Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The New D&D Adventure Storyline Will Be Announced On June 2nd-3rd
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7715308" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>Kinda…</p><p>The Realms was easily the most popular setting in 2e, when it had lots of competition. And it retained that popularity through 3e even though Greyhawk was the default. </p><p>It makes sense to just focus on the most popular of WotC's IP and use that as the baseline.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But in polls of favourites, old settings that haven't seen print in a decade or more still hold their own. The continued publication of the Realms doesn't seem to make fans of old settings lose their love for those worlds.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, yeah. They'll never clamour for anything because they don't really know what they're missing. </p><p>Your statement is odd. It's suggesting releasing a product not because there's demand, but to <em>create</em> demand. That's rather backward.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Really, those new players won't clamor: they'll just make their own worlds. Which isn't a bad thing. (And even if WotC puts out Dragonlance or Birthright, the new players are unlikely to actually clamor for it…)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Alternatively… they'll buy those third party worlds. Midgard from Kobold Press or Exandria from Green Ronin/ Critical Role. Or adaptations of literary worlds, like Westeros. </p><p>Really, waves of new players coming into the game will care far, far more about the last two than anything WotC could put out.</p><p>I'm not sure why the burden of providing alternative settings rests on the shoulders of WotC.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>WotC is using the Realms because that world is the least unpopular of their settings. It's easier than having blanks for names or having Perkins create place names/ a setting as he went along. To say nothing of Kobold Press, Green Ronin, and Sasquatch Games, who had to make adventures but be consistent with the lore/ world.</p><p>(Plus, making things up would just result in a Nerath/Nentir Vale situation where they end up creating another world.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>The Realms is a placeholder for your own setting. It's there because it's easier than a blank map.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree. The 1e/3e books work just fine. We don't need a new Realms book.</p><p></p><p></p><p>However, there is a *slightly* better reason for the Realms to have a campaign setting: the world has changed following the Sundering. Which can't be said about other worlds, which have not changed since their last publication. </p><p>But, generally, the old material works just fine. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's easy for a small 32-page site based adventure. But it gets much harder for a larger adventure that runs from 1 to 10+. There just needs to be a larger area. Once you add a story, you need more setting and lore and can't just have a series of rando dungeons. </p><p></p><p></p><p>They could just tell DMs to makeup the world as needed and provide some generic maps, but that's making far more work for the DM. Which is the <em>exact opposite reason</em> of why you run a published adventure, i.e. not wanting to make up content.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Plus, they wanted to connect the adventure storylines to the video game and novels, which are also set in the Realms. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Pointless other than allowing Neverwinter to have an Elemental Evil connection and allowing Adventurer's League characters to deal with cultists without changing Realms or expecting new players to learn an entirely new world. </p><p>It's not like it took much work to move it into Greyhawk. There was even conversion advice at the back.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't understand why the elemental princes would be limited to one setting when they're extraplanar beings. </p><p>That feels like getting upset the demon lords, like Orcus and Demogorgon, appeared in the Realms instead of being limited to Greyhawk. And yet people seem fine with <em>Out of the Abyss</em>. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>D&D has always been a game where you make your own setting. First and foremost. </p><p>The Realms isn't "the first among equals" because things aren't equal. Homebrew dominates play.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The Realms works because it's generic, but also the more familiar high fantasy, versus the less common swords & sorcery of Greyhawk.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see how it weakens the other IP. Those books aren't going away. </p><p>Really, the only thing that can weaken the IP is a bad update. Like doing something for Ravenloft that removes the entire setting beyond Barovia, explains what the Dark Powers are, messes with the timeline, and portrays its most iconic hero as a sociopath and the wrong class. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah… that's totally not a problem I'm concerned with. Because that *highly* unlikely situation not only requires a successful D&D movie, but one successful enough that they have not only made sequels, but make enough sequels that they want to branch off into another world. </p><p></p><p></p><p>We should be so lucky…</p><p></p><p></p><p>Using the Realms in a D&D movie makes sense because it is generic. That way, the two or three people who watch the movie and decide to play the game will find the adventures and games they find representative of the experience on the screen. Seeing an Eberron movie and only finding Realms tables will put people off. </p><p>Plus, multiple worlds in one brand is kinda confusing. It's tricky enough for people to grasp the difference between Marvel and DC heroes at times, and those are owned by different companies. Different D&D worlds that have no overlap but are still D&D is risking needless confusion. </p><p></p><p></p><p>That said, having Realms focused movies in no way precludes an Eberron movie eventually. Not anymore than Marvel doing Avengers movies prevented <em>Guardians of the Galaxy</em>. </p><p>After ten movies in the Realms, they could easily do one in Eberron, because they could have established multiple worlds and laid the groundwork for a less traditional fantasy world. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That just seems needlessly confusing. Especially for AL as games often bounce around seasons depending on who has played what and the level range of the tables. </p><p>What you describe would very quickly descend into playing in Greyhawk and then the Realms the next session then off to Ravenloft and back into the Realms. </p><p>Conventions would have more planes hopping than Magic the Gathering...</p><p></p><p></p><p>I also don't see why they need to rush, why they need to reintroduce a new campaign setting every year. There's no deadline. The faster they do that, they faster they burn through the A-settings and are left having to do a Red Steel storyline.