ayup.
i've always loved it, personally.


----------



## Napftor (May 9, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> The thing that makes people get upset when Spelljammer (and to some extent Planescape) are mentioned is that they _explicitly_ say the settings are all linked...




*rolls eyes*  Then those people (and some in this thread) need to remember that they can do whatever the frak they want with published resources.  Don't want your FR in your Greyhawk?  Then just don't use the phlogiston set-up (or Planescape for that matter).

I thought Spelljammer was fantastic for opening up campaigns.  By having the _option_ of taking your games into space (or bringing the SJ elements to your world), your campaign had even more possibilities.  If D&D + space totally turns one off one's creativity, then I feel for them.


----------



## Graf (May 9, 2007)

Spelljammer was/is awesome. As creative, really, as Dark Sun, but in a more deliberately "fun" direction.

It's confusing as to why it's got all the hate. Lots of people don't like Dragonlance but they rarely turn up to post about how it was dumb/stupid/etc.
I think there is still a drive among some gamers to insist that the hobby must be "serious". "We're saving the world!" "No fooling around!" etc. etc.
(the Spelljammer novels went this route, it was actually painful to read about this mopey protagonist wandering around)

It is, however, also one of the most challenging settings for a DM to run.

Why?
Because, usually, the players get a ship. And once they get a ship?
You can go anywhere, and do anything you want to.

So either the DM really works with the players or it gets 'rail-roady'. 

As a setting it is fantastic, and you should definitely look at the Spider Moon Polyhedron. The author (Andy Collins IIRC) has more stuff on his website.


----------



## Darkwolf445 (May 9, 2007)

I love the setting, and have most of the hardcopy belonging to it.  It was a good, swashbuckling/pirates setting where you could set up a campaign and have characters visit new worlds whenever you wanted them to.  The idea of magic powering the ships (seen in other, 3.x edition book, Airships) was also really cool.  It also reminded me a lot of the Space:1889 setting, what with using plants as a source for breathable air and travelling through the Ether in "normal" ships.

I also like Planescape, but find it to be a different beast.  Planescape is more epic and more bizarre, at least for me.


----------



## DragonBelow (May 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Having the ultimate reward in the Ruins of Greyhawk be a ticket to the stars was a pretty hard-to-ignore element in what was arguably TSR's flagship setting.




Was it difficult to replace such reward with something else more suited to your particular campaign?


----------



## Contrarian (May 9, 2007)

Here's the thing: There are certain D&D settings that get their "hook" from totally smashing a time-honored convention of the game. (Spelljammer and Darksun are probably the most extreme examples.)  When faced with a convention-smashing supplement, most people have one of two reactions: They're either inspired to the point of delirious love, or their brain shuts down completely from the shock.

That's what you're seeing here, and every other thread ever discussing Spelljammer in every forum, newsgroup, and mailing list until the end of time.  The Inspired Gamers will insist Spelljammer is the greatest idea since funny-shaped dice, and the rest will insist it's the greatest crime in the history of roleplaying.  There's almost never any inbetween.

(I love Spelljammer. I don't grok Darksun, but I don't waste time insulting it.  For what it wanted to be, it seemed competent.)

For the record, I've talked to a few TSR guys through the years.  I don't think they were putting Spelljammer references into mainstream modules because someone made them.  I think a lot of them were actually fans of the lunacy.


----------



## Pants (May 9, 2007)

DragonBelow said:
			
		

> Was it difficult to replace such reward with something else more suited to your particular campaign?



Why did it have to be there in the first place?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

DragonBelow said:
			
		

> Was it difficult to replace such reward with something else more suited to your particular campaign?



Was it necessary for them to take the archetypal dungeon for Greyhawk and yell "PSYCHE!" at the end?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Contrarian said:
			
		

> Here's the thing: There are certain D&D settings that get their "hook" from totally smashing a time-honored convention of the game. (Spelljammer and Darksun are probably the most extreme examples.)  When faced with a convention-smashing supplement, most people have one of two reactions: They're either inspired to the point of delirious love, or their brain shuts down completely from the shock.
> 
> That's what you're seeing here, and every other thread ever discussing Spelljammer in every forum, newsgroup, and mailing list until the end of time.  The Inspired Gamers will insist Spelljammer is the greatest idea since funny-shaped dice, and the rest will insist it's the greatest crime in the history of roleplaying.  There's almost never any inbetween.



Insulting, unfair and untrue.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Spelljammer's biggest problem was that it was presented as a way to tie together the "Big Three" (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and the Forgotten Realms) rather than as a setting in its own right. Some of this was ameliorated later on, but the damage was done.
> 
> If an ounce of the art direction and flavor they later gave Planescape had been applied to Spelljammer, it probably would have done a lot better. There is a LOT to like there, and some of the critters from those MC appendices are great.
> 
> ...




That's just silly of the fans of those settings, then. Because the way I see Spelljammer is not only the answer to the mystery of the "Beyond the Night Skies" in a fantasy setting, but what if the PCs wanted to explore "outer space" of their home worlds? It has just as much fantasy element as traveling through yuan-ti infested jungles or ogre-ridden mountains, if not more creative.

Also, Spelljammer helped ground some famous creatures to certain settings. If it wasn't for Spelljamming, mind flayers wouldn't exist in Forgotten Realms. Probably beholders wouldn't either.

It sucks fanboys had to bash such a potentially great setting.


----------



## Pants (May 9, 2007)

Contrarian said:
			
		

> Here's the thing: There are certain D&D settings that get their "hook" from totally smashing a time-honored convention of the game. (Spelljammer and Darksun are probably the most extreme examples.)  When faced with a convention-smashing supplement, most people have one of two reactions: They're either inspired to the point of delirious love, or their brain shuts down completely from the shock.



Oh, I get SJ, I also think that, if done well, it could be really cool, but I think the principle problem with the setting was that it was so far removed from the standard D&D of the time (which is not necessarily a problem) and then, to further antagonize people who already wouldn't like it, it was created to be the de facto way to travel between settings.

I fully believe that the SJ hate would be a lot less if it were simply its own setting rather than a way to travel between settings. As it is, you have SJ crap turning up in a bunch of different campaign settings, where the effect can be quite jarring. 

Planescape at least slotted into the pre-existing setup. The planes already existed, in one form or another, PS just added onto them.


----------



## Pants (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Also, Spelljammer helped ground some famous creatures to certain settings. If it wasn't for Spelljamming, mind flayers wouldn't exist in Forgotten Realms. Probably beholders wouldn't either.



Actually, there was a way to get to other worlds before SJ existed: the planes.

They existed all the way back in 1e.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

Graf said:
			
		

> Spelljammer was/is awesome. As creative, really, as Dark Sun, but in a more deliberately "fun" direction.
> 
> It's confusing as to why it's got all the hate. Lots of people don't like Dragonlance but they rarely turn up to post about how it was dumb/stupid/etc.
> I think there is still a drive among some gamers to insist that the hobby must be "serious". "We're saving the world!" "No fooling around!" etc. etc.
> ...




It's no different than your best friend's spellcaster who can cast _plane shift_ by the time he's 9th level on everyone in the party and take you to an infinite number of planes in your world's cosmology...or another cosmology by rolling his Knowledge (the planes) check and journeying through the Plane of Shadow.

At least Spelljammer was a much more fun and cooler way of getting around the Material Plane and/or other cosmologies, and it kept it to the Material Plane, too. Didn't really hit other planes (unless it was enchanted to do that, that is).


----------



## Tolen Mar (May 9, 2007)

Pants said:
			
		

> ...and the way the SJ stuff was just thrown willy nilly into different settings annoyed the hell out of me.




And now Wizards is doing the same with Eberron.

I also loved the ideas behind Spelljammer, I just could never convince anyone else to give it a try.  There were a couple of things that annoyed me about it, not the least of which was the 'Big Three' being made a part of it.  Spend the time to develop its own setting people!  If the DM's and players want to include those items, they'll find a way without you forcing it down their throats.

Erm...Sorry.  Been away too long, needed a good soapbox rant.  

Maybe one day I'll get around to designing a true spelljammer setting that doesn't reference the big three...add that to my list...lets see, item #437 ::sigh::  One day, maybe.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

Pants said:
			
		

> Actually, there was a way to get to other worlds before SJ existed: the planes.
> 
> They existed all the way back in 1e.




Still, the planes didn't explain what was going on beyond the skies of your home Material Plane. I mean, do gamers really treat every cosmology to have a Material Plane that has one planet with one huge illusion in the skies that simply "appear" to be suns, stars, moons, and other celestial bodies? It comes to a point (especially after your players finish watching Star Wars or something) that gets one very imaginative player to say,"Hey, let me go research some spells with my wizard and let's all float around in space beyond this planet and see what's out there. Besides, casting _plane shift _ last week got half of us killed ever since we decided to take a trip to the Nine Hells to test our mettle. Space sounds cooler, anyway, than mucking through yet another dangerously painful environment of yet another layer of the Abyss anyway, how about it guys?"

Oh, and, mind flayers from the planes wouldn't be aberrations anymore. They'd be outsiders...or at least have the extraplanar subtype.


----------



## el-remmen (May 9, 2007)

As a means to have rules for ships that fly through space and a wonky alternate view of interstellar physics I really loved it.

Sure, half the stuff I dumped (more than half), but that might be true of every D&D supplement I have every used.

But the spelljammer stuff is still something in the background of my homebrew setting that explains some generally inexplicable things to the general populace (that is, if they knew) and also presents new mysteries of its own to those adventurers who end up discovering their world is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## the Jester (May 9, 2007)

Here's the other "meh" about SJ: if the Forgotten Realms is an alternate material plane from Greyhawk, why can you just fly to it?

I loved Spelljammer _as a concept,_ and bought the boxed set the day it came out- but I was very disappointed at how poorly it did "dnd sci-fi", and also at how they set the cosmology. I was ready for dnd in space, with adventures near the event horizon of a black hole! -with quests for neutronium, with which to make a supercool new item! -with exotic atmospheres, masks of breathing and so on!

What I got instead was pirates in semi-space, with silly crystal spheres and atmospheres that were all the same, with no zero-gravity issues, with, in short, no sci-fi elements whatsoever. 

Meh.


----------



## RedFox (May 9, 2007)

Because it's not to everyone's tastes.  It's probably a little too "bizarre" for mainstream fantasy.  Look at the number of folks who dislike monks as a class simply because they don't conform to their genre expectations, and then extrapolate that out to embrace a fantasy concept of dyson spheres and luminiferous ether and magitek sailing ships.

It was bound to be a niche product, if that.  That it was created as a "meta-setting" that intruded on everyone's favorite settings was probably the proverbial straw that broke the camels' backs.

Me, I love it.  But I have no illusions about it having broad appeal.


----------



## Set (May 9, 2007)

Spelljammer kicked all sorts of booty.

One of my all-time favorite characters was a Gnomish Giant Space Werehamster.  He was a Clockwork Mage.  The rest of the party included a half-Ogre Magi (used the Ogrima powers from Al-Qadim added to the Half-Ogre stats), a Krynnish Minotaur and a Giff, so my character was the token 'little person.'  He was never sure why the others called him 'Emergency Rations,' 'though...

My Xixchil Myrmidon, Tklrti Chktla (pronounced the way it looks), was also all sorts of fun.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

RedFox said:
			
		

> Because it's not to everyone's tastes.  It's probably a little too "bizarre" for mainstream fantasy.  Look at the number of folks who dislike monks as a class simply because they don't conform to their genre expectations, and then extrapolate that out to embrace a fantasy concept of dyson spheres and luminiferous ether and magitek sailing ships.
> 
> It was bound to be a niche product, if that.  That it was created as a "meta-setting" that intruded on everyone's favorite settings was probably the proverbial straw that broke the camels' backs.
> 
> Me, I love it.  But I have no illusions about it having broad appeal.




That's the main issue I believe is really awful with D&D. They've fed the gamers so much European-flavored fantasy that it's too hard for almost anyone to comprehend that a fantasy setting can be different and SHOULD be different in feel, setting, and flavor.

This is the reason why Oriental Adventures, Arabian Adventures, Spelljammer, and Planescape had only niche fans. TSR and WotC have been feeding people too much European-styled fantasy which I think is just pure bull. When TSR tried to do away with that elitist and one-tracked mentality, it was already too late. Too many gamers like their knights and wizards to stay as plain ol' knights and wizards. 

I don't think TSR was trying to force-feed the setting to anyone. They were trying to get people to try something new, even if it meant sticking it in your current setting like GH/FR/DL, because it was just really unhealthy to be ignorant about other possibilities with D&D.

WotC, of course, is now too scared to try what TSR did because they believe it's what caused them to fail. It's true, but to an extent. And I think WotC did attempt to steer gamers into a new direction when they brought in Eberron. I like Eberron because it's a campaign setting geared away from fantasy-stereotypes. It has a very strong "Final Fantasy" feel to it, like FFIV, FFVI and could evolve into FFVII. Just without the technology and keeping magic as the center of industry (and not having magic as an aid to technology, like Final Fantasy's done). Actually, after playing FFXII, I believe FFXII and Eberron have much more in common with each other.


----------



## Celebrim (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> *This setting is pure awesome. Why didn't it do well?! *




Uninspiring, cheesy, goofy artwork.

Much like the Dark Sun setting, what killed interest in the setting was that to the older players, it looked kiddified.  Few of the older players bothered to look past the cover art.  

I knew some DMs drew some inspiration from Spelljammer, but I don't know any that ran the campaign.


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2007)

SJ had some good stuff and some sour stuff, and I'm not sure which comes up on tops. The setting as a whole doesn't do much for me though, and I wouldn't run an explicitely SJ game, though I might use some elements of it. 

But a few observations:

Spelljammer stuff written by the late Nigel Findley = disturbingly awesome. *raises a glass to the man*

However a lot of SJ stuff struck me as silly, be it the space hamsters, british hippo men, etc. I'll happily take the Mercane, Neogi slavers, other cool stuff and leave the goofy material untouched.


----------



## Celebrim (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> They've fed the gamers so much European-flavored fantasy that it's too hard for almost anyone to comprehend that a fantasy setting can be different and SHOULD be different in feel, setting, and flavor.
> 
> This is the reason why Oriental Adventures, Arabian Adventures, Spelljammer, and Planescape had only niche fans. TSR and WotC have been feeding people too much European-styled fantasy which I think is just pure bull. When TSR tried to do away with that elitist and one-tracked mentality, it was already too late. Too many gamers like their knights and wizards to stay as plain ol' knights and wizards.




Or instead of there being something wrong with other gamers just becauset they don't like what you like as much as you do, it could be that the products were mishandled in one way or another.  It also could be that the products aren't as great as you think they are, or even that other peoples tastes are perfectly legitimate.   Oriental and Arabian adventurers _are_ too niche.  What we would call default D&D doesn't limit itself to the tropes of a few ethnic mythologies, but widely borrows from anything that it gets ahold of.  So in that way, its a broader, more robust, more creative setting than any single ethnic themed setting could.  You can do great things with Authurian or Viking settings to, but I think it would be a mistake to try to make those your full blown major campaign setting.  As I said, Spelljammer was done in by its art.  Planescape was actually fairly popular and very influential, but had various quirks that turned players and DMs off the idea of running fullblown campaigns.  But mostly it was done in by the fact that by that point, many players had simply turned away from D&D and were looking elsewhere.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Tolen Mar said:
			
		

> And now Wizards is doing the same with Eberron.



Eberron is showing up in Forgotten Realms stuff?


----------



## Voadam (May 9, 2007)

Some people did not like the crystal spheres with the greek and lankhmar cosmology/astrology paradigms.

Some people did not like changing D&D from medieval fantasy to fantasy  space.

Some did not like the gnome tinkers and their giant space hamsters.

Some didn't like linking the settings.

Some thought the Rock of Bral, and hints of the beholder/illithid/neogi/ elven/ and humanoid empires were not enough to give it its own setting.

Some thought the actual helms were not evocative enough (just bolt this magical chair onto the floor of your ship and go).

It was niche weird D&D.

I loved most of it.

I thought the beholder/mind flayer/neogi stuff was great. I liked the elven ships and the gith pirates.

I loved the art.

The module where a giff (big hippo man) escapes orcs by hiding under a bed was a low moment.

The novel series switching authors and styles every book was overall poor with various good individual moments IMO.

The actual mechanics of spelljamming were eh.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (May 9, 2007)

Big fan of Spelljammer,

But, really, the designers used a little too much.... Cold Medicine with some of the things they came up with.

1.  Talking Penguins that rode flying Pigs through Space.

2.  Miniature Giant Space Hamsters (I think there were 10-15 Monsters in the Giant Space Hamster Line)

3.  Hippos with English Accents & Gun Fetishes.

4. Tinker Gnomes as fae as the eye can see.

5. Dyslexic Orcs.

6. I have all the Box Sets, Monster Compendiums & Adventures in the Basement, so I'm sure I'm repressing some other stuff.


Now, if you'll excuse me I have to go work on the Awakened Chicken Monks of Hastur for my Game Tomorrow.


----------



## JustinA (May 9, 2007)

Contrarian said:
			
		

> Here's the thing: There are certain D&D settings that get their "hook" from totally smashing a time-honored convention of the game. (Spelljammer and Darksun are probably the most extreme examples.)  When faced with a convention-smashing supplement, most people have one of two reactions: They're either inspired to the point of delirious love, or their brain shuts down completely from the shock.
> 
> That's what you're seeing here, and every other thread ever discussing Spelljammer in every forum, newsgroup, and mailing list until the end of time.  The Inspired Gamers will insist Spelljammer is the greatest idea since funny-shaped dice, and the rest will insist it's the greatest crime in the history of roleplaying.  There's almost never any inbetween.




So people who like Spelljammer are creative geniuses and people who dislike Spelljammer are narrow-minded?

Wow.

Just... wow.

Anyway, my thoughts on the subject:

1. The core concept of Spelljammer was great. I can see how sailing the phlogiston seas between the crystal spheres wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, but it's a perfectly valid fantasy concept (and one I find pretty cool). I was always fascinated with the potential of the setting, although I was routinely frustrated by the execution.

2. I had no problm with the Spelljamer setting saying, "And among these crystal spheres are Toril, Oerth, and Krynn." Heck, the whole point of the setting was that you could put just about anything you wanted to into a crystal sphere: You want Middle Earth? It's there. You want historical medieval England? Medieval earth can be in there. You want Ego the Planet? It can be in there.

But I didn't like it when SJ material showed up in FR, GH, or DL material. (And contrary to some claims, it showed up _a lot_ during the timeframe hat SJ was being meaningfully supported by TSR.)

The difference is that, if I'm playing SJ, I'm intrinsically accepted the premise that the crystal spheres hold anything that I want them to hold. The idea of Toril, Oerth, and Krynn being in the crystal spheres is right in line with the premise of the setting. If I don't like it for some reason, I can always change it -- but the suggestion doesn't offend my sensibilities.

On the other hand, if I'm playing FR, GH, or DL I haven't accepted the premise that these worlds are located inside of crystal spheres and are routinely visited by spelljamming craft. In fact, I may have a long-running campaign where this is intrinsically NOT the case. So having the SJ references crop up in those products feels like I'm getting something crammed down my throat.

(Personally, I always considered the Toril, Oerth, and Krynn that could be found in SJ to be copies of the "true" Toril, Oerth, and Krynn. The "real" Toril and Oerth, for example, are pat of the Great Wheel -- always have been, always will be. Similarly I would consider an SJ-version of Middle Earth stuck in a crystal sphere to be nifty, but hardly the "true" Middle Earth.)

3. The goofiness really kills the setting for me. It's not that I expect my D&D campaigns to be completely serious affairs -- but I do like to have a setting which at least allows me to suspend my disbelief. And the problem is that, if I were to start an SJ campaign with the goofiness stripped out of it, I would first have to overcome the expectation of other people coming to the game that the goofiness was not going to be part of it.

This can be done, but it's not trivial. I have enough difficulty making new players understand that there are no halflings or gnomes in my campaign world (a change I made because I wanted to limit the number of humanoids running around). Major stylistic shifts are far more difficult.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Anyone thinking that Spelljammer didn't conform to Western myth and fantasy needs to spend some time researching the pre-Galileo beliefs about the cosmos. It's lifted almost entirely from real-world beliefs.

