What kinds of New Settings do you want?

[Tovec]

They mentioned including something like that into the DMG. No reason it should be a separate book.

That is like saying EVERYTHING about dragons (or demons, or devils, or undead) belongs in the MM and only the MM. Instead of allowing a draconomicon, friendish codex, libris mortis and so on.

There should certainly be aspects or the bare bones information on how to create worlds, settings and campaigns in the DMG but I agree with [MENTION=2072]Aeolius[/MENTION] that a proper World Builder's Guide might be needed in order to give ALL the information one might require to build, populate and run a world.

I would not mind shelling out the extra money for the core 3: PHB, DMG, MM and then buying a highly detailed book for Campaign Setting World Builders Guide, or whatever they want to call it. I have shelled out more money for setting books in the past and I would again. In fact if done correctly, when you use such a format, it can be rules neutral. It can work with any game or edition so long as the instructions, steps and details are well thought out or detailed enough. It would be the difference between buying a Faerun or Eberron campaign setting book and buying a Build Your Own setting book. A difference which would be infinitely more useful in my game, as I am not running Faerun or Eberron.

I think it is a better idea, I also doubt WotC can do it. I do not think they have the skill, expertise or desire to do it but it would be MY preferred setting book.

 

[Starman]

I do not want WotC to release a new setting for 5e. I want WotC to release a World Builder's Guide, alongside the DMG, PH, and MM. Provide DM's with a common framework in which to place their custom worlds. Devise the means by which custom races, classes, magics, and more might easily integrate into whatever online offerings accompany 5e.

Then host a new Setting Search.

You don't want them to release a new setting, but you want them to do a setting search. Do you want them to buy the winner and hold onto it unpublished like Rich Burlew's setting?

 

[Aeolius]

You don't want them to release a new setting, but you want them to do a setting search. Do you want them to buy the winner and hold onto it unpublished like Rich Burlew's setting?

Clarification: First they release the World Builder's Guide, and THEN they have a Setting Search, for campaign settings created using the parameters within the WBG.

 

[ren1999]

I composed a map uniting many of the popular settings from previous editions.

Where would you locate these campaigns?

http://kira3696.tripod.com/dnd5map.png

 

[Starman]

Clarification: First they release the World Builder's Guide, and THEN they have a Setting Search, for campaign settings created using the parameters within the WBG.

I'm curious as to what you think would be gained by Wizards not developing a new setting, but having a contest for a new setting and then developing it (like Eberron).

 

[Bluenose]

They mentioned including something like that into the DMG. No reason it should be a separate book.

Except that World Building is a very big subject. At least if you want anything other than a superficial treatment, and frankly I'd rather see no discussion at all on the subject than one that doesn't do it any justice.

 

[Knight Templar]

Except that World Building is a very big subject. At least if you want anything other than a superficial treatment, and frankly I'd rather see no discussion at all on the subject than one that doesn't do it any justice.

The 2e World Builder's Guidebook was extremely in-depth and was only 96 pages. The 1e DMG was 231 pages, at least 96 pages worth was disposable.

 

[Bluenose]

The 2e World Builder's Guidebook was extremely in-depth and was only 96 pages. The 1e DMG was 231 pages, at least 96 pages worth was disposable.

If I was going to explain physical geography, human geography, ecology, cosmology, multiple types of religion, something about societies and governments and economics and the implications of different amounts of magic....

I think I'd want more than 96 pages. And then, I'd have to start on how other intelligent races approached some of those things.

 

[Yora]

I composed a map uniting many of the popular settings from previous editions.

Where would you locate these campaigns?

http://kira3696.tripod.com/dnd5map.png

It's a fun thought excercise, but does not make for any good settings, as it has to ignore lots of fundamentally different traits of the individual worlds, like the abilities of deities, the availability of certain magic, the cosmology, and so on.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Keep in mind when you read the following that I'm in no way a fan of "reality" television. That terribly uninspiring introduction out of the way ...

I'd like to see a partly "open" setting, built gradually, maybe somewhat along the lines of the "Dungeon Craft" series of articles, only larger, in a mad sandbox. Fan submissions are a big part of it. At key moments, they have American Idol-style voting to choose key elements. Losers can try again in another hex.

Where WotC adds value is all in the polishing, art, presentation, editing. They get a region or cross-section or whatever detailed reasonably well, they publish. However, that region is allowed to continue to develop online, separately. That way, if a DM wants to go grab something different, it is out there. (In fact, maybe in the voting, pick the top three for a given spot. One of these things is there, but the players don't know which, even if they have read the whole thing.)

At some point, the whole thing is reasonably complete. Shut down the official judging and product ideas from that world, but allow the mad stuff to continue for awhile. Maybe revisit with a "Best Of" anthology in a few years. Meanwhile, open up another world, built on a different starting theme or premise. (Ideally, you'd have two or three going at once, staggered in stages. But you have to start somewhere.)