New, Original 4e Campaign Setting

[Oni]

If they want to do an orginal setting, they should definately do another setting search. I think that was one of the best things that happened during the 3e era.

 

[Derren]

This is my inner cynic talking, but I'm generally wary of anything that advertises as "New!" "Original!" Especially coming from WotC. It'd likely involve something like "Instead of gnomes, HALFLINGS wear hats!" "DWARVES UNDERWATER!"*

Quite frankly, I don't want a new campaign setting, for the selfish fact that I'll also likely enjoy it, and want to spend money on it. I all ready want to work on my own, don't tempt me with new, shiny things!

*I say this even though I really do enjoy Eberron. It did play "Musical assumptions" with the racial and generic fantasy habits. But, still.

Better a new campaign setting than WotC butchering an existing fantasy setting to fit its new game.

 

[Khairn]

Better a new campaign setting than WotC butchering an existing fantasy setting to fit its new game.

I find the lack of a 4E specific setting that showcases the systems internal paradigms and design philosophy to be one of the biggest disappointments from WotC. And that's saying alot as IMHO, they have made a number of them.

Retconning older settings may please a number of that settings fans, but it will in all likelyhood alienate a good part of the balance, causing more strife and negativity. The job (hack) that WotC did with FR is a classic example. 4E has a very different pacing and flavor compared to earlier editions of D&D, and broke a number of "sacred" cows in its development. Why can't WotC deliver a setting that is made without those cows and earlier design goals?

Anyways ... count me in as being "interested" if WotC does create a new setting for 4E. And count me as VERY skeptical if all they do is try to "4E" yet another earlier setting.

 

[JackSmithIV]

I find the lack of a 4E specific setting that showcases the systems internal paradigms and design philosophy to be one of the biggest disappointments from WotC. And that's saying alot as IMHO, they have made a number of them.

They're less than a year into the edition. What more do you want from them? Within one year of their launch, they'll have brought out both of the most popular campaign settings there are under their new system. How much faster do you want them to work on getting you your exemplary setting? Also, you might not agree with how they changed Forgotten Realms, but Eberron is going to fit seamlessly with 4E mechanics.

Retconning older settings may please a number of that settings fans, but it will in all likelyhood alienate a good part of the balance, causing more strife and negativity. The job (hack) that WotC did with FR is a classic example. 4E has a very different pacing and flavor compared to earlier editions of D&D, and broke a number of "sacred" cows in its development. Why can't WotC deliver a setting that is made without those cows and earlier design goals?

The changes to Forgotten Realms had nothing to do with the new edition's pacing and mechanics, and everything to do with how people felt that the realms were completely inaccessible. And before we digress into whether or not they were, there are thousands of people who completely agree that the new book is much more conducive to running a game of Dungeon & Dragons, whether or not it has the exasperated body of lore that it always had.

But I'm sure I'm wrong.

Anyways ... count me in as being "interested" if WotC does create a new setting for 4E. And count me as VERY skeptical if all they do is try to "4E" yet another earlier setting.

I'm sure we'll hear all about it.

 

[Khairn]

They're less than a year into the edition. What more do you want from them? Within one year of their launch, they'll have brought out both of the most popular campaign settings there are under their new system. How much faster do you want them to work on getting you your exemplary setting? Also, you might not agree with how they changed Forgotten Realms, but Eberron is going to fit seamlessly with 4E mechanics.

Since you asked what I would want from WotC, for a system that was what ... 3 or 4 years in the making, with a very definitive setting used in its framework, I would hope to see an actual world that illustrates those themes. The fact that WotC went with a FR re-boot rather than a new setting designed for 4E, is a mistake from my point of view. It brought with it a lot of baggage and unnecessary confrontation.

IMO, Eberron may very well be the best fit of the existing D&D settings to transition into 4E. But I'm not willing to applaude WotC for a "seamless" move before the setting is even published. I have high hopes, but I've learned to temper my enthusiasm.

The changes to Forgotten Realms had nothing to do with the new edition's pacing and mechanics, and everything to do with how people felt that the realms were completely inaccessible.

