D&D 5E Is there any indication that WotC will launch a new setting?

Parmandur · Oct 17, 2017

Mercule said:
The Realms is not appropriate for homebrew. Just because it started that way is irrelevant. It is a published setting and using it is pretty much the opposite of homebrew.

Core D&D is suitable for generic pseudo-medieval fantasy. Once you start throwing the maps, factions, gods, etc. of the Realms in, it ceases to be generic -- by definition. It becomes an implementation of the toolkit in the same way that Greyhawk or Krynn are.

Appropriate for scratching off the serial numbers and repurposing for Homebrew, certainly. The published adventures have little connection to the FR, and the parts that are can be easily repurposed (make Waterdeep the City of the Invincible Overlord, etc.). Indeed, the adventure books spend some time on how to use them in your own world or other D&D settings.

TwoSix · Oct 17, 2017

Mercule said:
The really cynical part is that I think that the way in which they're using the Realms goes beyond just capitalizing on any goodwill and name recognition the setting may have. The level of integration is abstract enough that you don't have to grok the full history of the Realms to use it, but deep enough to be difficult to decouple the setting from (definitely) the adventures and (potentially) the other source books. Thus, there's just the right amount of pressure to encourage folks to use the Realms as their setting, rather than build their own. This opens up a market not by cannibalizing the other published settings (primarily), but by going after the homebrew segment, which is a much larger segment. That might be just a side-effect, but I suspect they're smart enough for it to be intentional.

It's not ineffective. When I ran a game for some new D&D players earlier this year, I used the Realms precisely because it was already baked into the books and the supplemental material, and that made it easy to explain.

Mercule · Oct 17, 2017

Parmandur said:
Appropriate for scratching off the serial numbers and repurposing for Homebrew, certainly. The published adventures have little connection to the FR, and the parts that are can be easily repurposed (make Waterdeep the City of the Invincible Overlord, etc.). Indeed, the adventure books spend some time on how to use them in your own world or other D&D settings.

It's hit and miss. Some (Tyranny of Dragons) are nigh impossible to remove without pretty much just using the adventure for inspiration and a few locales. Others (Princes of the Apocalypse) aren't too bad, but the advice on porting them aren't great -- I genuinely appreciate the effort, but they have some pretty significant mismatches, at least with Eberron.

Mercule · Oct 17, 2017

TwoSix said:
It's not ineffective. When I ran a game for some new D&D players earlier this year, I used the Realms precisely because it was already baked into the books and the supplemental material, and that made it easy to explain.

Oh, I get it. If it was Greyhawk or Eberron, I'd probably have succumbed to the path of least resistance by now. I still wouldn't have appreciated the positioning, but I like those two settings well enough to consider them when I'm not doing homebrew, anyway. In truth, if they did a new "Nentir Vale" evolutionary setting, I'd probably hop on that train, too -- with far fewer reservations because I'd view it as an example of how to build a world.

I've actually been tempted to just SCAG for running the published adventures. Ultimately, though, I realized that I have enough malice towards the Realms that I'd go out of my way, subconsciously, to invalidate anything published for the Realms pre-5E and be very, very literal about only 5E material being canon -- and that only selectively (by book). Not a good idea considering I have a player who actually likes (not loves, but likes) the Realms and knows quite a bit about it.

TwoSix · Oct 17, 2017

Mercule said:
I've actually been tempted to just SCAG for running the published adventures. Ultimately, though, I realized that I have enough malice towards the Realms that I'd go out of my way, subconsciously, to invalidate anything published for the Realms pre-5E and be very, very literal about only 5E material being canon -- and that only selectively (by book). Not a good idea considering I have a player who actually likes (not loves, but likes) the Realms and knows quite a bit about it.

Yea, I don't love the Realms, but it's playable for me as long as I avoid any gods-driven metaplots; I have a strong dislike for large pantheons with activist deities. (Come back, Eberron!)

Parmandur · Oct 17, 2017

Mercule said:
It's hit and miss. Some (Tyranny of Dragons) are nigh impossible to remove without pretty much just using the adventure for inspiration and a few locales. Others (Princes of the Apocalypse) aren't too bad, but the advice on porting them aren't great -- I genuinely appreciate the effort, but they have some pretty significant mismatches, at least with Eberron.

Tyranny of Dragons is probably the worst offender among the published APs, but when push comes to shove it is just a series of short modules of generic D&D shennanigans held together by a paper thin excuse for a plot, itself easily stripped of any serial numbers.

Thing is, WotC has identified four broad groups: Forgotten Realms fans, Homebrewers who are full DIY and won't buy books in general, Homebrewers who will happily loot setting specific books for their own world, and fans of other settings. Apparently, FR products have historically performed well among the Looters, who would doubtless be as happy with Greyhawk or Dragonlance.

Speaking of Greyhawk and Dragonlance, there is just about as much fluff from those settings in the books as there is for FR: aside from cutesy remarks in the margins, Greyhawk is really more involved in Volo's Guide than FR, and lots of other settings get in on the action.

Matt Tessier · Oct 18, 2017

only if they think they can make money off it, lol

dave2008 · Oct 18, 2017

Mercule said:
It's hit and miss. Some (Tyranny of Dragons) are nigh impossible to remove without pretty much just using the adventure for inspiration and a few locales. Others (Princes of the Apocalypse) aren't too bad, but the advice on porting them aren't great -- I genuinely appreciate the effort, but they have some pretty significant mismatches, at least with Eberron.

Not sure what you mean. I will be running ToD and RoT completely divorced from the Realms as I have my own homebrew world we campaign in. I plan to pretty much run it as is (with some of the advice on these forums) and just change some names. How is that nigh impossible to use?

CapnZapp · Oct 18, 2017

dave2008 said:
Not sure what you mean. I will be running ToD and RoT completely divorced from the Realms as I have my own homebrew world we campaign in. I plan to pretty much run it as is (with some of the advice on these forums) and just change some names. How is that nigh impossible to use?

He means you are a nigh unstoppable dungeon master?

CapnZapp · Oct 25, 2017

Getting back to this, I had reason to look back into the various "... of Faerûn" books for the 3rd edition.

I had forgotten how many they were, and how stupendous the amount of words they contain. Races of, Magic of, Power of, Players Guide, the list goes on and on; and that's even we start with the regional sourcebooks Shining South, etc etc.

No wonder the line tanks when you publish such ultra-specific books!

I feel it's deeply dismissive to just cheer WotC on for dumping the entire idea, as if our only choice was between a watered-down anemic almost-brochure-thin treatment (like SCAG) on one hand, and a utterly overwhelming array of products (easily two dozen) on the other hand.

What people want is neither of those things.

They want a lovingly faithful update of the FRCS for 5th edition. Then they want the same for Eberron, Dark Sun or Birthright.

Just dismissing these desires by "you don't want WotC to lose money, do you?" is a crappy way to argue. Not least because we don't need self-appointed WotC spokespersons or guardians here.

How about we leave the economics to WotC, so we can focus on what fans do best - dream about future products?

Asking for a 5e Cerilia campaign setting book [replace with your favorite world] looks like an entirely reasonable request to ask here.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

D&D 5E Is there any indication that WotC will launch a new setting?

Parmandur

Book-Friend

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Mercule

Adventurer

Mercule

Adventurer

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Matt Tessier

First Post

dave2008

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

Similar Threads