What should the default setting be for 4th edition?

[Kae'Yoss]

I voted for Eberron (despite never having played in one) because I feel that the default baseline setting should be a setting designed for the game, rather than one designed for an archaic version of D&D.

You do realize that we're talking about 4e. Eberron was designed for 3.5e. It will be outdated in 4e.

And, as has been said a few (dozen) times, while there's that "if it's in D&D, it's in Eberron" line, and that might even be true, the reverse isn't true: "If it's in Eberron, it's normal in D&D".

It's adding to the default versus removing from the default.

I think it's far better to use a light game as default and adding stuff in campaign settings than using a heavy game as default and subtracting lots of stuff in campaign settings.

So you set up Eberron as standard.

Now you make the new FRCS: You'll have to tell people that there are no shifters in the Realms, no Warforged, and forget about that "train fair" "and airship ticket" entries in the "travel cost" section, stuff like that doesn't exist in the Realms.

Same would be true for all the d20 games out there.

Of course, you could leave all that out of the PHB, but what use would Eberron be then?

 

[Flyspeck23]

It's adding to the default versus removing from the default.

That's kind of the point of a new edition: adding to and changing the default.

Now you make the new FRCS: You'll have to tell people that there are no shifters in the Realms, no Warforged, and forget about that "train fair" "and airship ticket" entries in the "travel cost" section, stuff like that doesn't exist in the Realms.

Only if that stuff would be featured in the PHB.

And anyway, who says that those stuff won't be part of the Realms in 4.0?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

i voted no impleyed becase none r needed love the realms but its a lot to take in needs its on books and eberron i also like but its has its on flavor the setting should be up to the dm and players and i never liked grey hawk myself

 

[Reynard]

Of course, you could leave all that out of the PHB, but what use would Eberron be then?

You know what would be neat (and not just for 4e)? Campaign setting specific PHBs. I mean, not on the first print run, because that'd cause problems. But like now, a few years after 3.5 came out, an Eberron inclusive PHB (all the same stuff, plus Eberron classe, races, feats, etc...) would be frickin' awesome.

 

[Buttercup]

Greyhawk now, Greyhawk forever!

Actually, I expect 4.0 to be setting neutral, and I expect FR to be the only WotC campaign setting.

I think 4E will be completely setting neutral or will continue with the thin veneer of Greyhawk as the implied setting.

There is absolutely no way FR will ever be the implied setting. In fact, I seriously doubt WotC will continue to produce material for it in 4E. Why? The rights are too complicated. That's the real reason they did the setting search, and the real reason they'll continue to support Eberron. They own it outright, and have no intention of selling off any smidgen of their rights to it.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

That's kind of the point of a new edition: adding to and changing the default.

Yes, but not to the point that 90% of the other campaign settings will have to cut out large parts of it.

And anyway, who says that those stuff won't be part of the Realms in 4.0?

noone says that. It doesn't have to be said. It's self-evident.

There is absolutely no way FR will ever be the implied setting.

Same for Eberron, or other exotics.

In fact, I seriously doubt WotC will continue to produce material for it in 4E. Why? The rights are too complicated. That's the real reason they did the setting search, and the real reason they'll continue to support Eberron. They own it outright, and have no intention of selling off any smidgen of their rights to it.

They don't seem to have any problems with the rights. Don't they own the Realms outright? I'm sure they do. It's largely out of Ed's hands now - with the exception that it's understood that everything Ed writes about the setting will be Realms canon. Since Ed isn't given to doing crazy stuff like, say, editing Thay out of the Realms on a whim or saying that there have always been warforged in the Heartlands, they don't seem to have any problems.

The Realms are still very popular, they won't give that up only because there might be some slight considerations about their rights (which aren't even there as far as I know).

 

[an_idol_mind]

There is absolutely no way FR will ever be the implied setting. In fact, I seriously doubt WotC will continue to produce material for it in 4E. Why? The rights are too complicated. That's the real reason they did the setting search, and the real reason they'll continue to support Eberron. They own it outright, and have no intention of selling off any smidgen of their rights to it.

WotC owns the Realms outright, too. Ed Greenwood sold it outright to TSR, and WotC acquired it when they bought TSR. There is absolutely no rights issue.

I find it amazing how many people actually believe that WotC would put one of their biggest cash cows to bed. Until the novel line and campaign material tanks (which won't happen as long as Driz'zt and Elminster keep showing up on the best seller lists), the Realms will stay around.

 

[crazy_cat]

Greyhawk (in the way it is used at the moment as an implied background)

FR and Eberron should continue as seperately available settings (and they should produce a GH campaign setting as well for those that want it)

 

[drothgery]

I find it amazing how many people actually believe that WotC would put one of their biggest cash cows to bed. Until the novel line and campaign material tanks (which won't happen as long as Driz'zt and Elminster keep showing up on the best seller lists), the Realms will stay around.

I don't think WotC will kill FR any time soon. But there are limits to how many times FR fans will buy essentially the same book with updated mechanics, and limits to how much new stuff can be introduced. So I won't be surprised if WotC launches a new, more "standard fantasy" setting with 4e (or shortly afterwards), and produces less FR stuff (say, one or two big hardcovers a year).

 

[Buttercup]

WotC owns the Realms outright, too. Ed Greenwood sold it outright to TSR, and WotC acquired it when they bought TSR. There is absolutely no rights issue.

I do not believe this to be true. As I recall, Ryan Dancey mentioned this way back when. I think the rights to publish the novels are partially held by a publishing house (Random House? I don't read D&D fiction, so I'm not sure.) I wasn't suggesting Ed Greenwood held any rights to FR.

But if you can cite something that proves me wrong, I'd love to see it.

I'd also love to see some proof that FR is actually still a cash cow, if in fact it ever really was. Finally, the novels could continue to make money for decades, but that wouldn't guarantee that FR would make a viable setting for gaming books, in the eyes of Hasbro and their lawyers.