Does Dungeons and Dragons need supported settings?

[JoeGKushner]

As the product list looks... different this year than it has in the past, I ponder WoTC decesion not to support their settings in print supplements outside of the core firing methodology that looks to be at least going through Dark Sun this year, although in a changed format.

For example, I don't play Pathfinder, but I'm still buying Pathfinder books for their campaign setting because I like reading them. I still read older setting books, mining them for names, ideas, themes, etc...

WoTC focus on pushing out all of the mechanical information that they have thus far, cannot continue without the need for massive revision on the original books. For example, the original Monster Manual... especially if people like the way MM 3 works out in terms of background/details? Coup that with the redesigned methodology of monsters from the MM2 and the first one is well, crap.

Now that's an extreme example and might be true regardless of what else happened, but I don't think game systems are designed to have so much weight put on them so instantly without more things to... lighten the load? To bring some oddities out in settings as opposed to just the core rules?

What do other people think? More PHBs, Martial Powers and other books hitting sequel after sequel or that we'll see more setting material?

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

WOTC isn't going to start supporting campaign settings long-term, or at least, not in the way that they did in 3e (or in the way that TSR did, for that matter.)

Campaign settings are awesome if you like the settings that are being supported, but if a setting that is being supported is one you don't like, you have no interest whatsoever in buying that product. For example: the Forgotten Realms hold no interest to me whatsoever. When I was a subscriber to Dragon Magazine back in the print days, every time they had an article about something in the Forgotten Realms, that was just wasted pages to me. And I'm pretty sure that all the pages of Eberron material were wasted to somebody else. And I always thought they should ditch the Forgotten Realms stuff and put in more cool Eberron stuff, and I'm sure there's somebody who thought exactly the opposite way.

Nowadays, WOTC only supports campaign settings in a "here's how you can make this work more specifically in an Eberron context", but it's always about integration. Material that can only be justified in one setting isn't going to be popular with anybody who doesn't play in that setting.

Pathfinder may seem like it disproves this, but Pathfinder is the exception to the rule by being the only campaign setting that Paizo supports. They don't have to worry about dividing their user base, because if you don't like Golarion, you weren't buying Paizo products in the first place.

 

[Dire Bare]

As the product list looks... different this year than it has in the past, I ponder WoTC decesion not to support their settings in print supplements outside of the core firing methodology that looks to be at least going through Dark Sun this year, although in a changed format.

For example, I don't play Pathfinder, but I'm still buying Pathfinder books for their campaign setting because I like reading them. I still read older setting books, mining them for names, ideas, themes, etc...

WoTC focus on pushing out all of the mechanical information that they have thus far, cannot continue without the need for massive revision on the original books. For example, the original Monster Manual... especially if people like the way MM 3 works out in terms of background/details? Coup that with the redesigned methodology of monsters from the MM2 and the first one is well, crap.

Now that's an extreme example and might be true regardless of what else happened, but I don't think game systems are designed to have so much weight put on them so instantly without more things to... lighten the load? To bring some oddities out in settings as opposed to just the core rules?

What do other people think? More PHBs, Martial Powers and other books hitting sequel after sequel or that we'll see more setting material?

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I loved most of the setting support books published for my favorite settings in 2e and 3e. But on the other hand, I'm tired of the huge bookshelf at home and I'm tired of spending all that cash.

Putting out a limited release for each setting lets WotC concentrate on the core game itself, and also allows them to not only release more settings overall but to experiment with them a bit, a la Dark Sun and Gamma World this year.

I'm sure it's better for their bottom line . . . . and mine!

Pathfinder is a different beast altogether. They cater to a more niche audience than D&D, and a smaller audience. They are also a smaller company with different profit goals.

I love Paizo, respect their quality, and want all their stuff . . . . but again I'm tired of the supplement treadmill. I've got the core book and bestiary PDFs and that's it. I'm sure I'll pick up the occasional supplement, but I can't justify subscribing or trying to collect them all.

 

[JoeGKushner]

They don't have to worry about dividing their user base, because if you don't like Golarion, you weren't buying Paizo products in the first place.

That's an interesting opinoin, but I wonder if it's true. For example, is every Pathfinder buyer doing so because they like Golarion, or because they want to support 3.5/Pathfinder? Because they want to adventure in Golarion, or because they want pregenerated adventurers?

On the GM's side, I suspect it's the later. For example, when I was buying Dungeon, I wasn't using Savage Tide/Age of Worms/Shackled City in Greyhawk, despite that being the 'default' setting.

But it's a good question. Might be for the pathfinder sub forum...

 

[Renshai]

I don't play 4E because they haven't supported their game settings. I don't have the time to make my own, and they changed FR so much that my vast collection is practically useless. I can understand the need to go forward, but moving forward and not filling that void lost me as a customer.