That said, it'd be a lot better off if the game worlds had been designed with crystal spheres and the like from the get-go, instead of having everything retro-fitted into them later. (Although, ironically, that's sort of thematically appropriate, given that the ancient astronomers bent themselves into pretzels to justify celestial movements that kept Earth at the center of the universe.)

I'd love to see a few pages of a campaign setting discuss the night sky, what the stars are, and so on. There's lots of possibilities. Creating a Unified Celestial Theory for D&D, though, was presumptive and unnecessary.

If it had only appeared in SJ-branded products like Greyspace, I don't think anyone reasonable would have ever objected. It didn't stay inside its own books, however. Just think of how people would flip if there was a Forgotten Realms module with outsiders speaking Planescape cant.


----------



## Celebrim (May 9, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Spelljammer stuff written by the late Nigel Findley = disturbingly awesome. *raises a glass to the man*
> 
> However a lot of SJ stuff struck me as silly, be it the space hamsters, british hippo men, etc. I'll happily take the Mercane, Neogi slavers, other cool stuff and leave the goofy material untouched.




I'm not familiar enough with the SJ material to second that, but based on the problems with quality control TSR was having at the time I'd easily believe that the other big problem with SJ was that the quality was all over the board.  I'd not be surprised to find at the core some very well presented ideas, swamped beneath a flood of silliness.


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Here's the other "meh" about SJ: if the Forgotten Realms is an alternate material plane from Greyhawk, why can you just fly to it?




Because they weren't alternate material planes. Toril, Oerth, Krynn, Athas, Ortho, Threnody, Falx, etc were all part of the same prime material plane. The prime wasn't just a single planet and nothing else, it was just as infinite as the other planes, dotted with innumerable other worlds. SJ just tried to flesh out the contents of that void between worlds. Like how they defined it or not*, it didn't come off as an uninspiring, willing campaign limitation like assuming the prime material is a single world with nothing out there at all.

*(I tend to gloss over the phlogiston, but still use the 'sphere' terminology to describe each world/solar system)

I loathe than some 3e material calls different worlds on the prime not different worlds, but different "material planes". Thankfully that's not a blanket thing in 3e, and we've increasingly seen them called worlds or planets, and references to other worlds out there in the void sharing the same prime.


----------



## Tolen Mar (May 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Eberron is showing up in Forgotten Realms stuff?




Well, more like FR and Eberron stats have been added to a lot of other books they came out with (I think the monster books have been the biggest culprit).  Of course, they could have stopped this, I haven't bought or even looked at very many 3.x books in the past six months or so.


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> The module where a giff (big hippo man) escapes orcs by hiding under a bed was a low moment.




Wow, that's almost as bad as the beer drinking texan Solar in Throne of Bloodstone. *shiver*


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> But I didn't like it when SJ material showed up in FR, GH, or DL material. (And contrary to some claims, it showed up _a lot_ during the timeframe hat SJ was being meaningfully supported by TSR.)
> 
> The difference is that, if I'm playing SJ, I'm intrinsically accepted the premise that the crystal spheres hold anything that I want them to hold. The idea of Toril, Oerth, and Krynn being in the crystal spheres is right in line with the premise of the setting. If I don't like it for some reason, I can always change it -- but the suggestion doesn't offend my sensibilities.
> 
> On the other hand, if I'm playing FR, GH, or DL I haven't accepted the premise that these worlds are located inside of crystal spheres and are routinely visited by spelljamming craft. In fact, I may have a long-running campaign where this is intrinsically NOT the case. So having the SJ references crop up in those products feels like I'm getting something crammed down my throat.




See, unfortunately, it's all or nothing.

For those that wanted FR to be in their Spelljammer settting (or vice versa), the Spelljammer book Realmspace came in handy. Not so the other way around. You can't have one setting expanding another setting without the other setting giving some sort of explanation for it. 

And, seriously, did it REALLY hurt people's campaign when they saw a few blurbs that hardly took up any space on their page that mentioned a spelljammer port here or a visit from neogi in this part of Faerun there? If it did, I feel bad for those types. I can understand if you're reading a Forgotten Realms book and suddenly a WHOLE chapter about Spelljamming material got thrown in there, but I am sure you can count without using all your fingers the number of times spelljamming was mentioned in 2E products for each setting.

And it's only been mentioned once in a 3E product. Let's quote it:

*Page 230, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3E*

_The last and most fantasic of the lands beyond Faerun is so close that every Faerunian has seen it from afar. Above the sky lies a realm of incredible expanse, the so-called Sea of Night, where rivers of stars and worlds both strange and wonderful shimmer like silver fire in the dark.

Stories abound of wizards who seek to climb above the sky and explore its dark waters, of princes ruling castles of argent light, and crystal elf-ships that rise gleaming from the western sears into oceans vaster and more wondrous still when twilight falls over the face of Toril. In a land where wizards make castles fly and clerics bring forth godly miracles, the legendary isles and realms of the night sky are home to the wildest flights of fancy and strangest dreams of all._

Did that tiny section of a 320 page book, an obvious (and much appreciated) tribute to the now-dead Spelljammer setting, really ruin someone's Forgotten Realms game? I think not.

Here's my argument: there is an outer space in the Realms. It exists officially. Because it exists officially, it officially has some spelljamming within its universe (crystal sphere). I like acknowledgement in D&D. Don't tell me there's spelljamming ships in Forgotten Realms and then tell me in a Forgotten Realms book that the "night sky" is a magical illusion created by Mystra to make things look far away and real. (which I am so glad it didn't.) 

And for those that don't like any of it...simply ignore it.

The argument goes for any setting, not just the Realms, of course. Was using FR as an example.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Because they weren't alternate material planes. Toril, Oerth, Krynn, Athas, Ortho, Threnody, Falx, etc were all part of the same prime material plane. The prime wasn't just a single planet and nothing else, it was just as infinite as the other planes, dotted with innumerable other worlds. SJ just tried to flesh out the contents of that void between worlds. Like how they defined it or not*, it didn't come off as an uninspiring, willing campaign limitation like assuming the prime material is a single world with nothing out there at all.
> 
> *(I tend to gloss over the phlogiston, but still use the 'sphere' terminology to describe each world/solar system)
> 
> I loathe than some 3e material calls different worlds on the prime not different worlds, but different "material planes". Thankfully that's not a blanket thing in 3e, and we've increasingly seen them called worlds or planets, and references to other worlds out there in the void sharing the same prime.




Definitely true, there's a passage in FR _*Serpent Kingdoms*_ that mentions a ruler in one of nations in the Chult regions (can't remember who or where) that mentions the ruler having once been an adventurer and had angered black dragons from another world where black dragons ruled over all. And one black dragon is hunting him down, currently, from that world.

And now I have to go find it cause I'd really like to know who and where myself.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

Ok, found it, it's page 103 in _*Serpent Kingdoms*_. It talks about the Prince Royal of Lapaliiya, Shaliim, and how he went adventuring with Waterdhavian "wildblades". (a reference to adventuring travelers in "wildspace"?) During one of their stops via a portal they raided the hoard of aged elder black dragons who ruled a kingdom of humans and dwarves on this other world, then left. 

Then it goes on to say later that some of the black dragons found him and have come to Toril to hunt him down.


----------



## -SIN- (May 9, 2007)

I liked SJ. I thought it was a break away from the norm, as at the time 'The Big Three' were and are NOT lightyears apart. All three settings supply players with very similar stuff from monsters to magic items, even the scenery is similar. A character from Greyhawk wouldn't look overly out of place in DL or FR. I found SJ as an escape from escapism.

People complain about it's goofiness, but I found it fun. Giff's weren't even the brunt of our jokes - we were about 12 at the time and found the Neogi hilarious...

DM: "You are confronted by what looks to be a neogi. What do you do?....."

All of us: "Wax on, Wax off!"


I must add, we never used SJ as a campaign setting - We had characters in the FR setting who discovered a SJ'er and used it every now and then (when an adventure petered-out, were bored or had little or no fresh material.)

But if it was re-vamped? I'd buy it!


----------



## Alzrius (May 9, 2007)

I really like _Spelljammer_.

Most of the major points as to why it didn't do very well have already been covered, but they never bothered me much.

Personally, I liked the way it tied the campaign settings together. It helped to define the meta-setting that was the entire multiverse of D&D, which seemed really great; moreso than inventing a brand new world and then needing to flesh it all out, anyway.

That said, I think that rather than fans of the "Big Three" resenting having the campaigns tied together, I think part of the poor reaction (overall) to SJ was that fans of the setting were turned off by how much it seemed to rely on the Big Three. Basically, if you didn't have GH, FR, and DL materials, you were somewhat handicapped with the setting. It was pretty clear that the "Radiant Triangle" (as it called the phlogiston trade paths between Greyspace, Realmspace, and Krynnspace) was the heart of Known Space. So if your party wanted to hang out in Greyspace, and decided to touch down on Oerth, well then, you better have those GH supplements on hand.

The backdrop of the other campaigns should have been kept as a secondary focus, the way _Planescape_ did; as it is, I think PS learned from a lot of SJ's mistakes. Sigil was a lot more cohesive than the Rock of Bral (particularly since the Rock could only be in one sphere, and you were constantly journeying to new ones), the monsters were more alien and less weird, and the setting just had its own feel. SJ didn't have those things...and that was a loss that it never truly overcame.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Tolen Mar said:
			
		

> Well, more like FR and Eberron stats have been added to a lot of other books they came out with (I think the monster books have been the biggest culprit).  Of course, they could have stopped this, I haven't bought or even looked at very many 3.x books in the past six months or so.



A paragraph of "how to use this material in Campaign Setting X" isn't really comparable to "surprise! The lich's treasure is ... THIS SHINY NEW SPELLJAMMER!"


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The backdrop of the other campaigns should have been kept as a secondary focus, the way _Planescape_ did; as it is, I think PS learned from a lot of SJ's mistakes. Sigil was a lot more cohesive than the Rock of Bral (particularly since the Rock could only be in one sphere, and you were constantly journeying to new ones), the monsters were more alien and less weird, and the setting just had its own feel. SJ didn't have those things...and that was a loss that it never truly overcame.



If they were to release a single standalone Spelljammer book that worked this way for 3E, I'd buy it.


----------



## RedFox (May 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> A paragraph of "how to use this material in Campaign Setting X" isn't really comparable to "surprise! The lich's treasure is ... THIS SHINY NEW SPELLJAMMER!"




I don't think TSR understood how much their customer base was uninterested in having their peas and carrots mixed together.  I get the distinct impression that they were trying to sell a complete, holistic game setting where everything was interconnected...  Witness stuff like this, Ravenloft's intrusive mists, Planescape, and the Monstrous Compendiums binder dealie.

A more aware TSR probably would have put in some "normal" Greyhawk finale, and had a "Hey, if you're using Spelljammer and interested in taking your game to the stars, consider throwing a spelljammer ship here as the players' ultimate prize," sidebar.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (May 9, 2007)

Reading this thread, I can't help but wonder if any of those who disliked Spelljammer for reasons aside from it being "D&D in space" happened to like Dragonstar - I haven't seen that 3E setting mentioned here yet... 

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/dragonstar.html

I thought the premise of Dragons ruling the galaxy was actually pretty cool;and perhaps more more plausable than bipedal Hippos and other such fluffiness that I could never take seriously enough to let myself get pulled into.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 9, 2007)

Bizarre and innovative new settings were by far the coolest thing about Second Edition: _Dark Sun_, _Ravenloft_, _Planescape_, and (most of all!) _Spelljammer_ filled me with an enthusiasm for the game, and for the profoundly awesome possibilities in fantasy settings that veer far away from Tolkien and company.  The goofy bits of _Spelljammer_ never really loomed very large for me: I could very easily forget about the giant space hamsters and the giff while reading about giant, biological space ships (before the Tyranids!) and giant undead insects with living pilots inside.  I wouldn't really call it the perfect canon meta-setting--that's definitely got to be _Planescape_--but I'd really, really love to get to actually play it some day.


----------



## Glyfair (May 9, 2007)

Pants said:
			
		

> Get your damn Spelljammer outta my Greyhawk/FR!



I'd like to say this is why I disliked Spelljammer.  I really dislike the "let's force all the settings to interact" paradigm that Spelljammer and Planescape put into the group consciousness about the same time.  Now a group of fans feel every official campaign setting has to be tied to these meta-settings.

I'd _like to say that_, but it wouldn't be true.  I disliked Spelljammer before this started to be pushed.  I don't know what I was hoping for when I picked up the campaign setting*, but it wasn't what I got.  Everything seemed forced to me, especially the helms that really felt forced to me.  I got goofy from the setting and not cool.

* I think I was hoping for a more pulpish Space 1889 type setting (odd that I never picked up Space 1889).  Maybe I was hoping to see how TSR made it work, and was disappointed that they didn't (at least for me).


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 9, 2007)

Spelljammer had some neat ideas, but did a few things I didn't quite like too.

I didn't really like the flammable phlogiston and how every solar system was inside a crystal sphere.  If they made all these efforts to have earth, water, fire and air worlds that could be spherical or cube-shaped or flat or other things that violated modern day physics, than they should have gave variety to how different solar systems were arranged.  They should have had it so that some regions of space functioned differently from others.  Crystal spheres and the phlogiston in some places, open space in others, seas and rivers of 'dark matter' in some places, and other ideas.

I didn't like the Rock of Bral being the "drop in Greyspace, Krynnspace or Realmspace".  Yes I would have actually liked more of a disconnect from those settings.  I think they eventually came up with another solar system for Bral.

Now on the other hand I liked many of the monsters from SJ, old and new.  The Illithid Empire, Neogi, Beholder Nations were all neat ideas.  And I even liked other things like the K'rrr, the backstory on the mysterious Juna (I thought they were so neat I wrote an article linking them to the Tiraphegs and Synads), the arcanes/mercanes, and even the Ziggy Stardust (or whatever)-inspired Reigar.  Now I think that Giff are sort of goofy being hippo-men, but hippos are very dangerous animals.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 9, 2007)

I loved SJ.  I loved the Giff.  I loved all the varieties of GSH (I had an un-named Gnome Ranger who rode one named_ Mithril..._).

However, I fully understand how it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.

Ditto DarkSun, Planescape, Maztica, Dragonlance, Oriental Adventures and Ravenloft.  All of which sit upon my shelves.

Were they to announce a full hardcover 3.x version of SJ was to be published, I'd put it on my wish list.

Ditto DarkSun, Planescape & Maztica.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (May 9, 2007)

I liked the Cool Stuff in Spelljammer. The chance to travel form one world to the next, the classical cosmology, the hint of the unhuman empires, the fact that Orcs got to be dangerous for a change. Heck, I've taken the Rock of Bral and placed it in the astral for more than one Planescape game...


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I really dislike the "let's force all the settings to interact" paradigm that Spelljammer and Planescape put into the group consciousness about the same time.  Now a group of fans feel every official campaign setting has to be tied to these meta-settings.




There certainly seems to be a group of folks that disliked SJ (and PS to a degree) as metasettings, and I'm not saying that they don't have reasons for their opinions based on play style and campaign focus, but neither SJ nor PS originated the notion of the various TSR worlds being linked, they just formalized and further developed the notion in their own particular ways. Greyhawk, DL, FR etc all shared a common cosmology even starting back in 1e, well before SJ came up with its notions, and before PS expanded upon and fleshed out the planes.


----------



## Baby Samurai (May 9, 2007)

For the record, I totally dig _Spelljammer_.

It really breathed a lot of flavour into certain creatures, notably Elves, Gnomes, Beholders, Illithids and Umberhulks. 

And that hammerhead ship was one of the coolest things I'd ever seen.

And for people that don't want to mix it with their campaign world of choice, you could always say that the world was in a closed crystal sphere (ala Athas - _Dark Sun_).

I still use the 2nd edition _Planescape/Spelljammer _ cosmology fro my D&D campaigns.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 9, 2007)

I absolutely adored Spelljammer, including (Especially?) the goofiness.  Spelljammer was the setting that you could toss anything at the characters, as their were an infinity of spheres out there.  The fish shaped ships were nifty.  And I loved the telepathic penguins. Also, since I was just getting into Anime at the time, all the anime refs (And there were a ton of those, mostly in the monsters), were 'too cool' at the time.

And am I the ONLY one who saw the Giff as being Prussian more then Victorian English?  The Elven empire seemed more like the British then the Giff did. 

That said, I think the setting would do better if it was its own setting, and not linked to all the others.


----------



## an_idol_mind (May 9, 2007)

Spelljammer: cool idea, poor execution.

A lot of its flaws were likely related to poor quality control on TSR's part. TSR had a lot of imagination, but little in the way of business acumen or knowledge of good game design.

I know that one thing that turned me off early on Spelljammer was the reliance on the other settings. I didn't care about Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or the Realms at the time, so the whole "now you can adventure in all three" never appealed to me. And that seemed to be what most of the marketing was focused toward.

I didn't care to see Spelljammer forced into other settings. Sure, it was easy to ignore, but it was like having an extra page of adspace in the supplements. Some significant portions of adventure modules had to get redesigned to push the Spelljammer elements out of it. Again, not too hard, but an annoyance. I buy adventure modules to minimize the work I do. Forcing me to rewrite major treasures and such is an added irritation.

The goofiness was also a problem. There's a difference between light-heartedness and parody. A lot of Spelljammer material seemed to focus on turning the setting into a joke, which turned off a lot of people who saw some really cool concepts there.

Yeah, I could run Spelljammer without the Big Three and without the goofiness. I could also run the Forgotten Realms without the high-level NPCs, Eberron without the warforged, dragonmarks, and lightning rail, or I could put a massive ocean somewhere into the Dark Sun setting. But if I'm going to change a setting that much, why bother buying the setting in the first place? Through their support and supplements, TSR defined what they wanted Spelljammer to be. It's a shame that their definition strayed so far from what would have appealed to a majority of gamers.


----------



## Evilhalfling (May 9, 2007)

Bizzare was truly the right word for it.
The ship combat was bad, the gravity extreamly counterintuitive.  The fact that that a random encounter could be with 10-20 mind flayers or beholders were all problems with the setting. 

Also the silliness was rampart - it was possible to screen for, but even before the afformentioned Space Hampsters - there were dreaded Tinker Gnomes. 

I embraced the silliness My campaign lasted a couple of months - "Halflings in Space!", three halfling PCs, a ship that looked like a swan, and confidence that reality was for groundlings. Spellweavers, pirates, gith


----------



## Henry (May 9, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Wow, that's almost as bad as the beer drinking texan Solar in Throne of Bloodstone. *shiver*




Reading about giff hiding under beds, and beer-drinking Texan Solars... you know, I used to think I had a far too normal life to have repressed memories, but now I'm not so sure... 

I absolutely LOVED Spelljammer back in the early 1990's. I even ran a very long Spelljammer story arc as part of a two-year-long campaign back then. The characters were forced to find out about spelljamming by being dropped onto the Rock of Bral by a freed evil deity, and they basically fought and flew their way back home, freeing an evil-beseiged world, breaking Neogi Slavers, running from Beholder-ships, etc. It was great fun.

A second campaign saw the rise of a game legend in our group: The Giant Battle Sheep, Catapulted onto other spelljamming vessels to wreak havoc. We embraced the "wild and wahoo" elements, much like Gamma World in a way.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 9, 2007)

There hasn't been any serious attempt to make it a coherent setting in its own right. Instead, it was a thin pastiche of the existing D&D setting - something to visit for groundhuggers who wanted to see something more. And that's what held it back.


If I were to rerelease it, I'd do it this way: I'd release a "default" setting that is strongly inspired by the 17th century Age of Sail.

You'd have a small cluster of "core spheres" that are fairly advanced and can support true interstellar navies. This is analogous to 17th century Europe and its Great Powers, who constantly scheme and vie for power with each other - and occasionally go to war with a rival.

Then you'd have a larger cluster of spheres around this. These are partially colonized by the Core Powers - primitive in some ways, but they have resources or strategic locations that are of interest to the interstellar powers. But there is plenty of wilderness still remaining in them - as well as all sorts of weirdness that the "civilized people" of the Core Spheres must struggle against.