</p><p>Plus, it also means less adventure. Having to explain the world at the same time you're explaining the adventure means less adventure. They don't need to "explain" the Realms or include a minimum level of new crunch to make the setting playable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I wouldn't mind them opening up one setting each year on the DMsGuild. And I'm surprised they haven't done that yet. That's really all they need to do. We don't need an Eberron hardcover, we just need a few PDFs of Eberron races and rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7715308, member: 37579"] Kinda… The Realms was easily the most popular setting in 2e, when it had lots of competition. And it retained that popularity through 3e even though Greyhawk was the default. It makes sense to just focus on the most popular of WotC's IP and use that as the baseline. But in polls of favourites, old settings that haven't seen print in a decade or more still hold their own. The continued publication of the Realms doesn't seem to make fans of old settings lose their love for those worlds. Well, yeah. They'll never clamour for anything because they don't really know what they're missing. Your statement is odd. It's suggesting releasing a product not because there's demand, but to [I]create[/I] demand. That's rather backward. Really, those new players won't clamor: they'll just make their own worlds. Which isn't a bad thing. (And even if WotC puts out Dragonlance or Birthright, the new players are unlikely to actually clamor for it…) Alternatively… they'll buy those third party worlds. Midgard from Kobold Press or Exandria from Green Ronin/ Critical Role. Or adaptations of literary worlds, like Westeros. Really, waves of new players coming into the game will care far, far more about the last two than anything WotC could put out. I'm not sure why the burden of providing alternative settings rests on the shoulders of WotC. WotC is using the Realms because that world is the least unpopular of their settings. It's easier than having blanks for names or having Perkins create place names/ a setting as he went along. To say nothing of Kobold Press, Green Ronin, and Sasquatch Games, who had to make adventures but be consistent with the lore/ world. (Plus, making things up would just result in a Nerath/Nentir Vale situation where they end up creating another world.) The Realms is a placeholder for your own setting. It's there because it's easier than a blank map. I agree. The 1e/3e books work just fine. We don't need a new Realms book. However, there is a *slightly* better reason for the Realms to have a campaign setting: the world has changed following the Sundering. Which can't be said about other worlds, which have not changed since their last publication. But, generally, the old material works just fine. It's easy for a small 32-page site based adventure. But it gets much harder for a larger adventure that runs from 1 to 10+. There just needs to be a larger area. Once you add a story, you need more setting and lore and can't just have a series of rando dungeons. They could just tell DMs to makeup the world as needed and provide some generic maps, but that's making far more work for the DM. Which is the [I]exact opposite reason[/I] of why you run a published adventure, i.e. not wanting to make up content. Plus, they wanted to connect the adventure storylines to the video game and novels, which are also set in the Realms. Pointless other than allowing Neverwinter to have an Elemental Evil connection and allowing Adventurer's League characters to deal with cultists without changing Realms or expecting new players to learn an entirely new world. It's not like it took much work to move it into Greyhawk. There was even conversion advice at the back. Personally, I don't understand why the elemental princes would be limited to one setting when they're extraplanar beings. That feels like getting upset the demon lords, like Orcus and Demogorgon, appeared in the Realms instead of being limited to Greyhawk. And yet people seem fine with [I]Out of the Abyss[/I]. D&D has always been a game where you make your own setting. First and foremost. The Realms isn't "the first among equals" because things aren't equal. Homebrew dominates play. The Realms works because it's generic, but also the more familiar high fantasy, versus the less common swords & sorcery of Greyhawk. I don't see how it weakens the other IP. Those books aren't going away. Really, the only thing that can weaken the IP is a bad update. Like doing something for Ravenloft that removes the entire setting beyond Barovia, explains what the Dark Powers are, messes with the timeline, and portrays its most iconic hero as a sociopath and the wrong class. Yeah… that's totally not a problem I'm concerned with. Because that *highly* unlikely situation not only requires a successful D&D movie, but one successful enough that they have not only made sequels, but make enough sequels that they want to branch off into another world. We should be so lucky… Using the Realms in a D&D movie makes sense because it is generic. That way, the two or three people who watch the movie and decide to play the game will find the adventures and games they find representative of the experience on the screen. Seeing an Eberron movie and only finding Realms tables will put people off. Plus, multiple worlds in one brand is kinda confusing. It's tricky enough for people to grasp the difference between Marvel and DC heroes at times, and those are owned by different companies. Different D&D worlds that have no overlap but are still D&D is risking needless confusion. That said, having Realms focused movies in no way precludes an Eberron movie eventually. Not anymore than Marvel doing Avengers movies prevented [I]Guardians of the Galaxy[/I]. After ten movies in the Realms, they could easily do one in Eberron, because they could have established multiple worlds and laid the groundwork for a less traditional fantasy world. That just seems needlessly confusing. Especially for AL as games often bounce around seasons depending on who has played what and the level range of the tables. What you describe would very quickly descend into playing in Greyhawk and then the Realms the next session then off to Ravenloft and back into the Realms. Conventions would have more planes hopping than Magic the Gathering... I also don't see why they need to rush, why they need to reintroduce a new campaign setting every year. There's no deadline. The faster they do that, they faster they burn through the A-settings and are left having to do a Red Steel storyline. Plus, it also means less adventure. Having to explain the world at the same time you're explaining the adventure means less adventure. They don't need to "explain" the Realms or include a minimum level of new crunch to make the setting playable. I wouldn't mind them opening up one setting each year on the DMsGuild. And I'm surprised they haven't done that yet. That's really all they need to do. We don't need an Eberron hardcover, we just need a few PDFs of Eberron races and rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The New D&D Adventure Storyline Will Be Announced On June 2nd-3rd
Top