D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

[Remathilis]

Re, the bolded part: isn't that what the sidebars and/or sections with advice and/or options for including things that are normally restricted going to do?

I mean, if the book just said "X, Y & Z are banned" then you'd have a point. But, if the book says the following (which is what I'm advocating for), the limited appeal based on restrictions argument evaporates, "X, Y & Z are normally not a part of the setting. Here are some variants that will fit with the themes of the setting. And, if you are set on using the originals, here are some ways you can incorporate them into the setting."

Let me quote the 3e Dragonlance book for a perfect example of what I think would work well for me, as well as for you...

That's all I need for coverage.

 

[MechaPilot]

Let me quote the 3e Dragonlance book for a perfect example of what I think would work well for me, as well as for you...

That's all I need for coverage.

Sort of.

Between monk and the start of the first paragraph, I'd add:

"Monks are not typically found on Krynn. However, below is an option for how to include them if you would like to do so."

 

[Zardnaar]

Let me quote the 3e Dragonlance book for a perfect example of what I think would work well for me, as well as for you...

That's all I need for coverage.

Dragonlance Adventures actually excluded Monks (page 12 acceptable classes) and the Monk was in the 1E PHB. I have not seen the 3E Dragonlance book so owuld have to look at it in that context, the 2E boxed set was bad, DL Adventures (1E) I like (as far as I can like Dragonlance).


Monks on Dragonlance is not that big of a thing though, its a bit different on Athas. I'm also a bit more open on new classes as long as those new classses fit the theme (no elementalist wizards). I also think no new arcane classes should be added to Darksun (or are needed). DS had niche protection. The reason is how magic is powered on Athas and the whole preserver and defiler thing which is a major thing of Dragonlance.

New is also fine, just don't bollocks it up. I am not a fan of Magitech but I would play Eberron and even maybe pick a Warforged (it fits the setting). Eberron was a good take on the idea, 4E FR and Athas not so much (4E Eberron was fine).

 

[Hussar]

Re, the bolded part: isn't that what the sidebars and/or sections with advice and/or options for including things that are normally restricted going to do?

I mean, if the book just said "X, Y & Z are banned" then you'd have a point. But, if the book says the following (which is what I'm advocating for), the limited appeal based on restrictions argument evaporates, "X, Y & Z are normally not a part of the setting. Here are some variants that will fit with the themes of the setting. And, if you are set on using the originals, here are some ways you can incorporate them into the setting."

Or, conversely, you simply include that material, appeal to as broad an audience as possible and leave it up to individual DM's to tailor their game.

I mean, Zaardnar's version of DS excludes Monks, Paladins, Warlocks and Barbarians. Umm, that's a quarter of the PHB that just got ejected. While those might not be the most played classes, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of tables out that have at least one of those being played right now. Putting out a product that pretty much excludes at least one player from every table is maybe not the best business model?

I'd much, much rather they go the other way. Here's the 5e version of Setting X that uses all or at least most of the PHB, Volo's Guides, etc. If a DM is really interested in trying to recreate the historical version of the setting, that DM can do the work instead of trying to sell me a setting that makes me eject half my PHB.

Granted, for Kickstarter projects or much smaller publishing? Go right ahead. For a WotC 5e product? Not going to happen.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or, conversely, you simply include that material, appeal to as broad an audience as possible and leave it up to individual DM's to tailor their game.

I mean, Zaardnar's version of DS excludes Monks, Paladins, Warlocks and Barbarians. Umm, that's a quarter of the PHB that just got ejected. While those might not be the most played classes, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of tables out that have at least one of those being played right now. Putting out a product that pretty much excludes at least one player from every table is maybe not the best business model?

I'd much, much rather they go the other way. Here's the 5e version of Setting X that uses all or at least most of the PHB, Volo's Guides, etc. If a DM is really interested in trying to recreate the historical version of the setting, that DM can do the work instead of trying to sell me a setting that makes me eject half my PHB.

Granted, for Kickstarter projects or much smaller publishing? Go right ahead. For a WotC 5e product? Not going to happen.

Well some of us want to play Darksun as opposed to the PHB combined with the 3.5 Sandstorm splat book with the Darksun label slapped on it.

 

[Ahrimon]

My opposition to Dragonborn is thematic.

I disagree in that it appears that you are stuck on them being Dragonborn. Considering that they look nothing like the one dragon on Athas it's much easier to look at that race as simply an elementally(a strong theme in DS) touched race of lizard(common in a desert) men. Nothing about their racial abilities says dragon that can't simply be explained as an elemental supernatural ability.

I'm completely with you that they don't belong if we're going to insist that they are dragon related or a re-imagined dray (drey?). But as elementally touched lizardmen they work.

I look at half-orcs the same. Orcs are extinct. But if we take the racial stats of half-orcs and wrap it in the mul's fluff then they work and it saves a little bit of book space. Not much, but a little. Gnomes? They're a tribe of different halflings. Teiflings? They're a small tribe of mutated humans that live in a waste area deeply associated with fire. It's been a while and my memory is a bit rusty but I'm pretty sure that Athas had mutated creatures and other oddities like that in the deep wastes as part of the original box set.

While they're not the perfect fit for Half-giants, goliaths do a good enough job for me.

I think as long as you look at things from the right point of view and are willing to accept a different story behind it then most anything from the PHB can fit.

Spell lists have to change though. That's a given in my book.

 

[MechaPilot]

Or, conversely, you simply include that material, appeal to as broad an audience as possible and leave it up to individual DM's to tailor their game.