 

[Shemeska]

Campaign settings are awesome if you like the settings that are being supported, but if a setting that is being supported is one you don't like, you have no interest whatsoever in buying that product.

Putting out a limited release for each setting lets WotC concentrate on the core game itself

Building off those comments, one problem I see with 4e is that the "core game" quasi-setting itself might as well be a setting of its own, and its content and tropes have so thoroughly permeated other settings by the express intent of the 4e design team, that if someone doesn't like the 4e PoL core then they're screwed as far as -any- of the settings that might be released.

 

[ggroy]

For example, is every Pathfinder buyer doing so because they like Golarion, or because they want to support 3.5/Pathfinder?

In my case, I was using the relatively system-free Pathfinder Golarion books for my 4E game, mainly for expediency and a lack of time. These days I just don't have the patience and time anymore for designing my own homebrew world. If I had more free time, I would certainly go back to designing my own homebrew world.

As far as my 4E players are concerned, they had no idea what Golarion was and largely didn't really care for the most part. To them, it was just a backdrop for the game.

As to whether I'm actually supporting 3.5/Pathfinder, I actually couldn't care less whether the Pathfinder ruleset completely disappears from the world overnight. I'm not the target audience for the Pathfinder ruleset, nor the crunch heavy Pathfinder supplement books.

Because they want to adventure in Golarion, or because they want pregenerated adventurers?

For me, the Pathfinder AP books have sort of been a replacement for Dungeon Magazine since the magazine went online-only for 4E. I've used them to scavenge ideas for storylines, encounters, etc ... to use in my previous sandbox 4E game.

But now I'm not DMing any D&D games anymore at the moment. I'll probably stop buying any new Pathfinder Adventure Path titles, once the present "Council of Thieves" AP is over in month or so.

With some upcoming Pathfinder supplement books being more crunch heavy than previously (ie. NPC guide, Armory, etc ...), I probably won't be buying these supplement books either. I have very little use for 3.5E/Pathfinder crunch heavy books.

 

[Dire Bare]

Building off those comments, one problem I see with 4e is that the "core game" quasi-setting itself might as well be a setting of its own, and its content and tropes have so thoroughly permeated other settings by the express intent of the 4e design team, that if someone doesn't like the 4e PoL core then they're screwed as far as -any- of the settings that might be released.

I disagree. Honestly, I don't feel that the 4e core setting is all that different than the 3e core setting. Sure, they reimagined a few monsters, chucked most of the Greyhawk gods in favor of a mixed pantheon, and made changes to the cosmology . . . . but it doesn't really feel all that different to me.

Or, rather, it feels like a more cohesive and "tight" setting than older versions, but still the same basic ideas. To me, it's like the difference between Star Trek TOS and TNG, both Star Trek, but one with a more updated feel and tone to it.

Also, while WotC is obviously making an effort to make their settings support the core and vice versa, I don't feel that the core has "contaminated" the settings. 4e Forgotten Realms again doesn't feel all that different to me than 3e Realms, and heck, the Realms was never very far from a core game anyway. Eberron really hasn't changed much at all, with the exception of a few minor cosmetic changes to the planes.

And Dark Sun should be even more distinct from the core than the first two settings. It'll still play nice with core material and vice versa, but I'm not worried about a "watered down" version of the setting.

And don't forget Gamma World! It's basically the fourth setting for 4e, and is quite a departure!

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Support kills settings for me. I nearly lost interest in FR because of the flood of stuff that tried to define all those areas who had been only inspiring scetches before. But if you like a stream of continuous lore about a setting, Wotcs current policy is nothing for you, of course. I´d rather have a lot of frameworks i can fill with my own ideas, however, than an endless stream of "Volos Guide to a village you never heard about" supplements. YMMV, of course.
It´s the same with Eberron: i like and use some of the sourcebooks, but i wished some of them simply didn´t exist. I could have lived, forex, without a book detailing parts of Argonessen. Don´t take the mystery away. Or Planescape: what the core box created in my head was much better what was given me by the "lets detail these planes" add-on boxes.

 

[Bluenose]

Honestly, I'm delighted WotC aren't attempting to support their settings in the way some people want. It gives them an opportunity to publish things that aren't generic "medieval-fantasy-kitchen-sink" worlds. There isn't a single published world which more than a small minority of games use, and the most popular of these are just that sort of generic D&D setting. WotC can provide something unusual without the likelihood that further products won't sell. They're doing that with Dark Sun and Gamma World. These aren't settings that most of even the gamers who buy any setting material will buy, but for people who are interested in trying something unusual the publishing model is ideal.

For people who think D&D requires setting material, consider that it certainly wasn't prevalent through most of 1e days.