And then you have the Periphery - the spheres outside of the influence of the Core Powers. Here the scro, mind flayers, beholders and worse lurk. But there are also untold riches to be claimed by brave adventurers (a fabled "Planet of Gold", perhaps), and a bold enough crew might be able to claim a new world for his Core Power - or even himself.

There should be a real sense of history in this setting - how the power of the Elven Navy waned, how the Core Powers came into being and how their rivalries developed, and what kind of wars and other incidents have been occupying the minds of spacefarers. All in all, it should be a setting the players can truly _immerse_ themselves into.

And that, IMO, requires more than random tables whether any given world is cube- or torus-shaped.


----------



## nothing to see here (May 9, 2007)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> There hasn't been any serious attempt to make it a coherent setting in its own right. Instead, it was a thin pastiche of the existing D&D setting - something to visit for groundhuggers who wanted to see something more. And that's what held it back.
> 
> 
> If I were to rerelease it, I'd do it this way: I'd release a "default" setting that is strongly inspired by the 17th century Age of Sail.
> ...




Ha Jürgen! I don't know if you did it intentionally or not, but you basically just summarized the design rationale behind TSR's Star*Drive campaign setting for the Alternity system. 

Star*Drive was based explicitly around the contrast between a Core Region of Space, a Partially colonized fringe, and a completely menacing frontier.  It also set up the 'great powers'  and history of the setting in such a way that was both evocative and was filled to the brim with campaign possibilities.

Star*Drive was (and still is) a great setting to play a game in.  It was also TSR's next big space-based setting after Spelljammer, so perhaps the designers took in the same lessons you did!


----------



## Ry (May 9, 2007)

I liked Spelljammer, and always thought the basic premise was just never taken anywhere I wanted to go.  

IMC, I use the Void as my Astral Plane.


----------



## Anand (May 9, 2007)

I've always liked the idea of Spelljamming, specially the crystals and the ships. But I never had a chance to play it. The "meta"-way of a character going to Oerth, Toril and Krinn is very appealing to me.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (May 9, 2007)

I loved Spelljammer, for all its flaws.  I appreciated the sense of fun, and just ignored elements that I didn't like.  
I hated the guns and the giff, so I left them out.  And my PCs were never high enough level to handle multiple mind flayers or beholders.

In my experience talking to other gamers, the ones who hated it were NOT those who loved Medieval Europe-flavored fantasy, but those who loved sci-fi games and really got into the sci-fi-science.  For them, SJ's gravity and atmosphere was insultingly fake, whereas their beloved meson cannons and warp engines were realistic.


----------



## Harker Wade (May 9, 2007)

Played Spelljammer as our primary setting throughout high school and into college. I loved the concept so much that I always hinted at the concept in all the games I've run since. Sure there was silly, but only as much as the DM and the players wanted. I have no problem with the phlogiston or the idea of the crystal spheres - they were neat. We rarely used the Big 3 as anyting other then dropoffs or pick-ups for cargo or characters. Spelljammer could explain any campaign specific character a lot better then - 'he's from an unknown area of the world.'

I'd love a proper spelljammer book. The ship combat, the strange new worlds & creatures and of course the fact that magic was just a part of life in the space....


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 9, 2007)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Ha Jürgen! I don't know if you did it intentionally or not, but you basically just summarized the design rationale behind TSR's Star*Drive campaign setting for the Alternity system.
> 
> Star*Drive was based explicitly around the contrast between a Core Region of Space, a Partially colonized fringe, and a completely menacing frontier.  It also set up the 'great powers'  and history of the setting in such a way that was both evocative and was filled to the brim with campaign possibilities.




Well, it's not really a _novel_ idea because that's basically what the Age of Sail really was like - and thus, it makes a great template for any space-based exploratory setting.

I just wish Spelljammer had built more on that - after all, the "feel" of the spelljammer ships was already fairly close to this. All that lacked was a good integration of the actual worlds of the setting.

Instead we got "The Top Ten Reasons Why Elminster/Raistlin/Bigby Does Not Want Groundlings To Know About Spelljamming"...


----------



## Gez (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> That's the main issue I believe is really awful with D&D. They've fed the gamers so much European-flavored fantasy that it's too hard for almost anyone to comprehend that a fantasy setting can be different and SHOULD be different in feel, setting, and flavor.




Of course it's TSR's fault if gamers want that. Of course. 

That's _because_ TSR released Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Oriental Adventures and Al Qadim that these have become niche products. That's because nothing say "European-flavored fantasy" like Beholders and Sahuagins and Rust Monsters and Gelatinous Cubes and so on.

Let's be serious one moment.

I also love how the "vanilla" setting assumptions (which I wouldn't call European-flavored) are elitist. And what are the niche products, then? Populist? Yeah, right.


----------



## Celebrim (May 9, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> Of course it's TSR's fault if gamers want that. Of course.
> 
> That's _because_ TSR released Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Oriental Adventures and Al Qadim that these have become niche products. That's because nothing say "European-flavored fantasy" like Beholders and Sahuagins and Rust Monsters and Gelatinous Cubes and so on.
> 
> ...




Careful, Gez.  You just might be too rational for this thread.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (May 9, 2007)

If you go to the Talking the Talk section you will find that Rystil Arden runs his spelljammer campaigns there and has his own fully realized additions to the setting, such as empires and races and such.


----------



## RichGreen (May 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Spelljammer's biggest problem was that it was presented as a way to tie together the "Big Three" (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and the Forgotten Realms) rather than as a setting in its own right. Some of this was ameliorated later on, but the damage was done.




I think this is probably true. I loved Spelljammer but I think it missed having its own setting at the start which it didn't get until the excellent Astromundi Cluster boxed set came out, ironically one of the last products in the line. 

I ran two SJ campaigns: one that started in the Forgotten Realms with the superb Wildspace module, continuing with Skull and Crossbow, and based mostly on the Rock of Bral, and another one that was set in the Astromundi Cluster. The second one definitely worked better as that boxed set is packed full of adventure ideas and conflicts. 

Oh, and I loved the giff and found the dohwar amusing. There were enough serious monsters in the setting to accomodate these two "funny animal" races too. Worth remembering that SJ gave us the neogi and the arcane (now mercane). The low points for me were Crystal Spheres (a terrible module) and Krynnspace (SJ was a particularly bad fit with Dragonlance).

Cheers


Richard


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (May 9, 2007)

A post above mentions that some SJ hate comes from sci-fi fans who can't stand the altered physics.  My wife and I have debated the merits of SJ off and on for years.  She's a NASA buff, keeping up with all the latest space flight news...and SJ's altered physics bothers her sense of order to the extreme.  It's illogical to her and just too far a stretch to comprehend.  Me, I love it.  Its a fictional universe, why can't it have different laws of physics.  But, everyone has different tastes and unfortunately, SJ didn't appeal to enough of those tastes to really succeed.  

I'm not too fond of all the campaign settings being inter-connected either, although at the same time I like to think of SJ and PS as kitchen sink settings where anything goes.  So, integral parts of the cosmology?  No.  Enough connection that I can have an SJ crew with a Mul, Dracotaur, Kender, Moon Elf, and whatever else my players can come up with?  Absolutely.  There's a certain appeal to giving in to total wackiness every so often.  My point: Sj elements in FR, GH, DL = not good.  FR, GH, DL, and everything else elements in my SJ = rock on.


----------



## carmachu (May 9, 2007)

Graf said:
			
		

> It's confusing as to why it's got all the hate. Lots of people don't like Dragonlance but they rarely turn up to post about how it was dumb/stupid/etc.
> I think there is still a drive among some gamers to insist that the hobby must be "serious". "We're saving the world!" "No fooling around!" etc. etc.
> (the Spelljammer novels went this route, it was actually painful to read about this mopey protagonist wandering around)




Again, some of you arent listening. You state that we can just ignore parts that they slip into other campaign settings with spelljammer stuff.

The point is we shouldnt HAVE to. People who dislike Dragonlance, as an example, dont go out of their way to hate it, becuase no one is trying to stick DL stuff in Ebberon or FR or GreyHawk.

When you annoy people by forcing something down their throat, expect backlash.


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2007)

Please don't tell people what they are or aren't doing. 

Whether you love Spelljammer or hate it, our expectation is that this thread will stay civil. Thanks!


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (May 9, 2007)

As I recall, there were a few novels that attempted to cross the FR and DL streams.  Something to do with Fistandantilus or some such.  So, yeah, Kender have invaded the 'realms at least once.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Anyone thinking that Spelljammer didn't conform to Western myth and fantasy needs to spend some time researching the pre-Galileo beliefs about the cosmos. It's lifted almost entirely from real-world beliefs.
> 
> That said, it'd be a lot better off if the game worlds had been designed with crystal spheres and the like from the get-go, instead of having everything retro-fitted into them later. (Although, ironically, that's sort of thematically appropriate, given that the ancient astronomers bent themselves into pretzels to justify celestial movements that kept Earth at the center of the universe.)




That was kind of my biggest dislike of Spelljammer, actually. I really thought the concept sounded cool before the specifics came out (and loved the artwork for it), but didn't care for the phlogiston and crystal spheres- I didn't know at the time that there existed any basis for it in RW history, and was intrigued when I later discovered that it did- but it still didn't fit in with my conception of what the various TSR cosmologies were supposed to be like (as they had been presented) at that time.

I'd have much preferred it if it had just been regular space travel, utilizing Astral travel for insterstellar transportation or the like (there was an article in Dragon magazine around the time Spelljammer first came out, in fact, that was pretty much like my conception of it- I think it was even called Astraljammers).

I absolutely loved the notion of tying these various fantasy worlds together, and having them all exist in the same cosmology (one of the reasons I liked Planescape, too), but didn't care for the underlying means with which it was achieved. Had the whole thing been set up that way from the beginning, as you suggest, it might have gone down easier.


----------



## F5 (May 9, 2007)

I think I'm in the minority here, as a DM that's actually RUN a spelljamer campaign.  Two actually, although one was just a week-long one-shot running through one of the SJ modules.  The campaign that I ran was actually pretty successful, I think for two reasons.

First, I made my own solar system/setting.  No mucking around with Toril and Krynn and all that, I started with the random tables and built a whole system to run the campaign in.  It's really not that much different than creating a homebrew world, except that instead of your myaterious frontier existing in "faraway lands" you're putting your frontier on other worlds.  So, I kind of had the benefit of a core setting, that was lacking in the out-of-the-box stuff.

The other thing that worked was that I was running the game for people 5 or 6 years younger than me, and I was about 17 at the time.  Instead of the goofy parts of the setting turning them off, they really connected with it.  The goofiness worked, because when 11-year-olds play D&D, I've found that it gets pretty silly anyway.  

I actually like the altered-physics of the gravity and atmosphere rules, and whatnot.  I saw it as a universe where physics really worked more fantastically, and less...um...physically?  I threw some echoes of this into "groundling" physics, too: the reason that enormous dragons can fly is that when they take to the air they create their own gravity-plane.  That kind of thing, that's fun to have a wise old wizard babble on about, as long as you don't question it too rigorously.  

I'll echo the sentiments that if they put out a revised 3.5 Core Setting book for Spelljammer, I'd get it.  There's got to be room for swashbuckling fantasy space pirates in magical flying ships.


----------



## The_Warlock (May 9, 2007)

As I recall the Astral Variant article was "Voidjammers", a very cool article which translated in the 3E Incursion details/module with the concept that the Gith had ships which they wouldsend through portals to worlds they intended to conquer.

See, when SJ came out, I was hooked. As much as they came up with off the wall and goofball ideas, they also had several very entertaining, thought-provoking and cool concepts, often with enough leeway in the presentation that the DM had plenty of room to work with to flesh out what he wanted it to actually be, or link it to his more common terrestrial campaigns.

I also enjoyed the meta-setting concept, that if you wanted to, here was an explanation for how to link everything together without chancing the extraordinary danger often presented by Planar Travel (though that received it's own reworking later with Planescape).

Ever since it's inception, I've included bits in my more terrestrial campaign, and the PCs have been continuingly intriqued by the possibilities, even though they haven't leapt to the stars themselves.

And I always found the tie-in material in core world settings to be fairly non-invasive in the sense that it was easily removed or re-imagined if you didn't like it.

And while there were several Wahoooo Goofy things in SJ, it should be noted that most of the terrestrial core worlds have their fair share of goofball support material over the years and editions, but people are able to more easily edit it out of their world view as most were module/adventure based, despite the fact that things like modules EX1 and 2 were referenced connonically in GH. As such, I never felt any more obligated to include everything, serious or goofy, in my campaigns than I did from any other source, so it's hard for me to understand that particular source of frustration. 

In the end I still love SJ, and it will likely always be a part of any of the core world campaigning I do, whther it's a primary or merely background element. 

In the end, I think it's greatest failing was it tried to cover too many bases, and appeal to too many tastes by interlinking things, while not appealing to those same varied tastes by providing more options for how to define the interlinkage of worlds as a DM toolbox. But I still dig it!

Long Live the Great Bombard!


----------



## Schmoe (May 9, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> The other thing that worked was that I was running the game for people 5 or 6 years younger than me, and I was about 17 at the time.  Instead of the goofy parts of the setting turning them off, they really connected with it.  The goofiness worked, because when 11-year-olds play D&D, I've found that it gets pretty silly anyway.




Eureka!  When my son turns 11 (only 8 years from now  ), I will run him through the wildest, wackiest, funnest*, spell-jammingest D&D campaign ever.  I can't wait.  



_* - Grammar disregarded for literary purposes._


----------



## Odhanan (May 9, 2007)

I love Spelljammer! 

The two main reasons it didn't work I think: 1/ the second-degree goofiness and 2/ the weirdness of the setting's inner logic. Basically, these two reasons combine in saying that Spelljammer challenged the verisimilitude of D&D by adding one more layer of disbelief on top of the traditional fantasy gamers feel comfortable with. Some gamers (like myself) really welcomed the change in pace and style (a setting truly original), others just shunned it. 

Planescape came then, making the whole pan-setting idea more "believable" in the minds of many D&D fans. Spelljammer would never catch up from there. 

I still have the boxed set. I still love the setting. I'd love to play it again!


----------



## Kesh (May 9, 2007)

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
			
		

> Reading this thread, I can't help but wonder if any of those who disliked Spelljammer for reasons aside from it being "D&D in space" happened to like Dragonstar - I haven't seen that 3E setting mentioned here yet...
> 
> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/dragonstar.html
> 
> I thought the premise of Dragons ruling the galaxy was actually pretty cool;and perhaps more more plausable than bipedal Hippos and other such fluffiness that I could never take seriously enough to let myself get pulled into.




Dragonstar really struck me as "Spelljammer done right." It's an excellent setting, that I'd love to run a campaign in. Again, though, a lot of people hear "D&D in Space" and just dismiss it outright.


----------



## Odhanan (May 9, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I knew some DMs drew some inspiration from Spelljammer, but I don't know any that ran the campaign.




Well me, for instance. Some of my favorite AD&D moments occurred while running Spelljammer!


----------



## Arnwyn (May 9, 2007)

RedFox said:
			
		

> Because it's not to everyone's tastes.  It's probably a little too "bizarre" for mainstream fantasy.  Look at the number of folks who dislike monks as a class simply because they don't conform to their genre expectations, and then extrapolate that out to embrace a fantasy concept of dyson spheres and luminiferous ether and magitek sailing ships.
> 
> It was bound to be a niche product, if that.  That it was created as a "meta-setting" that intruded on everyone's favorite settings was probably the proverbial straw that broke the camels' backs.
> 
> Me, I love it.  But I have no illusions about it having broad appeal.



I'm going to totally QFT this post, as it describes how I feel perfectly.

I, too, am under no illusions as to its lack of popularity. It _is_ goofy, and it _is_ downright strange. For example, I did a major judge-the-book-by-its-cover when Spelljammer first came out and thought it was the stupidest thing I ever heard of. However, a buddy bought it (why, man, why?) and a short time later gave it to me and simply said: Just. Read. It.

I was hooked... and this is coming from an FR fan/DM, who (to this day) very much appreciates the few SJ references in FR material that cropped up over time (and even more so, Ed Greenwood's SJ accessory, further tying SJ to FR).

I ran a SJ story arc, taking place in the Tears of Selune in Realmspace, years ago, and it was an absolute blast, cementing my love for this setting. So much so that we use SJ in our long-running FR game, all converted to 3.5.

(But popular? Heh. No surprise it wasn't, if my first reaction of disgust is anything to go by...)


----------



## Brother MacLaren (May 9, 2007)

I ran a Spelljammer campaign.  There's something liberating about it being so, well, fantastic.

Running a "traditional" game, I feel more of an obligation to extrapolate the logical consequences of each setting element on things like economy, politics, culture, and day-to-day life.  What are the impacts of having a 3rd-level cleric in every village? 

But with Spelljammer, it's just so over-the-top that you don't worry about most such things.  It's easier to be silly and just have fun.  The only bit of "realism" I had to even bother with was the extreme improbability of ever running across somebody in space considering how vast space is... so you postulate that perhaps helms are slightly drawn towards other helms... oh, and why beings as strong as hill giants (giff) would be using guns.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> I'll echo the sentiments that if they put out a revised 3.5 Core Setting book for Spelljammer, I'd get it.  There's got to be room for swashbuckling fantasy space pirates in magical flying ships.



My players would freak out and all demand to play swashbucklers or rogues (the first time that would have ever happened to me).



			
				Kesh said:
			
		

> Dragonstar really struck me as "Spelljammer done right." It's an excellent setting, that I'd love to run a campaign in. Again, though, a lot of people hear "D&D in Space" and just dismiss it outright.



Isn't it much more high-tech than Spelljammer?


----------



## Korgoth (May 9, 2007)

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but what I don't like about SpellJammer are the pseudo-antique physics.  I'd much rather have a "D&D in Space" supplement that used up-to-date physical assumptions.  I dig the space-faring sailing vessel idea, but it should have to be insulated against vacuum and radiation.  You should have to face 'mundane' hazards like black holes and pulsars as well as the fantastical stuff.

I'd keep things in SJ mostly like they were, but I'd have it be D&D in realistic outer space.  So part of it would be solving the physical challenges of space exploration with magic and ancient technology.  Plus there'd be swashbuckling, wizard's duels, gun hippos and all the other stuff.  A monolith would show up at some point.


----------



## Odhanan (May 9, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm in the minority, but what I don't like about SpellJammer are the pseudo-antique physics.




Interesting you should say that, Korgoth, because the pseudo-antique physics, as you call them, are exactly what got me into Spelljammer in the first place.


----------



## The_Warlock (May 9, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm in the minority, but what I don't like about SpellJammer are the pseudo-antique physics.  I'd much rather have a "D&D in Space" supplement that used up-to-date physical assumptions.  I dig the space-faring sailing vessel idea, but it should have to be insulated against vacuum and radiation.  You should have to face 'mundane' hazards like black holes and pulsars as well as the fantastical stuff.
> 
> I'd keep things in SJ mostly like they were, but I'd have it be D&D in realistic outer space.  So part of it would be solving the physical challenges of space exploration with magic and ancient technology.  Plus there'd be swashbuckling, wizard's duels, gun hippos and all the other stuff.  A monolith would show up at some point.




See, I LIKE the weird, archaic physics...driven almost by belief rather than science. I felt it was an extension of the concepts that some of the designers had put forth in other books of the time, and which seemed to reach full flower in Planescape, that sometimes belief was as powerful a force as any mundane effect such as gravity or physical matter.

It also prevented players with too much science background from running roughshod over their gamemaster or other players when they wanted to do something fun and swashbucklery (not a word). Weird physics is all about ping ponging the swashbuckler through the gravity plane with paired starwheel pistols...

chuckle


----------



## FreeXenon (May 9, 2007)

We loved Spelljammer and we loved Darksun. 

'Our preciouses'

The connecting all other game worlds thing was annoying and something that we just ignored. I  think that its cool-factor, which not everyone found so, and TSR's glut of campaign settings helped in its demise. 

We misses our Spelljammer. There was Dragon Star for 3E which was very interesting.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 9, 2007)

Deleted by Mod


----------



## Shadeydm (May 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You should go back and reread your original post. You were absolutely being insulting.




I just reread his original post, who exactly is he insulting? Are you refering to the brain just shuts down part. It is pretty common that some folks read through a setting once and just think, yuk this crap isn't for me, and just refuse to reconsider (like my view of Eberron for example).