Based on the surveys, every setting other than FR is going to have a narrowed appeal. And even FR has a narrowed appeal compared to the PHB, and that's already out. So that means there's no point in publishing any setting because the appeal can only narrow from there. If you're not going to adhere to the themes of the setting and then say "this is how you can add these things that aren't a thematic fit, if you want to" then you might as well not even publish it. You might as well skip all settings and just produce books of monsters or character options to expand what's available in the PHB.

I mean, Zaardnar's version of DS excludes Monks, Paladins, Warlocks and Barbarians.

Yeah. Zaardnar & I don't exactly see eye to eye on the details of what he wants to exclude. Out of those four classes, paladins are the only ones who seem to me like they might need either exclusion or some alteration to make them fit.

I'd much, much rather they go the other way. Here's the 5e version of Setting X that uses all or at least most of the PHB, Volo's Guides, etc. If a DM is really interested in trying to recreate the historical version of the setting, that DM can do the work instead of trying to sell me a setting that makes me eject half my PHB.

Granted, for Kickstarter projects or much smaller publishing? Go right ahead. For a WotC 5e product? Not going to happen.

Yeah, I'm not talking about recreating historical versions of the setting.


As I've said multiple times already:




The point of exclusions and alternate versions would be to keep the themes, tone, feel & character of the setting. This means new things can be added. This means things can be changed. Just keep the additions and changes so that they maintain the themes, tone, feel & character of the setting.

 

[Hussar]

Well some of us want to play Darksun as opposed to the PHB combined with the 3.5 Sandstorm splat book with the Darksun label slapped on it.

And I totally get that. I honestly do. For you it's Darksun, for me, it's Dragonlance. If I were to run a 5e Dragonlance, it would be set during War of the Lance and there'd be a shopping list of exclusions. No, you can't play a draconian, despite that being a PC race in later supplements. To me, draconians are essentially demons. Unless I'm running an evil campaign, sorry, they'd be off the table. No, there wouldn't be gnomish wild mage sorcerers. Heck, I'd probably exclude sorcerers entirely. I'm sure there's more stuff, but, you get the idea.

But, the thing is, I don't pretend that my version of Dragonlance is somehow the one true setting. Nope. This is MY campaign. I'll be the one to decide if something fits or not, thank you very much.

OTOH, you're trying to claim that your vision of Darksun is the one true vision and anything less is just "the PHB combined with the 3.5 Sandstorm splat book with the Darksun label slapped on it". Sorry, nope. You don't get to be the gatekeeper of anything other than your own table. Coming out with a Darksun that satisfies you would be the last DS supplement ever published. You'd drive the setting straight into the ground.

I'm sorry, but, you are not going to get what you want.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The point of exclusions and alternate versions would be to keep the themes, tone, feel & character of the setting. This means new things can be added. This means things can be changed. Just keep the additions and changes so that they maintain the themes, tone, feel & character of the setting.

But, no one is disagreeing with you here. Of course things need to maintain the theme, tone and feel of the setting. However, that's a pretty vague guideline and it's not too difficult to think of examples that might satisfy one person and not another. The problem that I'm having here is that Zardnaar is setting himself up as gatekeeper and trying to maintain a setting purity that is just completely unrealistic outside of a single table.

For me, it's up to the DM of a given table to set up the campaign in accordance with that DM's (and presumably group's) aesthetics in mind. Trying to gatekeeper new settings in order to maintain some notion of setting purity is just bad business.

People really, really need to make the distinction between their personal tastes and what is actually good for the setting. "I don't like it" is NEVER justification enough for not making a change. No, scratch that. It's certainly good enough for your table. But most definitely not good enough for a general product. "Oh, Curse of Strahd isn't really Ravenloft" is a pointless argument to make. It sold fantastically well, and heck, is continuing to sell pretty darn strongly a year later. That's the justification for the changes they made, right there.

 

[Zardnaar]

And I totally get that. I honestly do. For you it's Darksun, for me, it's Dragonlance. If I were to run a 5e Dragonlance, it would be set during War of the Lance and there'd be a shopping list of exclusions. No, you can't play a draconian, despite that being a PC race in later supplements. To me, draconians are essentially demons. Unless I'm running an evil campaign, sorry, they'd be off the table. No, there wouldn't be gnomish wild mage sorcerers. Heck, I'd probably exclude sorcerers entirely. I'm sure there's more stuff, but, you get the idea.

But, the thing is, I don't pretend that my version of Dragonlance is somehow the one true setting. Nope. This is MY campaign. I'll be the one to decide if something fits or not, thank you very much.

OTOH, you're trying to claim that your vision of Darksun is the one true vision and anything less is just "the PHB combined with the 3.5 Sandstorm splat book with the Darksun label slapped on it". Sorry, nope. You don't get to be the gatekeeper of anything other than your own table. Coming out with a Darksun that satisfies you would be the last DS supplement ever published. You'd drive the setting straight into the ground.

I'm sorry, but, you are not going to get what you want.

And yet you can't make that decision (neither can I) and Mearls specifically included things in the DMG about excluding stuff so you never know.

Dragonlance probably needs a reboot back to the War of the lance era IMHO rather than arguing to hard over what goes in it.

Draconians as a PC race in later eras makes a bit of sense, not so much WotL era.

Hasn't Dragonlance more or less been wrecked by metaplot? Last book I paid much attention to was Summer flame, tried the lost souls book 1 and gave up.

Something something something Dragon lords something something Mina, file into do not give a crap.

If I played DL again it would only be if it was DL or no D&D or maybe the 1E DL adventures. Not because the 1E one is great its just better than the following screw ups.