The FR changes (whether you like them or not) had a lot to do with the switch to the new system. Looking at just one element ... the rationalization for the elimination of the "Vancian Magaic" mechanic had to take place to allow for 4E's new magic paradigm. Which was clearly explained away by the spellplague / death of Mystra. At least in this case, fluff was clearly trumped by mechanics.

Again I'll say that if we see a new 4E focused setting I'll be quite excited. If we see nothing but another re-imagining of an older setting (even though I am a HUGE BR, SJ and Planescape fan) I'll be disappointed and more cautious in my enthusiasm.

If done right, settings can really enhance a system. That's the type of support I'd like to see from WotC.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

So...

it's interesting that phrase is 4e 'revisits.' Given the treatment of Planescape and SpellJammer it's nice to see that they're working on ways to treat these materials without doing the full three item treatment.

I'm sort of sad to see Maztica and Red Steel on that list since they're the only Meso-American treatments we've seen so far, but I also think that new treatment would do just as well.

It's kind of encouraging to see that neither Al-Quadim nor Kara Tur made the 'Do not Vist' list, but that hope is just in service of their doing some articles or general books on adjusting DnD to different cultures/story styles.

 

[darjr]

I know I'm repeating a mantra, but I think it is a good one.

Points of Light, the one that contains the Nentir vale, I would like that very much.

 

[avin]

The changes to Forgotten Realms had nothing to do with the new edition's pacing and mechanics, and everything to do with how people felt that the realms were completely inaccessible.

So, Elminster just starting to have one encounter fireball or something like that has nothing to do with the new system?

That Plague of Spells (?) was created just to fit the nerf on mages.

Forgotten Realms inacessible? So how come Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights computer games attract so many people?

See, I'm not a FR fan but none of my friends that loved Faerûn enjoyed the changes.

I like 4E a lot but I would rather create a new world instead of what was made with FR...

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Well, 4th ed Paladins would fit into Dark Sun, where as 3rd ed ones wouldn't!
A Paladin of an SK, or a paladin who defends the Veiled Alliance etc make sense...a holy warriror with a steed etc, doesn't!

Tieflings and dragonborn would definately NOT fit into Dark Sun, except as extremely rare mutants (which are a common theme in the setting, spawned by the mysterious processes of the world, or the Pristine Tower if you like the cheesy official history crappola, or plane crossing travellers, or hide outs form aeons ago)
You can't run dragonborn as dray, without realizing dray are a *hidden* race on Athas.

Warlocks don't fit in either, unless you make them linked to elemental forces, such as genies or Spirits of the Land, and then you'd need a new pact: elemental.
They are also arcane, so would they be defiler/preservers?

Dark Sun and Spelljammer definatley deserve 4th ed treatment!
With Ravenloft done again some how (I hated how they forced it to change, break up yadda yadda)

 

[I'm A Banana]

There seems to be an underlying philosophy in a lot of 4e design that worries me when it comes to new campaign settings:

"Everyone can use every book in every game."

I'm concerned because it means that no setting is allowed to exclude anything. It can be warped, but it must be included. It also means that no setting can redefine what the game is about: the core 4e gameplay and model of heroism is universal.

These disturb me because often, new settings are about what is excluded, and also about re-defining what a "hero" is (such as by taking inspiration from other genrea).

If 4e doesn't permit this, then every setting 4e pops out will look less like a new setting, and more 4e with a different palette.

4e is about killing dragons in dungeon. Their heroes are action-packed team players with flashy moves.

Ravenloft should not be about killing vampires in castles. Its heroes should be troubled individuals whose power is a threat to everyone and themselves.

Dark Sun should not be about killing bugs in the desert. Its heroes should be brutal, stone-hearted survivalists who will do anything for a drop of water.

Eberron should not be (entirely) about killing dinosaurs on the lightning-rail. Its heroes should be pulpy vigilantes who fight weirdness and evil because it's weird and evil, and noirish antiheroes who get into situations that often leave them worse for the wear.

When I'm playing a different setting, I'm not looking for Same Stuff, Different Dungeon.

I'm concerned that that's all 4e will be able to provide.