----------



## FreeXenon (May 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> It is pretty common that some folks read through a setting once and just think, yuk this crap isn't for me, and just refuse to reconsider (like my view of Eberron for example).



 For shame... Eberron rocks. I did that with Mystara and Hollow World, and Maztica and a few others. It didn't just catch my fancy first time through.


----------



## Gez (May 9, 2007)

carmachu said:
			
		

> People who dislike Dragonlance, as an example, dont go out of their way to hate it, becuase no one is trying to stick DL stuff in Ebberon or FR or GreyHawk.



For example, the FR gnomes have _not_ been changed from shy and reclusive illusion specialists ("The Forgotten Folk of the Forgotten Realms") to a bunch of Dragonlance-style Tinkers. The mechanics-focused country of the Realms, Lantan, has not been retconned from an exotic human nation to the homeworld of these Tinker gnomes that haven't been stuck in the Realms from Krynn.

Yeah. That's what I thought.


I am really thankful House Cannith is not a gnome house in Eberron.


----------



## Ourph (May 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I just reread his original post, who exactly is he insulting?




I had the same question.


----------



## Razz (May 9, 2007)

Here's something for the naysayers on SJ:

The only valid arguments I've seen here ended up not being valid at all. The first was expecting D&D-space physics to be exactly like real-world physics. It's a fantasy game with fantastically odd sense of physics. I am glad space in D&D didn't turn out like real-world space or we'd have a Star Wars rip-off.

Speaking of which, the other debate on SJ was it's "goofiness". Um, Star Wars has goofiness in it yet tons of people still like Star Wars. Dragonlance had those stupid, goofy Gully Dwarves and kleptomaniac kender and tinker gnomes....yet Dragonlance didn't lose its fan base because of that. Heck, I've even seen Planescape with goofy stuff (and, no, don't you dare say modrons) and it still became rather popular.

I dunno about some people here, but as I've said before, I'm looking through these SJ monstrous compendiums and the creatures in these other SJ sourcebooks and I find a lot of these creatures really neat. Rogue Moons and Astereaters and all other sorts of unique D&D-space creatures sparks enough of an imagination for me to just get up and start a 3E SJ...somehow.


----------



## The_Warlock (May 9, 2007)

I'm with Razz on this...

Oh...

WITCHLIGHT MARAUDERS for the WIN!


----------



## Rel (May 9, 2007)

Ok, things are getting out of hand here.  Contrarian and Whizbang, do not post any further in this thread.


----------



## Celebrim (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Here's something for the naysayers on SJ:
> 
> The only valid arguments I've seen here ended up not being valid at all. The first was expecting D&D-space physics to be exactly like real-world physics. It's a fantasy game with fantastically odd sense of physics. I am glad space in D&D didn't turn out like real-world space or we'd have a Star Wars rip-off.




Seems like you keep saying that people are wrong for not liking the same things you do.



> Speaking of which, the other debate on SJ was it's "goofiness". Um, Star Wars has goofiness in it yet tons of people still like Star Wars.




But no one is required to like Star Wars.



> Dragonlance had those stupid, goofy Gully Dwarves and kleptomaniac kender and tinker gnomes....yet Dragonlance didn't lose its fan base because of that.




But no one is required to like Dragon lance or even Gully Dwarves.



> Heck, I've even seen Planescape with goofy stuff (and, no, don't you dare say modrons) and it still became rather popular.




Gee, that is a puzzler isn't it.

Anyway, back to this notion of 'validity'.  If we assume all the stated personal reasons that people did not like Spelljammer are invalid, then it follows that there is no reason not to like Spelljammer.  But Spelljammer wasn't very popular.  

Man, that is a puzzler.


----------



## Odhanan (May 9, 2007)

*sigh* Seems to me some people on this thread just argue on the tone and words rather than what other posters are actually saying. I think this completely spoils the conversation.

We'll get nowhere from here on. 

With this, I bid you good day, gents. I'm going to be posting elsewhere.


----------



## the Jester (May 9, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Because they weren't alternate material planes. Toril, Oerth, Krynn, Athas, Ortho, Threnody, Falx, etc were all part of the same prime material plane. The prime wasn't just a single planet and nothing else, it was just as infinite as the other planes, dotted with innumerable other worlds.




Then how come you can _plane shift_ from Oerth to Toril?

There were some serious logical flaws in the SJ setting. They tried to have it both ways- fly through space to another world! Er, that you can also reach via _plane shift, astral spell,_ or whathaveyou.


----------



## Voadam (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> (and, no, don't you dare say modrons)




Modrons!


----------



## Voadam (May 9, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Then how come you can _plane shift_ from Oerth to Toril?
> 
> There were some serious logical flaws in the SJ setting. They tried to have it both ways- fly through space to another world! Er, that you can also reach via _plane shift, astral spell,_ or whathaveyou.




When could you plane shift from GH to FR?


----------



## FreeXenon (May 9, 2007)

Being able to PS directly to different worlds would really take the mystery and fun out of having different worlds, especially a Darksun (which was at one point a closed sphere) like world during 2E.

SJ was flawed in its own way, but as long as you ignored the inconsistencies it was a hell-of-a-good time.


----------



## The_Warlock (May 9, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Anyway, back to this notion of 'validity'.  If we assume all the stated personal reasons that people did not like Spelljammer are invalid, then it follows that there is no reason not to like Spelljammer.  But Spelljammer wasn't very popular.
> 
> Man, that is a puzzler.




Actually, the original post asks "Why didn't SJ Do Well?" Not why did others not like it. Nor that is was wrong to not like it.

And in the sense that Razz sees the arguments as invalid is not a jab at people's personal preferences or likes, but that several of the positted reasons, singularly, have corrolaries in other campaign settings - since examples of these potential reasons for failure exist in successful settings - singularly, it is unlikely that they can stand as the only reason or reasons why SJ failed.

While I didn't feel trod upon by the meta-campaign in the Core World products, I can understand the potential for strong response against that, both on a personal and preference aspect, and from the monetary point of view (ie, "wasted pages" that aren't part of what the buyer is purchasing). And that more than any of the "goof" mechanics, to me, has held up as a more viable reason.

In the end, I think the reason for failure was a combination of poor presentation (large font, wasted space, etc) and the trying to please too many people's preferences for intertwining game worlds without giving them more obvious control or optional mechanicsms for that meta-campaign. Very few people like being shoehorned or railroaded into a single option. 

However, I never got the feeling from Razz that he was saying you couldn't like SJ, only that several of the statements for its failure didn't make sense, given similar precedence in other successes.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 9, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But no one is required to like Star Wars.




*Someone* forgot the Geek Certification Act of 1992.  (snicker)

Brad


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Here's something for the naysayers on SJ:
> 
> The only valid arguments I've seen here ended up not being valid at all.




"It's not my cup of tea" isn't a valid argument?


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Then how come you can _plane shift_ from Oerth to Toril?




Since when have you ever been able to do that?


----------



## Ripzerai (May 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> via an explicitly long, difficult and uncertain journey through the darkest parts of the Plane of Shadow.




Actually, according to the 3e _Manual of the Planes_, page 61, it takes 1d4 hours. That's it. Hardly a long journey. Not so difficult, either. Sure, there are monsters, but there are monsters everywhere. It doesn't much matter how rough the terrain is when the trip's over in 1d4 hours. Maybe the mountain's higher than any mountain on the Material Plane, but you only have to scale it for less than an afternoon before you can open the portal. The MotP also mentions _Shadow Portals_ that allow you to make the journey instantaneously.

By contrast, spelljamming takes months or years (it takes 72 days just to get from the sun to the edge of a crystal shell in a typical sphere, and the second half of that journey won't have planets or asteroids to resupply at - then another 10-100 days through the phlogiston to the next sphere, and who's to say the next sphere is where you want to go?) and you're exposing yourself to the dangers of wildspace and the phlogiston, risking asphyxiation, dehydration, and starvation, not to mention pirates, slavers, and monsters the size of planets. 

If your complaint is the ease of accessibility of other settings, Spelljammer beats the Plane of Shadow hands down for a truly challenging voyage.


----------



## Glyfair (May 9, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Greyhawk, DL, FR etc all shared a common cosmology even starting back in 1e, well before SJ came up with its notions, and before PS expanded upon and fleshed out the planes.



D&D had a cosmology that was carried between worlds (although I wasn't aware it applied to Dragonlance specifically).  That cosmology did have options for having alternate worlds.  

However, that's a far step for specifying that you can get from setting A to setting B.  Once it was specified then it became expected as the norm.  

Note that I don't count fiction.  That means that Ed Greenwood's articles on the three archmages don't count as tying the worlds together.  It also means that the Runequest Griselda story that had Redfox appear in Glorantha doesn't tie her world into Glorantha.


----------



## Korgoth (May 9, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Here's something for the naysayers on SJ:
> 
> The only valid arguments I've seen here ended up not being valid at all. The first was expecting D&D-space physics to be exactly like real-world physics. It's a fantasy game with fantastically odd sense of physics. I am glad space in D&D didn't turn out like real-world space or we'd have a Star Wars rip-off.




Hey, I was just indicating my personal perference.  That's why _I personally_ do not feel excited about SpellJammer.  Am I wrong - am I actually excited about SpellJammer but somehow fail to see how excited I am about it?

Also, "Star Wars rip-off" is a total straw man.  I thought I indicated that I liked the idea of sailing ships in space... I just wanted it to be like actual space.  Solving the problems of space travel in a medieval milieu using magic rather than computers and advanced materials technology.  That's different from Star Wars.

If you like it, good for you.  That's cool that you like it.  I think it has some interesting ideas.  But ultimately, it leaves me "meh" because of the physics issue.  Isn't that the sort of thing you wanted to know from this thread?


----------



## AllisterH (May 9, 2007)

Like others, I think the main problem with SJ was that it didn't have a setting of its own and thus seemed to always having to be "part of the big 3, yet not defined by it".

PS I think was more successful in establishing itself. What I actually found/remembered from r.g.f.d was that people would use elements of PS but not SJ BECAUSE PS never intruded on to FR.


----------



## RedFox (May 9, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Note that I don't count fiction.  That means that Ed Greenwood's articles on the three archmages don't count as tying the worlds together.  It also means that the Runequest Griselda story that had Redfox appear in Glorantha doesn't tie her world into Glorantha.


----------



## the Jester (May 9, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Since when have you ever been able to do that?




Er... since 1e.

Why not? Alternate material planes and all that. Heck, I'm pretty sure that the old "wizards three" articles in Dragon involved one or two of them _plane shifting_ in from time to time.


----------



## Shemeska (May 9, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> D&D had a cosmology that was carried between worlds (although I wasn't aware it applied to Dragonlance specifically).  That cosmology did have options for having alternate worlds.




While the 1e material evolved quite a bit as it transitioned into 2e (and has continued to evolve for better or for worse since then), it had what were then called "alternate material planes" all linked to the same common inner and outer planes.

The 1e MotP for instance was pretty explicit in linking them together what with all the various cultural pantheons all existing in the same set of planes, and that was the least of it. Takhisis of DL/Krynn is named in the entry on Tiamat (in 1e it was claimed that she and tiamat were the same, while 2e onwards has had them as seperate beings), and so Krynn was certainly intended to be within that cosmology (the latter-day revisionism of 3e DL notwithstanding).

1e FR material had FR within the same shared cosmology as well, among other examples. The linkage did become more and more frequent towards the later years of that edition.


----------



## Shemeska (May 10, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Er... since 1e.
> 
> Why not? Alternate material planes and all that. Heck, I'm pretty sure that the old "wizards three" articles in Dragon involved one or two of them _plane shifting_ in from time to time.




Having looked at the appendix for the 1e MotP, seems you're right. In 1e at least it was possible. Wierd. Still, given how they defined the prime at times during that edition, that would mesh with the mechanics of using a planeshift. Though 2e's evolution of the prime material made that impossible, and 3e has likewise seemed to tacitly acknowledge SJ without going into it in much detail, and tried to make the Shadow plane the primary conduit between seperate worlds on the prime. 

I don't recall the situation of planeshift being addressed in 3e so far as prime world to prime world goes, but I suspect that it wouldn't be possible to directly go between them with a planeshift (though hitting the planes and then planeshift back to a different world would be kosher).


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2007)

I liked it, but never ran a Spelljammer campaign.  I used a lot of the material in my home game, and statted out the worlds in my Crystal Sphere.  I even included least helms that only flew within a planetary atmosphere.

It was a fun setting.

RC


----------



## IanB (May 10, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> *Shrug* I fail to see the significance. There was no map of the crystal spheres that I can recall. If you wanted your greyhawk campaign to steer clear of the realms then it could be a thousand year trip from Greyhawk to the realms, or the route could be simply unknown. You had total control over where your players went.
> 
> Plus while Eberron has it's own setup, both Greyhawk and the Realms use the Great Wheel cosmology and so default to being linked.




Coming back to this thread many hours later... 3.X Forgotten Realms does not use the Great Wheel cosmology, and does not default to any such thing. There are some shared plane names, but that's as far as it goes. I forget which book spells out the new FR cosmology - the Player's Guide maybe?


----------



## Kmart Kommando (May 10, 2007)

I have three words for you:

Iron Heroes Spelljammer

It would fit right in with the whole 'magic is dangerous' theme, and just think of the kinds of stunts you could pull with gravity planes and upper and lower decks..   

What could be cooler than snapping off a round with your trusty flintlock, and then literally jumping into space to get to the other ship's deck?

My group, for the most part, say they don't like Spelljammer, but then, they haven't played IH yet either.  My IH game starts soon, maybe they'll get into space eventually.


----------



## Rabelais (May 10, 2007)

*Giff d20?*

Anybody statted out the giff?  I could use somehing like this for my planescape game


----------



## Pants (May 10, 2007)

I'm going to defend SJ here for a minute, bear with me...



			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm in the minority, but what I don't like about SpellJammer are the pseudo-antique physics.  I'd much rather have a "D&D in Space" supplement that used up-to-date physical assumptions.  I dig the space-faring sailing vessel idea, but it should have to be insulated against vacuum and radiation.  You should have to face 'mundane' hazards like black holes and pulsars as well as the fantastical stuff.



That kinda defeats the purpose of SJ, turning it from a wacky, wahoo style game into, well, pretty much any generic Sci-Fi game. The 'appeal' of SJ, as I see it, is with how incredibly strange it is and how it takes time-honored concepts of 'space' and twists them into wholly unique directions.

The execution may have been lacking, but the idea was still kinda cool.



> I'd keep things in SJ mostly like they were, but I'd have it be D&D in realistic outer space.



Realistic and D&D don't go together. 



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> The only valid arguments I've seen here ended up not being valid at all.



Thank god you're here so that I know what's valid and what isn't.



> Speaking of which, the other debate on SJ was it's "goofiness". Um, Star Wars has goofiness in it yet tons of people still like Star Wars. Dragonlance had those stupid, goofy Gully Dwarves and kleptomaniac kender and tinker gnomes....yet Dragonlance didn't lose its fan base because of that.



DL does get a lot of flak for its stupid races, fortunately the stupid races are relatively contained within one setting (aside from some small cross pollution via PS or retconns   ). SJ, being a 'tie your settings together' thing, spread its potential stupidity everywhere... where it didn't belong.



> I dunno about some people here, but as I've said before, I'm looking through these SJ monstrous compendiums and the creatures in these other SJ sourcebooks and I find a lot of these creatures really neat. Rogue Moons and Astereaters and all other sorts of unique D&D-space creatures sparks enough of an imagination for me to just get up and start a 3E SJ...somehow.



It's a concept called 'tastes differ.'



			
				Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> "It's not my cup of tea" isn't a valid argument?



No. 



			
				IanB said:
			
		

> Coming back to this thread many hours later... 3.X Forgotten Realms does not use the Great Wheel cosmology, and does not default to any such thing. There are some shared plane names, but that's as far as it goes. I forget which book spells out the new FR cosmology - the Player's Guide maybe?



This board needs a can of worms smiley...


----------



## Michael Silverbane (May 10, 2007)

Rabelais said:
			
		

> Anybody statted out the giff?  I could use somehing like this for my planescape game




You can find a 3.5 version of the giff here.

Later
silver


----------



## danzig138 (May 10, 2007)

DragonBelow said:
			
		

> it was awesome, it's like Pirates of the Caribbean but in space



You pretty much nailed what I didn't like about it. PIRATES IN SPPAAAAAACCCCEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not my bag. Some of the creature were ok (I thought the GSH were pretty funny), but otherwise, yeah, it just wasn't my thing. I don't like pirates, sailing ships, sailing ship adventures, swashbuckling, etc. And it did seem to come up in other products a little too much for my taste as well. But it worked for other people, so more power to them.


----------



## Korgoth (May 10, 2007)

Pants said:
			
		

> That kinda defeats the purpose of SJ, turning it from a wacky, wahoo style game into, well, pretty much any generic Sci-Fi game. The 'appeal' of SJ, as I see it, is with how incredibly strange it is and how it takes time-honored concepts of 'space' and twists them into wholly unique directions.




I really have absolutely no idea where this is coming from.  Wizards and Paladins sailing through space on a galleon is somehow "generic Sci-Fi"?  Anything that has space be an actual vacuum is "generic Sci-Fi?"  I don't get that.  What I posited had sailing ships in outer space, wizards, knights, dragons, beholders, mind flayers, hippopotamus men and wands of fireball, but simply because in my version you still can't breathe in outer space that's "generic Sci-Fi"?

That's... utterly incomprehensible to me.


----------



## Hairfoot (May 10, 2007)

My thoughts, agreements and additions:

1.  When released, SJ broke too many conventions to be popular, but the orthodoxies of the fantasy genre have been blown wide open by now, so SJ deserves another look.  It fits in with 3.5 far better than AD&D.

2.  If traditional/converted SJ isn't your cup of tea, I highly recommend you check out Shadows of the Spider Moon before casting judgement.  I wish it was an entire sourcebook.

3.  Has Disney's "Treasure Planet" been mentioned in this thread?  It's a de-facto Spelljammer movie.  Ignore the predictable, saccharine plot and characters, and enjoy the aesthetic.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 10, 2007)

I thought Spelljammer was a lot of fun, but a combination of three factors is what *I* guess did the setting in:

1) Crossover. I understand why people resented the idea of another setting intruding on their favourite world; I think it's a foolish complaint, given how easy such impositions are to ignore - though that _Ruins of Greyhawk_ bit Whizbang mentioned would really have sucked - but I appreciate that it's one a lot of people had nonetheless.

2) Goofiness. Tinker gnomes with giant hamsters, giff and dracotaurs, even the Hammerhead and Nautilus spelljammers were too silly for some.

3) Diversion from the core mode of play. Like it or not, the majority of _D&D_ play has always been about worlds with countries and wilderness and dungeons to explore and kill things in and loot. I'm no more surprised that Spelljammer wasn't popular than I am when primarily sea-based campaigns aren't popular - most people want towns and dungeons and caves and forests to adventure in and around.


----------



## Pants (May 10, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I really have absolutely no idea where this is coming from.  Wizards and Paladins sailing through space on a galleon is somehow "generic Sci-Fi"?  Anything that has space be an actual vacuum is "generic Sci-Fi?"  I don't get that.  What I posited had sailing ships in outer space, wizards, knights, dragons, beholders, mind flayers, hippopotamus men and wands of fireball, but simply because in my version you still can't breathe in outer space that's "generic Sci-Fi"?



I'm talking more about the generic sci-fi threats like black holes and such actually. Though YMMV obviously, I just think the completely unspacelike nature of SJ is part of its charm I suppose.


----------



## Graf (May 10, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> It's no different than your best friend's spellcaster who can cast _plane shift_ by the time he's 9th level on everyone in the party and take you to an infinite number of planes in your world's cosmology...or another cosmology by rolling his Knowledge (the planes) check and journeying through the Plane of Shadow.



