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

[Mephista]

On my more cynical (or less naive) days, I tend to think that moving the market share of homebrew is one of the internally explicit goals of focusing on the Realms. Why worry about the 20% of folks who play one of there's more opportunity for profit by getting at least part of the 60% who build their own to accept the Realms as part and parcel of the D&D package.

This, more than anything, is probably what I hate the current "brand management" so much.

It sounds like you're saying that moving players away from published settings is a deliberate plan of the D&D people? If I'm wrong, ignore the next part, please.

The move away from published settings isn't just resticted to D&D, but rather its endemic of other TT games as well. The simple fact of the matter is that almost every game publisher has admitted that such books don't yield as much profit (if they even break even) as other kinds of books. The demand has simply been going down.

The reason, as I said before, is quite possibly tied to the explosion of computers and the internet. Research is far easier now than it ever was. Getting maps are easy. And so on. That part is easy - you sit down with your phone while waiting for an Uber or while in the dentist office, and look up wiki articles. Writing the story parts are harder, however. Story ideas are the demand in many games on top of mechanics.

 

[Parmandur]

A couple of reasons:

1) I want someone else to do the work for me. I really don't want to have to convert all the Eberron bits and pieces to a new system -- and they do need converted as many are built with 3.5 assumptions. While I enjoy the creative aspect of gaming, D&D is attractive compared to other systems because a lot of the mechanics are done for me. Otherwise, I'd just use Fantasy Hero or Savage Worlds.

2) Part of the inherent character of D&D is that it's not tied to a specific world. It's a toolkit with a certain flavor. So, to spend so much effort on one setting is changing the character of the game in a way I do not like.

3) As a fan of some of the other published settings, not having any shelf space means that they have been exiled to Siberia and will fade into obscurity. Even if Eberron isn't the one that gets published, simply having multiple settings on the shelf makes it apparent to newcomers that other settings exist and might be worth investigating.

4) I specifically dislike the Realms. While I've done some reflection and can confidently say I'd be unhappy with any setting being where the Realms is now, it is worth calling out that D&D becoming tightly coupled to the Realms taints the entire game, in my eyes.


On my more cynical (or less naive) days, I tend to think that moving the market share of homebrew is one of the internally explicit goals of focusing on the Realms. Why worry about the 20% of folks who play one of there's more opportunity for profit by getting at least part of the 60% who build their own to accept the Realms as part and parcel of the D&D package.

This, more than anything, is probably what I hate the current "brand management" so much.

The Forgotten Realms is itself originally a Homebrew, which made heavy use of core D&D-world assumptions: as such, it isn't a matter of convincing anybody that it is suitable for generic D&D cribbing, that's in it's very blood.

 

[gyor]

In some ways 5e FR is a new setting, based on previous setting, because so many things have changed that old assumptions don't hold.

 

[Zippee]

In some ways 5e FR is a new setting, based on previous setting, because so many things have changed that old assumptions don't hold.

Seriously you think more has changed this time around than when they smashed a whole 'nother world into the planet and stripped continents and nations out on a whim and inserted random demi-planes all over the place. Or maybe that time the gods got bored and came down to earth and someone shanked Bhaal?

By comparison skipping a century ahead just seems like good sense

That they've left all that canon in place speaks volumes on how much they care for the player base that may have campaigns set in the world as it exists [in multiple times] - they've not deleted anything, it all still happened and your campaign is now just part of the historical record not somehow alternate to the canon. I mean if it had been me I'd have deleted the Spellplague forward in a heartbeat

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that WotC has actually approached the content of Forgotten Realms for 5E in a very smart way. Previous editions have all been ushered in by some major event within the fiction that clearly divides what was before and what is now.

With 5E, they did have a big event in the Sundering...but they’ve left its effects rather vague. They haven’t really answered what that event’s outcomes are, except when they need to for a product. This is to leave it up to the individual player groups to decide. I find that a refreshing change from prior editions. Not that there was ever a way for them to stop me from playing whatever version of the Realms that I wanted, but it’s nice to see them realize that it’s better to leave things open.