While I like Spelljammer I think this isn't really a factually valid statement.
Some other people have touched on it but to bring it fully out:

Spelljammer is totally different. I'm not saying it's good/bad/black/white/whatever but its not comparable.
They're different mechanisms, and different story engines
Spelljammer has travel time; Planeshift doesn't (read: random encounters en route)
Planeshift has hostile arriving environment possibilties; Spelljammer: you're fine inside of your ship
Spelljammer means dealing with resources like food and water; Planeshift (nope)
Spelljammer the means of movement (ship) can be attacked or stolen; Planeshift: effectively impossible to stop or attack the spell
Planeshift: almost no control of destination; Spelljammer: total control of destination 
Planeshift can go home anytime just cast the spell (or use a color pool or whatever); Spelljammer going home is going to take days or weeks in the ship

At a story level
Planeshift
At 9th level I cast _Planeshift_... I have -no- control over where I will wind up on an -infinite- plane.
Which is a fancy way of saying: They go wherever the DM wants. Since they're traveling around the planes anything can happen really but only because the DM makes the possibility available.
Lets say that he wants to have them rescue a community from an attack by raiders. Wherever they arrive: "There's a community! There are raiders. You see them chasing a woman with an infant! The raiders see you! And some of them break off and attack!![/i]"

Spelljammer
The players move, of their own volition, wherever they want. And they'll have the right to basic information about where they're going. 
DM: The closest area is a forested planet, which has been plagued by raiders.
Players: Boring! We want to go to that Egyptian world. The one with the buried temples. That the trader mentioned 5 sessions ago. We get in the ship and go!
DM: OK.... You get to the system and...
Players: OK. We want to find the biggest city on the planet.
DM: Ok.... You go the biggest City...
Players: We can see it from above right? We want to go to the market place
DM: Ok.... you can see a big bustling market place...
etc.
etc.

It's just not the same system either from a mechanics or (more importantly in my mind) a story perspective.


----------



## Baby Samurai (May 10, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Takhisis of DL/Krynn is named in the entry on Tiamat (in 1e it was claimed that she and tiamat were the same, while 2e onwards has had them as seperate beings)




Even in the 2nd edition _Planescape_ boxed set they stated that Tiamat and Takhsis are one and the same and that the clueless of Krynn mistakenly refer to the first plane of hell (Avernus) as the Abyss.

They might have changed this with later _Planescape_ products – I'll check when I get home.


----------



## Pbartender (May 10, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I am glad space in D&D didn't turn out like real-world space or we'd have a Star Wars rip-off.




You never took a look at the Spelljammer adventure _Wildspace_, did you?

That's the one with the moon-sized battle station shaped like a beholder that shoots giant planet destroying super death rays out of its eyes...  It's the heroes' job to fly inside the thing and destroy it.


----------



## Andor (May 10, 2007)

I don't get the hatred for the Giff. Why is a vaugly hippoish humanoid more threatening to suspension of disbelief than a hyena like one (gnoll), or a green rubber wolverine (troll), or a centaur or a harpy or a dwarf made out of flaming metal (azer)?

Personally the only thing about SJ that ever bothered me were those damm tinker gnomes. If ever there was a race that seemed like the types to put a screen door on a submarine it was those little idiots.

As for real world physics in space... Why? What do you get out of it? 

A quasar? If you're within about 400 light years of it the radiation will vaporize you instantly.
A black hole? Possibly useful as a plot device to get rid of the macguffin of the week I suppose.
Vacume? Actually the was vacume in space in Spelljammer. It's just that every object had a gravity field that would hold some air around it. A single medium sized creature (If I recall correctly) had about 10 minuetes of air in it's personal air bubble. Which frankly works a lot better that "The scro pierces your suit with a rapier. Start trying to breath blood."


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 10, 2007)

Spelljammer is my favorite setting of all time.  Since it came out, meshing with its setting tropes has been the only reason I ever run games with actual D&D rules.

For years, people not liking Spelljammer was just inconcievable to me.  Everyone in my family games at least liked the setting, and some were as devoted to it as I was, and either most of the other gaming groups I played with liked it or it didn't come up.

Of late, though, I've run into several objections from other players:

1. The Ptolemaic physics.
2. The blend of fantasy and space, and non-traditional fantasy in general.
3. Stepping on the toes of other settings.

The first two in particular have proven highly effective barometers for finding people with whom I'm going to butt heads about *any* setting; what they want out of fantasy is diametrically opposed to what I want.  Some of them are top notch players, and we can often get along great in sci-fi or supers or horror games, but fantasy's pretty much out.


----------



## Piratecat (May 10, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> The first two in particular have proven highly effective barometers for finding people with whom I'm going to butt heads about *any* setting; what they want out of fantasy is diametrically opposed to what I want.  Some of them are top notch players, and we can often get along great in sci-fi or supers or horror games, but fantasy's pretty much out.



That's a really interesting metric. The second reason you mention is what turned me off of Spelljammer (and even Dragonstar.) I just don't want my D&D to mix with space. Which I guess is a little bit weird; I love planar jaunts, for instance, and all kinds of creative fantasy worlds. Space is a barrier I just can't get past my suspension of disbelief, though, and it's resulted in me staying away from SJ.


----------



## Shemeska (May 10, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> They might have changed this with later _Planescape_ products – I'll check when I get home.




I do know that they were seperate in _On Hallowed Ground_, and I want to say also in Planes of Law, but I'll likewise need to check when I'm home.


----------



## Korgoth (May 10, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I don't get the hatred for the Giff. Why is a vaugly hippoish humanoid more threatening to suspension of disbelief than a hyena like one (gnoll), or a green rubber wolverine (troll), or a centaur or a harpy or a dwarf made out of flaming metal (azer)?
> 
> Personally the only thing about SJ that ever bothered me were those damm tinker gnomes. If ever there was a race that seemed like the types to put a screen door on a submarine it was those little idiots.
> 
> ...




Myself, I like the Giff just fine.

On the physics issue, here's what I get out of it: the selling point of SpellJammer, to me, would be "D&D in Space".  But it's not in space.  Therefore I have no interest.

It's as if you said: "I know you're interested in Roman history.  I'm running a game set in the Roman Empire.  In my game, the Roman Empire is ruled by giant alien teddy bears from the planet Kyoot-Ur.  Roman Teddy Bear Legions fly around on hoverskiffs fighting the Celts, who are blue featureless spheres.  I'm sure that since you like ancient Rome you'll want to play!"

I like Outer Space.  I like D&D.  It would be fun to have D&D characters be able to go into Outer Space using magic.  But SpellJammer just simply isn't about Outer Space.  In fact, in SpellJammer, Outer Space doesn't exist.  Hence, I really don't get much out of it.


----------



## Rel (May 10, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I'm running a game set in the Roman Empire.  In my game, the Roman Empire is ruled by giant alien teddy bears from the planet Kyoot-Ur.  Roman Teddy Bear Legions fly around on hoverskiffs fighting the Celts, who are blue featureless spheres.  I'm sure that since you like ancient Rome you'll want to play!"




I'm IN, Korgoth!  You had me at "Kyoot-Ur"!


----------



## Alzrius (May 10, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> That's a really interesting metric. The second reason you mention is what turned me off of Spelljammer (and even Dragonstar.) I just don't want my D&D to mix with space. Which I guess is a little bit weird; I love planar jaunts, for instance, and all kinds of creative fantasy worlds. Space is a barrier I just can't get past my suspension of disbelief, though, and it's resulted in me staying away from SJ.




I can understand this point of view (though I personally don't agree with it), but for me it runs into another problem - the in-game viewpoint of space. A fantasy world with D&D's magic style makes it hard to just write all of space off. Hasn't some archmage (particularly an undead one) ever thought of how useful it'd be to have a base (e.g. a tower, laboratory, etc.) on the moon? Just _greater teleport_ there, maybe cast some spells to make it more comfortable, and that's all it takes. And once that far, why not other celestial bodies? It's the slippery slope.


----------



## AllisterH (May 10, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Myself, I like the Giff just fine.
> 
> 
> I like Outer Space.  I like D&D.  It would be fun to have D&D characters be able to go into Outer Space using magic.  But SpellJammer just simply isn't about Outer Space.  In fact, in SpellJammer, Outer Space doesn't exist.  Hence, I really don't get much out of it.




It was Outer Space. But Outer Space more closely imagined by Victorian writers IMO. If you were not familiar with that, SJ was WAY WEIRD (the crystal spheres, the phlogiston and the look of the Giff all screamed to be Victorian space on acid)


----------



## Set (May 10, 2007)

I heard that at one GenCon someone had built a mock-up of a Hammership that was a couple feet long.  Imagine using that with miniatures to run a battle!

I'd love to see a line of Spelljammer models!  Some of those ships were freaking sweet looking, especially the Neogi Mindspider, Elven Man-o-War and Dragonfly / Damselfly.

I've also got a soft spot (probably in my head) for the Thri-Kreen Leaf-Ship, Arcane Triop, Quad of Thay, Ogre Mammoth and Shou Lung Dragonship!

I was also a big fan of the crystal spheres concept (not so much the phlogiston).


----------



## Kesh (May 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Isn't it much more high-tech than Spelljammer?




Yes, but that was a plus for me. _Dragonstar_ has both technology and "magitech" items, along with all the standard D&D-isms. It's the best sci-fantasy setting I've seen, next to _Shadowrun_.

That said, I wouldn't mind running a straight _Spelljammer_ campaign either. I just prefer the extra tech.


----------



## FreeXenon (May 10, 2007)

The only thing I would really like to see for Dragon Star is a way to limit Spellware. Other than that, Dragon Star rocks.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 10, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> 1. The Ptolemaic physics.
> 2. The blend of fantasy and space, and non-traditional fantasy in general.
> 3. Stepping on the toes of other settings.
> 
> The first two in particular have proven highly effective barometers for finding people with whom I'm going to butt heads about *any* setting; what they want out of fantasy is diametrically opposed to what I want.




I've also found that to be the case. I've always liked Spelljammer, though I didn't play in it very much. There are some things about it, in retrospect, that could have been done a lot better, and I completely respect people who decide it isn't their cup of tea.

As for "stepping on the toes of other settings," though, that's a complaint that makes my ears rattle and my eyeballs roll out my nostrils. Defending the "purity" of a D&D world isn't about personal taste, it's just geekery for geekery's sake (something I've been very guilty of in past threads, so I'm throwing houses at glass rocks here, just so you know I know where I stand). 

If any of the other settings had had meticulously detailed outer spatial regions that Spelljammer contradicted, it might have had some merit, but _really_, sometimes nerdity becomes so odious that I've got to open a window. _There was a Spelljammer in Greyhawk Ruins_. Well, yeah, there's a freaking Alice in Wonderland demiplane there, too, exactly how is a flying boat a deal-breaker? How is the setting that hosted _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_ damaged in any way by a tacit acknowledgment that somewhere illithids and mercanes have managed to build spaceships of their own? Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms are, have always been, exactly as pure as the English language, which is to say as pure as a bathtub full of mud mixed with equal parts maple syrup and Guacamole - they're both pastiches drawn from all sorts of influences, cobbled together from modules and supplements reflecting a wide variety of minds and needs. Look at Faerun's pantheon, with Finnish gods butting heads with Celtic, Norse, Greek, and one that looks suspiciously like he came from Nehwon, its names cribbed from Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, and that's all before TSR bought the setting and spliced in the Moonshaes, Vaasa, Maztica, Zakhara, and Kara-Tur. Or look at Oerth's versions of King Kong, Lewis Carroll's books, the crashed spaceship, the Central Americans, or the quasideity who dresses like a fugitive from the Boot Hill RPG, or things like the Machine of Lum the Mad, the Mighty Servant of Leuk-o, and the Apparatus of Kwalish. I'm sure it's technically _possible_ for game designers to come up with something that truly clashes with either settings' themes, but flying boats do not do it by a long shot. 

The Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk have always been attached to myriad other worlds. It's part of what defines both settings. Oerth even has a god of space travel, Celestian. Spelljammers actually fit the genre much better than a lot of the things Oerth hosts. 

Dragonlance fans have a better argument, since at least some of its designers (Tracy Hickman, but not Jeff Grubb) apparently always wanted it to be its own thing. Still, Spelljammer has so many tinker gnomes in it, Dragonlance arguably fits with Spelljammer even better than the other two, and no wonder - Jeff Grubb designed Spelljammer with Dragonlance in mind. Perhaps if he hadn't put so much Dragonlance in it, people would have liked Spelljammer better, but that's an entirely different complaint.


----------



## Ry (May 10, 2007)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms are, have always been, exactly as pure as the English language, which is to say as pure as a bathtub full of mud mixed with equal parts maple syrup and Guacamole




Sig-worthy.


----------



## tzor (May 10, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm in the minority, but what I don't like about SpellJammer are the pseudo-antique physics.




I have to strongly disagree.  With the exception of the notion of taking D&D spell casting ability and using it as a power source almost everything in classic Spelljammer can be found again and again in various sci-fi novels, movies and TV series.

Consider replacing the wooden ship with the island of Manhatten and you have something very similiar to the Spindizzy of James Blish's Cities in Flight.

Consider a Tom Baker Dr. Who epsiode that involved Space fairing wooden masted ships with crews stolen from various points of time.

Look at any "hyper space" model of interserstellar space travel and you will see a lot of similiarities with spelljammer.


----------



## messy (May 10, 2007)

Contrarian said:
			
		

> That's what you're seeing here, and every other thread ever discussing Spelljammer in every forum, newsgroup, and mailing list until the end of time.  The Inspired Gamers will insist Spelljammer is the greatest idea since funny-shaped dice, and the rest will insist it's the greatest crime in the history of roleplaying.  There's almost never any inbetween.




hey, i'm a "tweener."

i liked the gnomes and hamsters for their cuteness and silliness
i didn't like the guns (seemed out of place, even in a setting with space-traveling ships), the giff (wtf?), and the multitude of weird monsters (mind flayers, etc., which are a little too weird for me).
didn't like connecting the different worlds (gh, fr, dl, etc.)



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> I like Eberron because it's a campaign setting geared away from fantasy-stereotypes. It has a very strong "Final Fantasy" feel to it, like FFIV, FFVI and could evolve into FFVII. Just without the technology and keeping magic as the center of industry (and not having magic as an aid to technology, like Final Fantasy's done). Actually, after playing FFXII, I believe FFXII and Eberron have much more in common with each other.




interesting comparison... i might have to take another look at eberron, as i currently have no interest in it.



			
				Harker Wade said:
			
		

> I'd love a proper spelljammer book. The ship combat, the strange new worlds & creatures and of course the fact that magic was just a part of life in the space....




for a "proper spelljammer book," see andy collins' "shadows of the spider moon" in dungeon magazine 

messy


----------



## Odhanan (May 10, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> You never took a look at the Spelljammer adventure _Wildspace_, did you?
> 
> That's the one with the moon-sized battle station shaped like a beholder that shoots giant planet destroying super death rays out of its eyes...  It's the heroes' job to fly inside the thing and destroy it.




Oh. God. Bad. Idea...  :\


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 10, 2007)

messy said:
			
		

> interesting comparison... i might have to take another look at eberron, as i currently have no interest in it.




FWIW, aside from the fact that both have airships and pulp sensibilities, I found Eberron *hugely* disappointing as a D&D take on Final Fantasy.  Eberron is much more D&D taken to 11 and merged with some pulp, as opposed to the more unique worldbuilding of FFs 6 and on.  You not only lose the tech and magic dialectic that drives so many of the FFs, you also lose the fantasy-from-a-nearly-blank slate quality that allowed Square to create wholly original settings.

(Eberron creator) Keith Baker famously said - I daresay boasted - he never played a Final Fantasy game; I have a lot of respect for Keith's passion and creativity, but, frankly, this always struck me as a bit like a space opera writer who prided himself on never having watched Star Wars.


----------



## The_Warlock (May 10, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Oh. God. Bad. Idea...  :\




It was hysterical. Not to be run as a campaign fixture, but a hoot as a one shot. The bad idea is when the DM says OK to any harebrained PC scheme to take control of the Beholder Shaped Space Station of Doom and use it for their own ends in a campaign. But if wild and wacky is where it's at...there's nothing quite as wacky...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 10, 2007)

> (Eberron creator) Keith Baker famously said - I daresay boasted - he never played a Final Fantasy game; I have a lot of respect for Keith's passion and creativity, but, frankly, this always struck me as a bit like a space opera writer who prided himself on never having watched Star Wars.




I don't know about _that_...

I'd be more concerned if he had claimed he never read any of the pulp sci/fant stories or novels that games like FF are based on.  I mean, that genre goes back, what...70 years?

Besides, its not like Star Wars invented space opera, either.  That genre is about 50+ years old itself.


----------



## IanB (May 10, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> FWIW, aside from the fact that both have airships and pulp sensibilities, I found Eberron *hugely* disappointing as a D&D take on Final Fantasy.  Eberron is much more D&D taken to 11 and merged with some pulp, as opposed to the more unique worldbuilding of FFs 6 and on.  You not only lose the tech and magic dialectic that drives so many of the FFs, you also lose the fantasy-from-a-nearly-blank slate quality that allowed Square to create wholly original settings.
> 
> (Eberron creator) Keith Baker famously said - I daresay boasted - he never played a Final Fantasy game; I have a lot of respect for Keith's passion and creativity, but, frankly, this always struck me as a bit like a space opera writer who prided himself on never having watched Star Wars.




My reaction is the opposite. I much prefer the pulp approach. Eberron airships aren't Final Fantasy airships; they're the zeppelin in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Really it comes down to personal tastes. For the most part I can't stand the Final Fantasy games, so I can personally understand what might make someone pride themselves on not using that as inspiration! "More unique" is subjective.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't know about _that_...
> 
> I'd be more concerned if he had claimed he never read any of the pulp sci/fant stories or novels that games like FF are based on.  I mean, that genre goes back, what...70 years?
> 
> Besides, its not like Star Wars invented space opera, either.  That genre is about 50+ years old itself.




Actually, I had that exact thing in mind when I made my analogy.

A writer could be doing a space opera and boast he hadn't read Dune - which would be a mite odd, and would indicate he wasn't familiar with at least one of the literary giants of the field.  But by claiming he hadn't seen Star Wars, he would be claiming he hadn't seen what defined the pop cultural expectations of the genre.

It's the same with FF.  It's not the original and we can debate till blue in the face if it's the classic.  But FFs 7 through 12 have _each_ sold more than twice as many copies as WotC says tabletop RPGs have players (and, to excise a common bugaboo, roughly half again as many as the allegedly 'tabletop RPG-killing' World of Warcraft has subscribers).

And when you're talking about non-standard fantasy, especially fantasy with high- or common magic and pulp undertones, FF is by FAR the most prominent example.  Nothing else is even close to on the popular radar.



			
				IanB said:
			
		

> My reaction is the opposite. I much prefer the pulp approach. Eberron airships aren't Final Fantasy airships; they're the zeppelin in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.




Odd, then, that Final Fantasy airships (at least in 6, 7 and 9, and for the most part in 12) are *much* more like true zeppelins than Eberron's elementally-powered ones, which bear a closer resemblance to spelljammers.

I consider the Final Fantasy style a natural outgrowth of pulp stylings, whereas D&D and high fantasy in general take a wide, unpleasant detour through epic fantasy and lose most of the pulp flare.  Eberron tries to re-infuse that, and does a solid job of it (I like the setting, just not as any kind of FF-equivalent), but is handicapped by the roots from which it is expected to grow.



			
				IanB said:
			
		

> Really it comes down to personal tastes. For the most part I can't stand the Final Fantasy games, so I can personally understand what might make someone pride themselves on not using that as inspiration! "More unique" is subjective.




Priding oneself on not using something as inspiration is fine.  I could say "I reject the black and white of Star Wars in favor of the nuance of Dune" or "I reject the..." OK, I'm not sure what you'd reject from FF for a high magic pulp setting; the, uh, "the non-Tolkien races-ism of Final Fantasy in favor of the presence of Tolkien races."  Rejecting something as inspiration because you've weighed it and decided to look elsewhere is VERY different from never familiarizing yourself with some of the most high-profile media in your genre - THE most high-profile media in the subgenre you intend to work with.

"More unique" is actually... nonsensical... and I regret saying it.  More unusual, or more distinctive, would be more appropriate, and neither is wholly subjective.  The worlds of FFs 6 through 12 are considerably more distinctive and unusual, compared to the broad swathe of fantasy media, than Eberron.

In any case, the poster I was responding to was intrigued by the idea of Eberron being Final Fantasy like, so I assume he looked favorably on the FFs.


----------



## RichGreen (May 10, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> You never took a look at the Spelljammer adventure _Wildspace_, did you?
> 
> That's the one with the moon-sized battle station shaped like a beholder that shoots giant planet destroying super death rays out of its eyes...  It's the heroes' job to fly inside the thing and destroy it.




One of the best D&D adventures of all time, IMHO!


Richard


----------



## Pbartender (May 10, 2007)

The_One_Warlock said:
			
		

> It was hysterical. Not to be run as a campaign fixture, but a hoot as a one shot. The bad idea is when the DM says OK to any harebrained PC scheme to take control of the Beholder Shaped Space Station of Doom and use it for their own ends in a campaign. But if wild and wacky is where it's at...there's nothing quite as wacky...




I think the best part was the magical "mecha" designed for beholders to drive into combat.

Priceless.


----------



## IanB (May 10, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Odd, then, that Final Fantasy airships (at least in 6, 7 and 9, and for the most part in 12) are *much* more like true zeppelins than Eberron's elementally-powered ones, which bear a closer resemblance to spelljammers.




I don't mean in terms of looks; I mean in terms of narrative function. For the most part, FF airships are (and I realize there are exceptions and that this is an oversimplification) meant as ways to get around faster and avoid the (soul-crushingly repetetive and common - oops, editoralizing   ) random encounters on the map; Eberron seems to have airships because airships are a cool place to fight set-piece battles against Nazis... er, I mean Emerald Claw soldiers.



> Priding oneself on not using something as inspiration is fine.  I could say "I reject the black and white of Star Wars in favor of the nuance of Dune" or "I reject the..." OK, I'm not sure what you'd reject from FF for a high magic pulp setting; the, uh, "the non-Tolkien races-ism of Final Fantasy in favor of the presence of Tolkien races."  Rejecting something as inspiration because you've weighed it and decided to look elsewhere is VERY different from never familiarizing yourself with some of the most high-profile media in your genre - THE most high-profile media in the subgenre you intend to work with.




Without getting too off-topic, I can think of plenty of things to reject; a good example would be the entire plot of Final Fantasy X.    A lot of people don't really like the wacky hair and giant swords, or the 10 minute long monster summoning cut scenes. That sort of "feel" isn't really pulp at all. I don't find FF very pulpy in general, to be honest.

Anyway this probably isn't really an interesting direction for the thread to go so I should probably stop before we *really* get off on a tangent.


----------



## 13garth13 (May 10, 2007)

*My biggest problems with Spelljammer...*

....Number one was not physics and not goofy creatures, but rather the way that even simple, low-level adventures in space destroyed any sense of economic realism within the campaign.

For example, let's say you had a group of 4th level characters hunting down some space pirates, which they defeat after a long ship-to-ship battle.  After putting the villains in irons, they loot the vessel and then claim the vessel itself, and then sell it to some Arcane.

Now I realize that it's my campaign, and I can adjust factors as I see fit, but does any of the above seem unreasonable so far?  As far as I can tell, these are perfectly valid party options.

Here's the problem with a capital P....after they sell off the ship (oh hey, for argument's sake, let's make it a caravel) and the helm (and hey, let's make it only a minor helm), our 4th level party is suddenly up to their teeth in gold.

And let's face it, it get's rather tedious to have them relieved of their tens of thousands (to say nothing of over a hundred thousand for a major helm and a big ship like a Hammership)  of gold by wandering space bandits and local tax officials for the sixth or seventh time in a row....which is pretty much what you're going to have to do, unless every single vessel is being run by an artifurnace, life-draining helm (I can't recall the name off hand), or some other unusable and relatively unsellable device.  Which still leaves you with the massive amount of money the party can still gain just by selling off enemy ships and/or trading them for goods/services.

Yup, my number one peeve (and I other wise LOVED the wierdness and versatility of the setting) was definitely economical in nature.

My number two beef was how spelljamming ruined the chances of overland journeys and such...once the party had a helm and vessel, they could scoot all over the planet looooong before they would have otherwise had access to teleport spells and the like.  

And speaking of travelling, isn't it odd that many of the creatures from the montrous compendia for Spelljammer weren't big enough to force a spelljammer to rev down from spelljamming speed and therefore couldn't actually be used......and even if the party did try to stop to fight them, should the adventurers have elected to bolt, there's just no way that the creatures could even remotely keep up with a spelljammer at full speed, rendering many off-planet encounters almost a moot point?

Anyhoo, those are my two coppers.  As I said previously, I did enjoy the setting, I just had a few problems with the execution of some of the mechanical nuts and bolts.

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Henry (May 10, 2007)

I found answers for myself in the two problems you faced...



			
				13garth13 said:
			
		

> ....Number one was not physics and not goofy creatures, but rather the way that even simple, low-level adventures in space destroyed any sense of economic realism within the campaign.




I simply didn't take their gold, and rather let them use it, which they invariably did to improve their ships with modifications, or to pool and buy a bigger ship, or to invest in various money-making schemes. However, I didn't let them buy magic items, except at some rather inflated prices (remember, 2nd edition really disparaged the "magic item shop" as well as didn't have wealth by level guidelines) and they were always desirous of another money-making scheme, and I did let those pay off occasionally... only to fail later on.



> And speaking of travelling, isn't it odd that many of the creatures from the montrous compendia for Spelljammer weren't big enough to force a spelljammer to rev down from spelljamming speed and therefore couldn't actually be used......and even if the party did try to stop to fight them, should the adventurers have elected to bolt, there's just no way that the creatures could even remotely keep up with a spelljammer at full speed, rendering many off-planet encounters almost a moot point?




Maybe the creatures weren't, but ships piloted by said creatures certainly were. And the occasional Radiant Dragon, or Space Worm, or (what were those living asteroids called?) was enough to wreak occasional havoc on their ship, causing them to have to spend more money on repairs, etc. Even the pirates of the real world found out the hard way that adventuring costs money - and only a few were smart and savvy enough to retire wealthy.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 10, 2007)

13garth13 said:
			
		

> ....Number one was not physics and not goofy creatures, but rather the way that even simple, low-level adventures in space destroyed any sense of economic realism within the campaign.
> 
> Yup, my number one peeve (and I other wise LOVED the wierdness and versatility of the setting) was definitely economical in nature.



I do agree that this was a big problem.

But to be fair, (IIRC) the books in the boxed set did say that the absolute minimum recommended character level for spelljamming was 6th. [Can anyone confirm? I'm at work right now...]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 10, 2007)

> A writer could be doing a space opera and boast he hadn't read Dune _<snip some good points>_ Nothing else is even close to on the popular radar.




I won't argue whether Star Wars and FF have mass appeal- that they do is clearly without question.  Both of them have shaped the expectations of millions about their respective genres in a certain way, and along the way, made lots of money.

The same could be said of Britney Spears.

Popular ≠ Quality.  Popular ≠ Classic.

(Don't get me wrong- I like the original SW movies.  Won't be touching FF though.)

Like Ms. Spears, the creators of SW and FF know enough about their genres' roots to hit all the right notes.  Whether they do them well is another question.

Whether they do them as well as the great books that defined the genres is yet another question, and one that could arguably be answered "No."

IOW, I'm far less concerned that a particular RPG designer hasn't seen a particular movie or played a certain game that has pop appeal than if he is familiar with the roots from which that movie or game drew its inspiration.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (May 10, 2007)

I thought Spelljammer was a neat idea, but a toss-off paragraph from 1E's DMG mentioned flying to the moon on the backs of rocs, so my brain's stuck on that. I like the idea that it's not SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE space...it's just the stuff that's really, really far away, floating in the sky that you can see when the sun sinks beneath the sea to journey under the earth. Then you fight pale trolls in the Mountains of Silver on some moon.

_The Adventures of Baron Munchausen_ got my brain going as a young 'un. That and Titus Pullo's conversation with Lucius Voreneus in the first season of _Rome_, where he mentions that maybe a legionary like himself could get to the Moon by hitching a ride on a giant bird. Legionaries kicking ass on Mars has a strong appeal to me.

All this is to say that, yeah, I dig what Spelljammer was getting at, but I'd rather do it my own way.


----------



## 13garth13 (May 10, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I found answers for myself in the two problems you faced...
> 
> 
> 
> I simply didn't take their gold, and rather let them use it, which they invariably did to improve their ships with modifications, or to pool and buy a bigger ship, or to invest in various money-making schemes. However, I didn't let them buy magic items, except at some rather inflated prices (remember, 2nd edition really disparaged the "magic item shop" as well as didn't have wealth by level guidelines) and they were always desirous of another money-making scheme, and I did let those pay off occasionally... only to fail later on.




Oh, I agree whole-heartedly, and my players were usually fairly good sports about "pimping their rides", etc. to bleed off excess treasure....but after five or six ship captures, there was still a fair amount of gold available, and while the magic shop mentality wasn't actively encouraged, there were still things like spell and magic item research, plus hiring spell-casters for raise-deads, restorations, etc. that suddenly became soooooo much easier due to the surfeit of available coinage.  Yes, of course then you can throw in quest requirements and such for the spell-caster side of things, but it was never quite as neat as I wanted, and they always ended up with faaaaaaar too much spare gold hanging around (even after I bled some more away for training costs).  

Let's face it, 20-40 K gold pieces for a single encounter (just for the ship) and over 50K for helms was really one huge hunk of change for a group of adventurers to have (at most levels).



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Maybe the creatures weren't, but ships piloted by said creatures certainly were. And the occasional Radiant Dragon, or Space Worm, or (what were those living asteroids called?) was enough to wreak occasional havoc on their ship, causing them to have to spend more money on repairs, etc. Even the pirates of the real world found out the hard way that adventuring costs money - and only a few were smart and savvy enough to retire wealthy.




Yup, and to be sure, I sent in my fair share of Astereaters (I believe that was the name) not to mention the wandering gravity monsters, Radiant Dragons, etc.  But if you sent in more ships with pirates, that just gives the PCs more treasure in the form of vessels and helms (as I found out to my chagrin) and the costs for repairing vessels, hiring crews, etc. were simply too low (even if you multiplied them by five or ten times) to realistically be able to drain a party's astronomical (if you'll pardon the pun) resources that they gleaned from ship capture.

And a lot of the really cool creatures (such as the Horg from the Grinder region in the Greyspace accessory) were supposedly absolute terrors of space....but were certainly no where near big enough to stop a vessel, and certainly weren't likely to be piloting one themselves.  Of course, the Horg probably aren't a great example because steering through the Grinder at spelljamming speed would be a sure way to meet a large chunk of rock at a very uncomfortable velocity, thereby virtually ensuring that people travel slowly through that asteroid belt  

Ah well, there were (to be sure) solutions to be found (as Henry has pointed out), but they were never entirely satisfactory to me, and doing that many work-around exercises to maintain a stable campaign did become irritating from time to time.   YMMV.  Still a very cool setting with a metric buttload of potential....just needed a little tinkering...

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## 13garth13 (May 10, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I do agree that this was a big problem.
> 
> But to be fair, (IIRC) the books in the boxed set did say that the absolute minimum recommended character level for spelljamming was 6th. [Can anyone confirm? I'm at work right now...]




I do believe you are correct....although whether 4th level or 6th, that's still a great deal of coinage to be hanging around a party of mercenary-esque adventurers, even by 2nd Edition standards   

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## AK Browncoat (May 11, 2007)

Im all for spelljammer.  Watching one of our players who had a Giff run around blowing things up (becuase they like too) and he had a deathwish as he was the only Giff who survived an attack on thier platoon, so he felt being alive was a disgrace to the memory of his former squad was hillarious.  He just never died... he tried!  He just came out on top in a lot of crazy sitauitions, which is prob good for our party......lol great setting.  Loved the Rock of Braul. (braul?) whatever, cool city on an astroid heh


----------



## Turjan (May 11, 2007)

I don't really know the old Spelljammer, but I liked it when it came back to D&D 3.x with the _Lords of Madness_ web enhancement here. That nautiloid spelljammer ship looked way cool .


----------



## Tolen Mar (May 11, 2007)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> I have three words for you:
> 
> Iron Heroes Spelljammer




Wow.  Just wow.


...and Yoink!


----------



## Wrox (May 11, 2007)

*Forgotten Realms & Spelljammer*

I have always enjoyed Spelljammer and I'm pleased to report that the upcoming _Grand History of the Realms_ will make direct reference to Spelljammer and its various influences on the setting and its history.

-Brian R. James


----------



## danzig138 (May 11, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I don't find FF very pulpy in general, to be honest.



 Just to add to your tangent, this is the first I've ever heard that FF was supposed to be pulpy. If I were to work on something pulpish, I never would've gone to FF as any kind of source or inspiration because. . . it's FF, not pulp. At least in my mind.


----------



## Turjan (May 11, 2007)

Wrox said:
			
		

> I have always enjoyed Spelljammer and I'm pleased to report that the upcoming _Grand History of the Realms_ will make direct reference to Spelljammer and its various influences on the setting and its history.



Cool. I knew that Spelljammer isn't quite dead yet .


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 11, 2007)

13garth13 said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with a capital P....after they sell off the ship (oh hey, for argument's sake, let's make it a caravel) and the helm (and hey, let's make it only a minor helm), our 4th level party is suddenly up to their teeth in gold.



Yep.  Economics was a fatal Spelljammer flaw.  Just ONE such encounter blows things to hell.  And not just the economics that any other D&D campaign would expect.  Consider...

If the party travels by spelljammer - there WILL be encounters with other ships.  Eventually, one of those encounters will be a fight.  If the PC's win the fight they get, at worst, a SECOND helm worth hundreds of thousands of GP from among the wreckage.  At best they can take over the ship largely undamaged and they've either upgraded to the captured ship which is bigger/better, or they sell the lesser valued ship and helm and have the blockbusting cash to commission a vastly better vessel to simply be MADE FOR THEM.  Bolt the helm on and they're off to repeat the endeavor.

And yet if they LOSE the fight - what happens?  They are captured or left adrift in space.  NO POSSIBLE MIDDLE GROUND.  It's either/or.  Rags or riches.  AND THIS IS WITH EVERY SHIP BATTLE.  The PC's MUST win, EVERY time or they lose it ALL.


> My number two beef was how spelljamming ruined the chances of overland journeys and such...once the party had a helm and vessel, they could scoot all over the planet looooong before they would have otherwise had access to teleport spells and the like.



Yep.  Overland travel became a thing of the past unless you first devise a means or a reason that the PC's would divest themselves of the advantage of flight.  They must travel overland to be able to see and follow the clues and landmarks from the ground perspective.  Their ship is damaged/stolen/impounded and they must hoof it.  There is a creature or phenomenon that conveniently prevents approach by spelljammers.  The journey begins with an undesired/unexpected teleportation to somewhere else.  Or the journey isn't that far so that a convenient landing site is chosen and then there is a SHORT hike during which all the land encounters must be squeezed in (like a real sailing ship putting ashore for water and provisions and the shore party being attacked by natives and wild beasts within 100 yards of the beach.


> And speaking of travelling, isn't it odd that many of the creatures from the montrous compendia for Spelljammer weren't big enough to force a spelljammer to rev down from spelljamming speed and therefore couldn't actually be used......and even if the party did try to stop to fight them, should the adventurers have elected to bolt, there's just no way that the creatures could even remotely keep up with a spelljammer at full speed, rendering many off-planet encounters almost a moot point?



This, however, is not correct.

When on board a moving spelljammer you have very limited means of an encounter occurring:
1 - the ship is moving slower than spelljamming speed and it's just a matter of what can catch up or keep up to the ship.
2 - the ship is moving at spelljamming speed and something very large or another spelljamming vessel comes within range forcing it OUT of spelljamming speed.
3 - The ship is at spelljamming speed and something NOT a ship, or not large, is nonetheless matching speed.
4 - the ship is moving at spelljamming speed and "runs over" whatever it is that it encounters.  In this case the something is now within the air/gravity envelope of the ship along its FORWARD edge and moving at the same speed as the ship.  It will be affected by the ships gravity just as everything else, but will otherwise remain moving at spelljamming speed WITH the ship until it leaves the air/gravity envelope to the REAR edge.  It is then instantly left behind.  If it tries to leave by the forward edge it will not succeed, simply remaining AT the edge as the ship continues to "run it down".

So, the vast majority of critter encounters aboard a spelljamming ship that is at speed will be their effective INSTANT appearance somewhere along the forward edge of the envelope.  And the entire encounter MUST take place entirely within the envelope unless the ship does drop out of spelljamming speed.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 11, 2007)

BTW, what's left of my old Spelljammer files:
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/spelljammer/spelljam.htm

I loved Spelljammer.  The general idea was just my cup of tea.  It was one of the most well-received campaigns I've ever run.  In fact, I think it was the first that my players actually extended compliments on it and for years after asked for more.  But I was also continuously disappointed in it and critical of it.  I wound up repeatedly saying that I'd LOVE to run Spelljammer again, but I wouldn't want to do so unless I could fix the problems I saw in it - and that was just too much work.

I probably would run it again (without all the work to try and fix it), but only with the active cooperation of the players to studiously avoid exploiting, or even showing the cracks and faults in the systems.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 11, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> (Eberron creator) Keith Baker famously said - I daresay boasted - he never played a Final Fantasy game; I have a lot of respect for Keith's passion and creativity, but, frankly, this always struck me as a bit like a space opera writer who prided himself on never having watched Star Wars.



It never struck me as a boast - but, more to the point, expecting Eberron to be like _Final Fantasy_ is and always was a serious mistake. It wasn't supposed to be like that - there are similarities, sure, but for instance there are elementally-powered airships in Eberron because there are helium-filled airships in pulp stories from the original "flying ace" tales to _Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade_.

That there are airships in _Final Fantasy_ is a case of parallel evolution, not inspiration. _Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ is a fallacy for a good reason - and in any case, the similarities between _Final Fantasy_ and Eberron are more superficial than anything else.

Eberron is the result of the revised Third Edition _D&D_ ruleset taken to a fairly logical conclusion in terms of worldbuilding, modulated through pulp adventure, _film noir_, and the late Victorian-through-interwar period in which those genres flourished.

_Final Fantasy_ isn't those things, and saying "But come on! Technomagic!" doesn't make it so. Eberron doesn't have clockwork, steam, or technomagic, anyway; it's not magically-enhanced technology, it's magic used in place of technology.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (May 11, 2007)

Tolen Mar said:
			
		

> Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> 
> ...and Yoink!




Muahahahaha!  I've created a monster.   

edit:  I wanna play in that game.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 11, 2007)

13garth13 said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with a capital P....after they sell off the ship (oh hey, for argument's sake, let's make it a caravel) and the helm (and hey, let's make it only a minor helm), our 4th level party is suddenly up to their teeth in gold.



Helms were DRASTICALLY overpriced, in my opinion.  I ended up changing the base price.  Then you had to 'attune' it to certain individuals and only those individuals could use it. This was usually all incorporated into the price of the ship in my campaigns with the result that the amount of money you got for selling the helm by itself wasnt quite as much as it used to be.  Considering the amount of damage a ship would often take during battle (What do you mean that fireball weakened the structure??), they could often spend MORE money then they gain after they finish any ship repairs to both ships. No one's going to pay book value for a Nautiloid after you've put some holes in it and pumped a few fireballs through.  Considering how many naval ships have scuttling devices in case of capture, ships were no longer an instant windfall of loot.



> My number two beef was how spelljamming ruined the chances of overland journeys and such...once the party had a helm and vessel, they could scoot all over the planet looooong before they would have otherwise had access to teleport spells and the like.



They may lose out on the overland journey, but how is this much different from the journey through wildspace and the phlogiston? You're just replacing one type of scenery with another.  You still have obstacles to face, wandering encounters to run into, and the chance of a sidetrek by the party if they encounter something interesting.  They can even get lost if they miss a navigation landmark.


----------



## Psion (May 11, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> So I've been going through some Spelljammer books I bought as PDFs and bought through Ebay and been going through them and I just wondered to myself this:
> 
> *This setting is pure awesome. Why didn't it do well?! *




I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe that the reason Spelljammer failed was that it lacked one thing a setting really needs to capture people's imaginations: a strong central conflict to act as a central premise for the action. (There was one put in later, but that was too little, too late, and not central enough to the setting.)

Spelljammer was a sandbox that people could play in and do interesting and different things in. But once that playing is done, there's no deeper conflict to invest in.