My 5E campaign spans multiple worlds and planes...Realms, Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Golarion, Sigil....I’ve been able to do it all by using old products. This is why, although I wouldn’t hate a 5E official settig product, I thibk the game is better served by having them focus on other items.

If they have a cool adventure that includes a trip to Oerth by way of Sigil? I’d be all for that in favor of a 5E Greyhawk Setting book or a veraion of Planescape.

I feel like the settings have been incorporated into the cosmology established by the books. So they’re out there. I expect we’ll see them when they have an idea that makes it worthwhile.

 

[Jester David]

You must have me confused with someone else.
I am not someone who is holding my breath for a 5e Greyhawk or Al-Quadim or whatever.

If you don't have a horse in setting race… then why are you posting in this thread?

I'm just explaining what those people want.

Yeah. We know what they want: an update of their favourite setting. It's not a mystery.
We're just saying why it's a foolish business decision for WotC and highly unlikely to ever happen.

Rationalizing why they won't be getting what they want is the easy part, especially if you yourself doesn't have a need in this department.

Who says we don't?
I love Ravenloft and Dragonlance. I quite like Dark Sun and Eberron as well. I included warforged, shifters, and changelings in my homebrew world. I'd love to see that content be re-released for 5e.
That doesn't mean I expect WotC to release annual campaign settings again. That doesn't mean I want WotC to tank their profits and endanger the future of the game I love for a new book. That's selfish and short sighted.

Trying to read you as charitably as possible, I do agree that one solution for these people could be if WotC opened up Al-Quadim (or whatever) for DM's Guild usage.

Nitpick: Al-Qadim is already on the DMs Guild as a sub-setting of the Realms. Ditto Kara Tur.

 

[Parmandur]

Mearls on Twitter this morning

"Took a short vacation. Might have designed everything I need to run a 5e Dark Sun campaign. As one does."

Followed by:

"The original Dark Sun boxed set is a master class in world design. Kudos to @TDenningauthor and Tim Brown."

 

[Tersival]

Personally I hope they DON'T release a new setting. I'd much rather see new material and/or support developed for older settings. Whether thats through DMs Guild or targeted supplements direct from WOTC, either way would be good.

I've already spent hundreds on Greyhawk and Eberron in particular. I don't think I can rationalise spending even more on yet another setting that WOTC then go on to abandon.

 

[Mercule]

It sounds like you're saying that moving players away from published settings is a deliberate plan of the D&D people? If I'm wrong, ignore the next part, please.

Almost. Part of what I'm saying is that the move away from multiple published settings is intentional on the part of WotC, as is the watering down of the Realms. Neither of those are secrets. As you said, going too deep or too broad with settings has been shown to be not profitable.

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.

Really, it's a great business move for sustainable cash flow, especially given the sour taste a lot of folks have from the glut of crunch in the d20 heyday. I just happen to be outside the market being opened up, which means I dislike the direction for purely selfish reasons. I don't expect my vote to change the direction, but I have no problem pointing out where it leads and hoping others also dislike it. At a certain point, the game will be one that is no longer attractive, to me, and I'll move on.

The move away from published settings isn't just resticted to D&D, but rather its endemic of other TT games as well. The simple fact of the matter is that almost every game publisher has admitted that such books don't yield as much profit (if they even break even) as other kinds of books. The demand has simply been going down.

The reason, as I said before, is quite possibly tied to the explosion of computers and the internet. Research is far easier now than it ever was. Getting maps are easy. And so on. That part is easy - you sit down with your phone while waiting for an Uber or while in the dentist office, and look up wiki articles. Writing the story parts are harder, however. Story ideas are the demand in many games on top of mechanics.

I think the Indie trend is largely to move towards supporting homebrew or mini-settings (see Fate Worlds). This is probably, in part, because full settings don't sell as well and partly because the Indie segment is somewhat defined as an alternate or reaction to trends in the larger publishers, which is to couple a setting to the rules, even if that's just Golarian and the Realms.

 

[Mercule]

The Forgotten Realms is itself originally a Homebrew, which made heavy use of core D&D-world assumptions: as such, it isn't a matter of convincing anybody that it is suitable for generic D&D cribbing, that's in it's very blood.

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.