----------



## Ry (May 11, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe that the reason Spelljammer failed was that it lacked one thing a setting really needs to capture people's imaginations: a strong central conflict to act as a central premise for the action. (There was one put in later, but that was too little, too late, and not central enough to the setting.)
> 
> Spelljammer was a sandbox that people could play in and do interesting and different things in. But once that playing is done, there's no deeper conflict to invest in.




I think this is why I love the Astromundi cluster so much.


----------



## The_Warlock (May 11, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe that the reason Spelljammer failed was that it lacked one thing a setting really needs to capture people's imaginations: a strong central conflict to act as a central premise for the action. (There was one put in later, but that was too little, too late, and not central enough to the setting.)
> 
> Spelljammer was a sandbox that people could play in and do interesting and different things in. But once that playing is done, there's no deeper conflict to invest in.




I can see the point, but never noticed it while using SJ. I just brought the conflicts from from the Core worlds I used, and the snippets suggested in SJ, into the sandbox, thus building grander castles. I actually didn't like when they started taking the mystery away with things like Secret of the Spelljammer and such, as it seemed to take away from the nature of the setting to let DM and players build, grow, and make epic (in a stellar/space opera kind of way) the conflicts they brought with them.


----------



## Henry (May 11, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> ..At best they can take over the ship largely undamaged and they've either upgraded to the captured ship which is bigger/better, or they sell the lesser valued ship and helm and have the blockbusting cash to commission a vastly better vessel to simply be MADE FOR THEM.  Bolt the helm on and they're off to repeat the endeavor.
> 
> And yet if they LOSE the fight - what happens?  They are captured or left adrift in space.  NO POSSIBLE MIDDLE GROUND.  It's either/or.  Rags or riches.  AND THIS IS WITH EVERY SHIP BATTLE.  The PC's MUST win, EVERY time or they lose it ALL.




It's funny, but the way my spelljamming battles always seemed to work out was that the PCs either took the enemy ship, but their ship was wrecked to the point of being of little value, or they wrecked the enemy ship to the point of little value. It became a bit of a running joke - almost every time they ran a combat, SOMEBODY's ship was going to be breaking into multiple pieces... 

You would think this would be a problem in a piracy campaign, as well -- but it's probably because regular sailing ships aren't valued so highly in such a campaign as a Spelljamming ship is.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 11, 2007)

13garth13 said:
			
		

> *snip*
> Let's face it, 20-40 K gold pieces for a single encounter (just for the ship) and over 50K for helms was really one huge hunk of change for a group of adventurers to have (at most levels).




Now add in the fact of crew costs, ship maintanence, then the fact most adventuring parties in the 1E/2E days were huge.  Weather it was with NPC's or Henchmen.

Crew Costs link off of Beyond the Moons.
http://www.miniworld.com/adnd/jammer.html



			
				Wrox said:
			
		

> I have always enjoyed Spelljammer and I'm pleased to report that the upcoming Grand History of the Realms will make direct reference to Spelljammer and its various influences on the setting and its history.
> 
> -Brian R. James



Great, something else to add to my shopping list.




			
				rycandia said:
			
		

> Psion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, it was a great Crystal Sphere.  I yoinked many of its plots during 2E to bring into play in other homebrew spheres.



			
				D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Helms were DRASTICALLY overpriced, in my opinion. I ended up changing the base price. Then you had to 'attune' it to certain individuals and only those individuals could use it. This was usually all incorporated into the price of the ship in my campaigns with the result that the amount of money you got for selling the helm by itself wasnt quite as much as it used to be. Considering the amount of damage a ship would often take during battle (What do you mean that fireball weakened the structure??), they could often spend MORE money then they gain after they finish any ship repairs to both ships. No one's going to pay book value for a Nautiloid after you've put some holes in it and pumped a few fireballs through. Considering how many naval ships have scuttling devices in case of capture, ships were no longer an instant windfall of loot.



I always thought they were overpriced as well.  I always had various verisions of Helms, not just Major & Minor.  It would actually work out well under 3E magic rules.  Have the Helms set at certain SR's when not at Spelljamming Speed, no matter who was in control.  Some had controling helms that allowed for a non-spellcaster to pilot them but at a very limited SR.  Not every Pirate could afford ship mages and clerics ya know.  Some helms couldn't even achieve Spelljamming Speed.  I called them Planet Hoppers, they were only good for interplanetary travel and could never 'breach' the Crystal Sphere portals.  Using that method would be a great way to set a pricing structure that could be maintained to keep the 'wealth' level maintainable.



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> I don't really know the old Spelljammer, but I liked it when it came back to D&D 3.x with the Lords of Madness web enhancement here. That nautiloid spelljammer ship looked way cool .



I thought it an excellent tribute to those remaining Spelljamming fans.

---------------
But I would like to note to all the 'Not in My Pure DnD' world.  Remember Expedition to Barrier Peaks?  The old S3 Module.  Written by Gary Gygax himself.  
Then all the FR folk, if you can accept Halurran Skyships, why can you accept a ship that can sail up higher?


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 11, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Snip*
> You would think this would be a problem in a piracy campaign, as well -- but it's probably because regular sailing ships aren't valued so highly in such a campaign as a Spelljamming ship is.




That and the fact there is no 'swim' home.  

Most highly prized item for a Spelljamming party = Necklace of Adaptation and a Ring of Sustenance


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 11, 2007)

rycanada said:
			
		

> I think this is why I love the Astromundi cluster so much.



Agreed, they should have started out with the Astromundi Cluster rather than putting it in latter in the campaign setting.


----------



## Shroomy (May 11, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> For example, the FR gnomes have _not_ been changed from shy and reclusive illusion specialists ("The Forgotten Folk of the Forgotten Realms") to a bunch of Dragonlance-style Tinkers. The mechanics-focused country of the Realms, Lantan, has not been retconned from an exotic human nation to the homeworld of these Tinker gnomes that haven't been stuck in the Realms from Krynn.
> 
> Yeah. That's what I thought.
> 
> ...




I always thought that the Dragonlance inspired 2e development of gnomes had more to do with someone creating a distinctive niche for these demi-humans (before this, I always thought of gnomes as a less than inspired illusion-loving cross between dwarves and classic halflings) and other developers latching onto the idea than it did with wholesale importing of other setting elements (could be wrong there, I did check out of 2e in the early 90s).  In any case, my personal favorites are the Eberron gnomes and the tinker gnomes of Dragonlance (my favorite part of the 1e hardback was the tinker gnome rules).


----------



## Ry (May 11, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Agreed, they should have started out with the Astromundi Cluster rather than putting it in latter in the campaign setting.




Imagine if they had made the Astromundi cluster a "cluster" of say, 20-odd spheres, all linked together, with the Antilan empire spread out over 3 spheres... multiple worlds, and a  sort of "savage frontier" at the edge.

It's ... it's so beautiful in my mind.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 11, 2007)

rycanada said:
			
		

> Imagine if they had made the Astromundi cluster a "cluster" of say, 20-odd spheres, all linked together, with the Antilan empire spread out over 3 spheres... multiple worlds, and a  sort of "savage frontier" at the edge.
> 
> It's ... it's so beautiful in my mind.




mmmm write it up for publication then.  It sounds great.  Submit it to Beyond the Moons.


----------



## Pbartender (May 11, 2007)

13garth13 said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with a capital P....after they sell off the ship (oh hey, for argument's sake, let's make it a caravel) and the helm (and hey, let's make it only a minor helm), our 4th level party is suddenly up to their teeth in gold.




Way back when, when I ran a Spelljammer campaign, I dealt with that problem in two major ways...

*1. Supply vs. Demand* - How many people are there around who can afford to buy a spelljamming ship and its helm?  How many of those people have the interest to buy one?  How many of them have the need to buy one?  How many of those are looking for a spelljammer ship that fits the description of what the PCs are trying to sell?  Most of the people who have the resources, need and willingness to buy a ship will already have one.  It's hard to sell something that no one wants to buy. 

That is precisely why, during the Golden Age of Piracy, pirates never captured ships to sell...  They only ever captured a ship, if the other ship was better than their own or if they had enough spare crewmen to sail a second ship.

*2. Ship Repairs* - Often, the damage sustained by the character's ship during a battle was heavy.  They'd either have to spend much of their prize money (and weeks or months of time to boot) to refit it, or they'd simply scuttle the ship and move into the ship they just captured.


----------



## Odhanan (May 11, 2007)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> Muahahahaha!  I've created a monster.
> 
> edit:  I wanna play in that game.



Iron Heroes Spelljammer... you are definitely not the only want who wants to play...


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 11, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> *1. Supply vs. Demand* - How many people are there around who can afford to buy a spelljamming ship and its helm?  How many of those people have the interest to buy one?  How many of them have the need to buy one?  How many of those are looking for a spelljammer ship that fits the description of what the PCs are trying to sell?  Most of the people who have the resources, need and willingness to buy a ship will already have one.  It's hard to sell something that no one wants to buy.




It is, however, vastly unlikely that in a universe of crystal spheres with multiple inhabited worlds, that has commerce and individually-owned vessels, that buyers could not be found.  Especially if you're willing to take trade in something else.  Of course, the vessel may not fetch as much as you'd really hope, kind of like a used car.

If spelljamming vessels are common, then there has to be a market in them (but see used cars analogy again).  That's true even if they're rare; someone will want it, you'll just have to work harder to sell it off.  Certainly, the Great Powers were perfectly happy to press captured enemy vessels into service* (several British men'o'war at Trafalgar were formerly French, and vice versa).

The stumbling block that I find *much* more likely, you do touch upon.  The PCs may not have enough crew to safely get the prize back into a friendly port.  Even then, they may not get enough money to make it worth their while.  If spelljammers're common enough that they're not worth terribly much, then several months of crew pay and rations, with the added risk of losing it and your trained crew (and possibly a party member) irretrievably, may wind up being more than you're willing to pay to sell the ship you captured.  It's likely to just be easier to grab their cargo and run.  (It's like that pile of 100,000 copper pieces...it's just not worth the effort to haul out)

Of course, this leads to some interesting decisions.  If you're not going to try and keep the ship, then you can let the enemy ship go, free to give your descriptions to their allies who may then decide to hunt you down.  Or, you can slaughter everyone on board, but this may provide some moral dilemmas (not always, but sometimes) and leave it to drift as a hazard to navigation.  Or you can destroy it completely.

Brad

* - Note that these were taken as part of military actions, but it illustrates that second- and third-hand ship ownership is possible.


----------



## Tolen Mar (May 11, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Iron Heroes Spelljammer... you are definitely not the only want who wants to play...




Yeah...Now we just need to find a reliable DM for it.   

Ninja Pirates in Spaaaace!!! FTW!


----------



## Caliban (May 11, 2007)

My biggest problem was always the way they negated overland travel.

If I ever introduced spelljamming to a campaign of mine again, I'd probably institute a houserule that prevented spelljamming on a planets surface (but would still allow it around moderately sized asteroids and such).   

Maybe have "spelljamming ports" in certain cities that had largescale magical fields that allowed spelljammers to safely touch down, but nowhere else. 

That, and no tinker gnomes or giant space hampsters.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 11, 2007)

I loved Spelljammer as a toolbox of ideas, not as it implemented links between existing published settings. For me, a guy who loves world building fantasy settings, Spelljammer is an excellent resource for developing your own cosmology.

I think for many, though, Spelljammer is a catastrophe waiting to happen if it is just dumped into a setting the way builder-books are often added.

Spelljammer ships can wreak havoc on a game economy far worse than heroes bringing their dragon horde treasure into town. Spelljammer ships can be abused by PCs if the campaign is ground-centric.

I think Spelljammer works best with DMs who tightly develop their settings around the concept, or leave Spelljamming as a phase of a campaign that takes PCs away from home, only to return at their retirement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 11, 2007)

> Ninja Pirates in Spaaaace!!!




Shouldn't that read:

*GIFF* Ninja Pirates in Spaaaace!!!


----------



## Andor (May 11, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Shouldn't that read:
> 
> *GIFF* Ninja Pirates in Spaaaace!!!




I can _so_ imagine anime giff ninja clinging to ceilings and leaping down on people with giant mallets.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 11, 2007)

_Death From Above!!!_

aka

"Khashan *SQUASH!!!*"

(For some reason, I now want to play a size L Ninja in a regular campaign...)


----------



## Infernal Teddy (May 11, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Shouldn't that read:
> 
> *GIFF* Ninja Pirates in Spaaaace!!!




*Must... resist... urge...*

*Starts stating up a Giff Ninja / Rouge*


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 12, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> _Death From Above!!!_
> 
> aka
> 
> ...




You know that brings a tear to my eye.  Especially since Giff can be effected by an Enlarge spell.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 12, 2007)

If you like Psionics, use Expansion- bump your Giff's size up 2x!

"What is that creaking sound?"


----------



## Shadeydm (May 12, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I can _so_ imagine anime giff ninja clinging to ceilings and leaping down on people with giant mallets.




Giff Ninja to have been played by the late Chris Farley.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 12, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Giff Ninja to have been played by the late Chris Farley.



Note to all: do not drink while reading about Giff Ninjas


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 12, 2007)

*Warning!*

Quaffing while reading of Giff Ninjas is a gaffe!

(Quoth the guffawing Giraffe...)


----------



## MojoGM (May 12, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> BTW, what's left of my old Spelljammer files:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/spelljammer/spelljam.htm




Great stuff here.  Ya know, this thread has inspired me to cast _Resurrection_ on my old Spelljammer campaign, and I'll probably use some of this stuff.  Mad props, Funny Hat Man


----------



## Tolen Mar (May 12, 2007)

For those of you who derailed the thread with the Giff Ninja...

Thank you so much!  My day sucked horribly, I needed a long laugh like that.


----------



## RichGreen (May 12, 2007)

Wrox said:
			
		

> I have always enjoyed Spelljammer and I'm pleased to report that the upcoming _Grand History of the Realms_ will make direct reference to Spelljammer and its various influences on the setting and its history.
> 
> -Brian R. James




Good stuff! Looking forward to the book -- the PDF version is excellent.


Richard


----------



## boerngrim (May 12, 2007)

The Spelljammer campaign I played in back in the 90's remains to this day one of the most fun times I've had playing D&D. It was the one setting where our DM would pretty much let anyone try any race or class. Predictably it was weird and wild, but also a blast.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 12, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe that the reason Spelljammer failed was that it lacked one thing a setting really needs to capture people's imaginations: a strong central conflict to act as a central premise for the action.




In your view, what is the central conflict of the Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms campaign setting? For that matter, what is the central conflict of the Eberron campaign setting?

I see one in Dragonlance and I think I see one ("man vs. environment") in Dark Sun, but I'm at a loss to find a "central" conflict in the most popular and longest-running D&D settings.

--Erik


----------



## Odhanan (May 13, 2007)

Forgotten Realms has loads of villain organizations vs. the good guys. Drows vs. surface. Zhents vs. Dales. No matter what region you look at, you can find such a conflict, Erik. It's more about what region you choose to use rather than a global conflict that would explain everything, from my perspective, though the notion of conflict's still there.

For Greyhawk, that's a bit special I think. I see its popularity more as being justified by its status of Classic D&D universe than just what it does present as a setting. Further, I suspect people know Greyhawk personally out of specific modules, like Temple of Elemental Evil, rather than overarching campaign setting products.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 13, 2007)

I can see how both of the examples you cite are true. I cannot see how either of them conforms to Alan's point, which is that a setting must have a CENTRAL conflict, rather than dozens and dozens of little ones.

But I'd love to hear from Psion, because maybe I'm misinterpreting him.

--Erik


----------



## 13garth13 (May 13, 2007)

> 4 - the ship is moving at spelljamming speed and "runs over" whatever it is that it encounters.  In this case the something is now within the air/gravity envelope of the ship along its FORWARD edge and moving at the same speed as the ship.  It will be affected by the ships gravity just as everything else, but will otherwise remain moving at spelljamming speed WITH the ship until it leaves the air/gravity envelope to the REAR edge.  It is then instantly left behind.  If it tries to leave by the forward edge it will not succeed, simply remaining AT the edge as the ship continues to "run it down".
> 
> So, the vast majority of critter encounters aboard a spelljamming ship that is at speed will be their effective INSTANT appearance somewhere along the forward edge of the envelope.  And the entire encounter MUST take place entirely within the envelope unless the ship does drop out of spelljamming speed.




   I will confess that I don't remember that being in the rules (my bad...).   However, as devil's advocate, given the vastness of Voidspace, what were the odds that your ship would bump into something's personal space that many times in a journey at spelljamming speed?  Sure, it's permissable by the rules, but it does seem like it would get a little lame after awhile...Yes, yet another large/medium creature out of the millions of cubic hectares of Voidspace has stumbled into your path....roll for initiative.   

Again, it was a wonderful concept with some truly freaky beasts that I'm dying for ways to integrate into my 3.5 Greyhawk campaign, but there were some logistical issues to say the least.

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 13, 2007)

13garth13 said:
			
		

> I will confess that I don't remember that being in the rules (my bad...).



Not at all your bad.  It was the rules bad.  It took me a good deal of cogitation to distill that nugget of "Just how DOES an encounter occur on a ship at Spelljamming speed?"  Those distilled possiblities were created by the rules as written, but were definitely not listed as such or described as such.  It is simply the only list of possibilities (with rare exceptions of course).  Don't blame yourself for not intuitively grasping what the rules left unsaid.


> However, as devil's advocate, given the vastness of Voidspace, what were the odds that your ship would bump into something's personal space that many times in a journey at spelljamming speed?  Sure, it's permissable by the rules, but it does seem like it would get a little lame after awhile...Yes, yet another large/medium creature out of the millions of cubic hectares of Voidspace has stumbled into your path....roll for initiative.



And just one of the list of issues with Spelljammer _as written_.  You really can only run a proper Spelljammer campaign if you really ARE flying by the seat of your pants.    There are too many holes in the rules, too many walls in the rules, too many inconsistencies, lapses and oversights. But it's Hell On Jets if you have players that are willing to play along, rather than play _against_ the rules.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2007)

Spelljamer Helms = Infinite Improbability Drive prototypes


----------



## Warbringer (May 13, 2007)

Tolen Mar said:
			
		

> And now Wizards is doing the same with Eberron.




Uhhh?

How???


----------



## Odhanan (May 14, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I can see how both of the examples you cite are true. I cannot see how either of them conforms to Alan's point, which is that a setting must have a CENTRAL conflict, rather than dozens and dozens of little ones.
> 
> But I'd love to hear from Psion, because maybe I'm misinterpreting him.
> 
> --Erik




Ha! Gotcha... central, yes. Sort of overlooked that one, didn't I?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2007)

I don't know...

A setting that has lots of little conflicts can quickly become one that has a major one.  Each one is a potential flashpoint that can go off at any time.

That is, after all, how WW1 started- not from one central conflict, but from a confluence of a variety of tensions all over the world that, according to some, at least, were finally set off by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand...if for no other reason than some using that as a justification for other inflammatory actions.

IOW, a setting with multiple conflicts, in the hands of an inventive DM, can become just as epic and satisfyingly coherent as any other.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 15, 2007)

I agree, but "lots of little conflicts" is not the central conflict Alan is speaking of, I suspect.

I'm genuinely curious to see if I'm interpreting him correctly, but he's apparently abandoned the thread. 

--Erik

PS: I ran a Spelljammer campaign, own about half of the setting, and was one of two evil masterminds behind "Shadow of a Spider Moon." It's one of my favorite D&D settings.


----------



## Piratecat (May 15, 2007)

I'll ping him.


----------



## Psion (May 15, 2007)

I've been pinged... let me gather a few notes here...



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> In your view, what is the central conflict of the Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms campaign setting? For that matter, what is the central conflict of the Eberron campaign setting?
> 
> I see one in Dragonlance and I think I see one ("man vs. environment") in Dark Sun, but I'm at a loss to find a "central" conflict in the most popular and longest-running D&D settings.






			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> Forgotten Realms has loads of villain organizations vs. the good guys. Drows vs. surface. Zhents vs. Dales. No matter what region you look at, you can find such a conflict, Erik. It's more about what region you choose to use rather than a global conflict that would explain everything, from my perspective, though the notion of conflict's still there.
> 
> For Greyhawk, that's a bit special I think. I see its popularity more as being justified by its status of Classic D&D universe than just what it does present as a setting. Further, I suspect people know Greyhawk personally out of specific modules, like Temple of Elemental Evil, rather than overarching campaign setting products.






			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I can see how both of the examples you cite are true. I cannot see how either of them conforms to Alan's point, which is that a setting must have a CENTRAL conflict, rather than dozens and dozens of little ones.
> 
> But I'd love to hear from Psion, because maybe I'm misinterpreting him.




Okay, I can see that I didn't give the topic the essay-like depth it might have deserved.

Really, I think that this factor has more to do with it's perception in the audience of a setting's would be fans than the actual in-milieu scope of the conflict.

Regarding Greyhawk, Odhanan may be on to something about classic status giving it a benefit that no other d20 setting is ever going to have. That said, I don't think it's the whole story. When we were gaming in Greyhawk as teens, we always made a big deal of the Scarlet Brotherhood. Further, I think that the classic module series set in Greyhawk (like Slavers, Giants, and Drow) were strongly associated with the setting and became a locus for shared experience in the setting.

Forgotten Realms, when it was growing, had the Time of Troubles, but conflicts between certain deities and nations were always highlighted and important, such as the machinions of Grazzt, the Shar/Selune conflict, as well as the threat of the Zhentarium and the Drow/Dales conflicts.

I think that having lots of little conflicts that have the potential to be used by the DM is not so much the same thing as having a larger, more crucial conflict that will likely be used as a central identifying feature of a setting among different groups, and thus build a shared experience regarding what the setting is really about.

I don't want to come across as asserting that this is the one litmus test for whether or not a setting will be successful. I will rephrase to say that I do believe a strong central conflict is a major factor in the success of a setting, and one that Spelljammer lacked that might have given in more enduring and widespread acceptance.

Market position and word of mouth will play parts as well, but among those settings that persevered against the odds and gained a significant and enduring following, I notice that the pronounced nature of a central conflict. Midnight, anyone?


----------



## Maldin (May 18, 2007)

13garth13 said:
			
		

> However, as devil's advocate, given the vastness of Voidspace, what were the odds that your ship would bump into something's personal space that many times in a journey at spelljamming speed?



There was a lively discussion on the probability of spelljamming vessels "bumping" into eachother over on the WotC Spelljammer boards in this thread . My theory for reconciling the rules went like so... 

The physics of the D&D multiverse is rather different then the RealWorld. For a detailed explanation of the how and why of this, see my "Life, the Multiverse, and Everything" page at http://melkot.com/mysteries/multiverse.html (sorry for the shameless plug, but you may find that it explains the D&D multiverse nicely for you - its what ties my multiverse together)

One of the themes my page discusses is the "Laws of the Multiverse", and the different "forces" (for lack of a better term, I use the capitalized term "Variables"). Two of the Variables are a complimentary pair "Magical Energy" and "Life Energy" (or Vitae).

As a ship travels through the truly astronomical dimensions of wildspace, even the tiniest variations in its course result in huge differences in its final destination. How does a spelljammer plot a course accurate to thousandths or even millionths of a degree? Obviously... he can't! Yet still, the ship always (most times) ends up exactly where it wants to be. Impossible, you say? No, this is inherent in the magical functioning of the helm. Even the slightest inaccuracy in direction would render the helm worthless... jammers would get hopelessly lost every time they plotted a course to some destination that they couldn't physically see (and make visual course corrections on approach).

How does this work? Well, a spelljamming helm actually has a built-in self-correcting functionality that utilizes a sort of "heat-seeking" magical technology... it is literally drawn towards "Magical Energy" and "Life Energy", and its detection capability operates at astronomical distances! Truly a wonder of magical accomplishment (and why the Arcane have the monopoly). Unbeknownst to most jammers, their course is actually deflected by the presence of such concentrations ever so slightly. At these distances, it doesn't take much deflection to result in a "bull's eye", and just enough happens to get travellers where they want to be (most times). Since most destinations have either life, or magic, or both (and most empty space has nothing), the system works. Jammers travelling near eachother would also have their two flight paths deflected towards eachother, almost guaranteeing that they'll approach close enough to drop out of spelljamming speed. This not only would explain why wildspace encounters happen at all, but why wildspace encounters are virtually guaranteed.

Of course, this theory could have game consequences, if the DM so desires. A destination that is totally lacking in Magical or Life Energy (a difficult thing in a magic multiverse) would theoretically be more difficult to find. A malfunctioning helm could be repulsed by the same forces (or neutral), rendering it useless, possibly causing the travellers to become lost for years. Enter "The Lost Patrol" adventure where the PCs (whose helm is functioning) happens upon a group of lost travellers who think that some old war is still raging. I'm sure DMs can come up with other scenarios as well.

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com
Loads of edition-independent Greyhawk goodness... maps, magic, mysteries, mechanics, and more! Including all-new spelljammer ship fold-up models!


----------



## Pbartender (May 18, 2007)

Maldin said:
			
		

> My theory for reconciling the rules went like so...




Allow me to apply Occam's Razor here and propose a far simpler explanation...

Shipping lanes.

Take a look at real shipping for the last two or three thousand years.  Whenever a ship goes from point A to point B, there is a certain course that is most advantageous to follow...  Because of prevailing weather, dangerous obstacles that must be avoided and sometimes even political considerations, that route will be the one that the vast majority of ships traveling between those two points use.

What that means is, anyone sailing within the shipping lanes is very likely to run across other ships on a fairly regular basis -- that where they all are, after all.  Take off into the uncharted phlogiston, and chances are you'll get lost in the vast expanses of Wildspace, wandering aimlessly forever until you starve.

So, most spelljammers may very well be encouranged to stick to those well-used shipping lanes...  They're clearly and thoroughly mapped, and if something does go wrong it's the most likely place to get found and rescued.

Plus, this provides a predictable path for piratical excursions against shipping and military invasions of other worlds. Running into an enemy ship might be uncommon, but not necessarily impossible.

What's more, the lanes where ships sail is where all the detrius, flotsam and garbage from said ships would tend to drift and accumulate.  Naturally, this will attract the natural scavengers of the phlogiston and the predators that hunt them as well, thus greatly increasing the chances of encountering these creatures as well.

There you go.

Shipping lanes.


----------



## Ry (May 18, 2007)

I like the shipping lanes idea, but I tend to take it in a Babylon 5 / Stargate kind of way.  Gates and stellar alignment to get onto major routes between spheres / worlds.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 18, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> IRegarding Greyhawk, Odhanan may be on to something about classic status giving it a benefit that no other d20 setting is ever going to have. That said, I don't think it's the whole story. When we were gaming in Greyhawk as teens, we always made a big deal of the Scarlet Brotherhood. Further, I think that the classic module series set in Greyhawk (like Slavers, Giants, and Drow) were strongly associated with the setting and became a locus for shared experience in the setting.




If you're saying shared experience, rather than strong central conflict, the classic modules do probably provide a baseline.  But those classic modules definitely didn't provide the kind of strong central conflict seen in the original Dragonlance modules, or integral to the Dark Sun setting.  (Incidentally, I would say Dark Sun had two central conflicts, but they worked together: man against environment and overthrowing the sorcerer-kings.)



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Forgotten Realms, when it was growing, had the Time of Troubles, but conflicts between certain deities and nations were always highlighted and important, such as the machinions of Grazzt, the Shar/Selune conflict, as well as the threat of the Zhentarium and the Drow/Dales conflicts.




Considering how contentious Time of Troubles was, I don't think you can consider it a selling point.  Or much of a central conflict, for that matter, since it was resolved in a single, short, not-terribly-well-regarded module series.  

The rest seem to me textbook examples of 'lots of little conflicts.'  *None* of those speak to my experience of the Realms, except for the Zhents.  My experience of the Realms was focused on Zhentil Keep as the primary antagonist in AD&D, and Thay as the primary antagonist/sometime patron in more recent years.  I would never have thought of Grazzt as 'iconic to the realms,' and Shar/Selune is something I don't recall ever dealing with.

I have to go with Erik on this one.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I think that having lots of little conflicts that have the potential to be used by the DM is not so much the same thing as having a larger, more crucial conflict that will likely be used as a central identifying feature of a setting among different groups, and thus build a shared experience regarding what the setting is really about.




Again, I don't think either FR or Greyhawk had this _at all_.  Eberron, which also appears to be doing well, doesn't have it either.  Neither did Mystara/the Known World.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I don't want to come across as asserting that this is the one litmus test for whether or not a setting will be successful. I will rephrase to say that I do believe a strong central conflict is a major factor in the success of a setting, and one that Spelljammer lacked that might have given in more enduring and widespread acceptance.




Honestly, the scro/elf conflict in Spelljammer always seemed more central to the setting to me than any conflict in FR or Greyhawk.  It seemed like something you could avoid, but not really ignore - if war broke out, your privateering/merchantman/adventurer PCs might not get involved, but only because they made a point of not doing so.  The default assumption was that sooner or later you'd probably get sucked into the conflict.  At least, that was the impression I got, how I ran the setting, and how I've seen it run.

By contrast, in FR or Greyhawk I never felt like there was a conflict I'd have to actively avoid if I didn't want to participate.  Thay invading Rashemen?  That's, like, a dozen countries away!  Zhents on the move?  There's plenty of uninvolved countries.  Drow attacking Icewind Dale?  Has my character even *heard* of Icewind Dale?  The Greyhawk Wars would qualify for Greyhawk... but again, controversial/unpopular setting-shaking event.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Market position and word of mouth will play parts as well, but among those settings that persevered against the odds and gained a significant and enduring following, I notice that the pronounced nature of a central conflict. Midnight, anyone?




Iron Kingdoms, anyone?  I don't know, I just don't see it as a major factor.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 18, 2007)

Moogle seems to have nailed it - a "strong central conflict" seems to make settings _less_ popular, not more, because it limits the flexibility of the setting. You can do almost anything with the Realms or Greyhawk or Eberron that you want to do, but in Dark Sun or Dragonlance you're stuck revisiting the same themes because they so dominate everything else on those worlds. A setting can survive this - as Dragonlance has - if the themes are widely liked, but it's generally bad game design to make the conflicts in a setting too central or too strong.


----------



## Psion (May 18, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If you're saying shared experience, rather than strong central conflict, the classic modules do probably provide a baseline.  But those classic modules definitely didn't provide the kind of strong central conflict seen in the original Dragonlance modules, or integral to the Dark Sun setting.




We've already discussed this; as Odhannan mentions above Greyhawk might benefit from being the first, and having the attention of the entire audience at the time, a benefit that few shared. Nonetheless, the adventures that I mention were nominally set in greyhawk, represented central conflicts and villains of the setting in the minds of the audience, and so played a similar role.

Please do me the favor of trying to understand my previous posts before going over the same ground.



> Considering how contentious Time of Troubles was, I don't think you can consider it a selling point. Or much of a central conflict, for that matter, since it was resolved in a single, short, not-terribly-well-regarded module series.
> 
> The rest seem to me textbook examples of 'lots of little conflicts.' *None* of those speak to my experience of the Realms, except for the Zhents. My experience of the Realms was focused on Zhentil Keep as the primary antagonist in AD&D, and Thay as the primary antagonist/sometime patron in more recent years. I would never have thought of Grazzt as 'iconic to the realms,' and Shar/Selune is something I don't recall ever dealing with.




I think perhaps you are:
1) Assuming that I am asserting that there must be a singular conflict; I'm not. A large setting like FR can generally afford to have a few, so long as the conflicts don't become so varied and so minor that they no longer have a unique identity in the mind of the fans.
2) Assuming I mean something more concrete and limited in scope that I intend. I don't see Grazzt or Shar or Mystara and their various conflicts to be singularly iconic of the realms. However, the conflicts of the well known and established FR deity set are a common theme in Realms novels, adventures, and supplements. This over-arching set of conflicts serves in the role I speak of. The time of troubles, for as contentious and damning as you portray it to be, pretty much set the stage for this ongoing set of conflicts.



> Again, I don't think either FR or Greyhawk had this at all.




Of course, since you have misconstrued my meaning to mean something that they don't have...



> Eberron, which also appears to be doing well, doesn't have it either. Neither did Mystara/the Known World.




Re: Eberron. Oh, I beg to differ. The influence of the quori and lingering impact of the last war are uniting themes that are woven into the supplements and adventures.

Mystara, you could well be right. They sort of tried to make one with red steel, and there were isolated regional conflicts of the sort you assumed I was referring to in FR, but really, I think this is a reason that, despite being nearly as well heeled as Greyhawk and having a fascinating set of supplements, never seemed to get the same sort of traction, even after multiple attempts at restarting the setting.



> Honestly, the scro/elf conflict in Spelljammer always seemed more central to the setting to me than any conflict in FR or Greyhawk.




Again, I think you are seeing "conflict" as a central specific skirmish or war more than something more pervasive to the setting in the way I mean it.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 18, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Again, I don't think either FR or Greyhawk had this _at all_.  Eberron, which also appears to be doing well, doesn't have it either.  Neither did Mystara/the Known World.




Pretty much in agreement with Moogle here, but thought I'd chime in on this point- Mystara did at one time have a central conflict (Wrath of the Immortals) which is in many ways not regarded all that well by the online community at least. The consensus seems to be that it being a world with 'lots of little conflicts' (to use the term of parlance in play here) was much better than the one big one. 

As a further point, a second similar type of conflict (titled World in Flames)- a followup proposed and penned by Bruce Heard, long time designer and product manager of Mystara (who is generally well regarded by that settings' fans)- was not very well received among the online community either, for similar reasons.

Just my two cents and a sort of example of why central conflicts may not always be in the best interests of a setting.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 18, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Forgotten Realms, when it was growing, had the Time of Troubles, but conflicts between certain deities and nations were always highlighted and important, such as the machinions of Grazzt, the Shar/Selune conflict, as well as the threat of the Zhentarium and the Drow/Dales conflicts.




How can the above be an example of one "larger, more crucial conflict that will likely be used as a central identifying feature of a setting among different groups" when they all deal with different groups and events that are not necessarily connected to one another? I don't recall any connections between the Zhentarim and the Drow for instance, nor did the events of the Moonshaes have much to do with anything else going on in the Realms (the first trilogy was self-contained, the second got slightly involved with Evermeet).


----------



## Psion (May 18, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> How can the above be an example of one "larger, more crucial conflict that will likely be used as a central identifying feature of a setting among different groups" when they all deal with different groups and events that are not necessarily connected to one another? I don't recall any connections between the Zhentarim and the Drow for instance




I never said there was any.

When I said "among different groups", I meant _gaming groups_, i.e., people playing in the setting. I imagine multiple gaming groups playing in the realms would relate their experiences relating to the drow or relating to the zhents.


----------



## Creeping Death (May 18, 2007)

The conflicts that I found in spelljammer were:

Neogi/Umberhulk slavers against anyone else (really selling anyone to anyone)
Beholder race wars
Elf/Scro
Mindflayers vs. everyone (IIRC, mindflayers used to control all, but where overthrown and continually scheme to get it back); and mindflayers vs. Gith*.

I also liked to mix planescape in as well to get orc vs hobgoblin/goblin, Githyanki vs Githzerai, goblinoid vs elf, demon vs devil, and so on.  You had more conflicts than you could shake a stick at.

Later,


----------



## Matthan (May 18, 2007)

I've loved Spelljammer since first hearing the idea of it (which unfortunately was after its demise) and I've gone back and bought many of the products of the line and enjoyed most of them.  About its popularity, I can only look back and give an opinion, but my hope is that it might spark some thoughts in those of you who lived through it to give it some weight.

The overlooked thing that I believe hurt Spelljammer was the novels.  Where Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms had strong novels that helped cement the setting as fan favorites.  Part of that is timing (what else was there like it at the time?) and part of it was quality.  The Chronicles provide a touchpoint for many young fantasy fans.  How many gamers think fondly of Raistlin?  Drizzt and Elminster seem to likewise helped to bolster popularity of the Forgotten Realms.  (As an aside, I think the initial stumbles of Dragonlance products that kept so close to the novels and original modules hurt the view of Dragonlance as an RP setting, by the time they started expanding their outlook most gamers had written off the setting or passed the time when they wanted to play in the world i.e. when they just finished the novels.  FR seems to have used its popular characters to prop up ideas about the wider world.  Elminister explains different things.  The Underdark referring to Drizzt.)
Spelljammers novels were hurt by the shifting authors dealing with a continuing story.  If we had 6 Spelljammer books with the same authors that got to tell their own story (and consequently shown the flexibility of the setting), you may have gotten a different response.  

The other thing that I do believe played a part was simply the amount of settings that were starting to roll out.  And everyone plays this card, I admit.  Spelljammer took a lot of risks with its design.  Not everything turned out perfect, but it's a bold design.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, it didn't read the direction of fan culture (which is a terrible term that I'm going to taken to task for) very well.  In other words, it went with more wild and fun fantasy than a darker fantasy.  Look at that time period and look at what was selling across the board.  Comics were starting to get "darker."  Movies as well.  Even tv shows were playing on those same few notes.  And we bought it.  Spelljammer didn't fit that mold.  It could have, but it never presented itself that way.  Ravenloft did and sold fairly well and maintained a decent novel line alongside it.  I would even argue that Planescape went more in that direction with how it presents the different factions and the art choices.  Spelljammer hit at that wrong point for a product of its kind.  It still found an audience, but never a mass one (relatively speaking since we're talking about gamers).  

That's my unproven musings.  Though to the person earlier in the thread who mention Iron Heroes Spelljammer, my thanks, you may have just given me the drive to start a campaign.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> When I said "among different groups", I meant _gaming groups_, i.e., people playing in the setting. I imagine multiple gaming groups playing in the realms would relate their experiences relating to the drow or relating to the zhents.




No, I got that- I guess what I'm not understanding is that you are claiming there is "a larger, more crucial conflict that will likely be used as a central identifying feature of a setting" when to me it doesn't appear that there is only _a_ conflict, but many different, varying types of conflicts.


----------



## Psion (May 19, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> No, I got that- I guess what I'm not understanding is that you are claiming there is "a larger, more crucial conflict that will likely be used as a central identifying feature of a setting" when to me it doesn't appear that there is only _a_ conflict, but many different, varying types of conflicts.




To repeat what I clarified above, I don't think it necessarily has to be a _singular_ conflict, but there should be few enough and central enough that they can be used as an identifying feature of the setting that GMs and authors alike can use them to develop a somewhat common vision of what the setting is about.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 19, 2007)

Right- well, your first clarification in the above post didn't really clarify that "non-singular" part that you just now mentioned. So, in other words when you say "central conflict" and "larger, more crucial conflict" and "strong central conflict" you also mean, "several, smaller, but still significant conflicts". Gotcha.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (May 19, 2007)

Maybe someone needs to pitch Spelljammer to the new Iron Heroes owners.   

Dump all the 'let's tie all the worlds together theory', keep the far out fantasy physics, and throw in some of the updated 3rd edition stuff floating around out there.  Pun sort of intended.   

A few little tweaks and it'd be Awesomeness to the 5th power


----------



## Ry (May 19, 2007)

In Iron Heroes, magic is usually unpredictable, untrustworthy, or evil.  

"What powers your ships?"

"Well, we've got the tortured soul of a lich, but I'm thinking of trading up to a ship that's driven by the mad dreams of a god called Kluth- katha - I dunno, he's under some sea."

"Cool."

"Yeah, you'd think that, until you try to go to sleep."


----------



## Kmart Kommando (May 19, 2007)

rycanada said:
			
		

> In Iron Heroes, magic is usually unpredictable, untrustworthy, or evil.



Much the same as any group of PCs.


----------



## RichGreen (May 19, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Honestly, the scro/elf conflict in Spelljammer always seemed more central to the setting to me than any conflict in FR or Greyhawk.  It seemed like something you could avoid, but not really ignore - if war broke out, your privateering/merchantman/adventurer PCs might not get involved, but only because they made a point of not doing so.  The default assumption was that sooner or later you'd probably get sucked into the conflict.  At least, that was the impression I got, how I ran the setting, and how I've seen it run.




Agree with this: if you played the SJ modules, particularly Goblin's Return and Heart of the Enemy, this was a decent major conflict, even if Heart of the Enemy was a bit daft in places.

Cheers


Richard


----------

