Which campaign setting(s) should be supported?

[AllisterH]

Define "supported."

Is a setting "supported" if it gets at least one article a year in Dragon?

What if it gets a single sourcebook sometime during the 4E period?

What if it gets the single sourcebook and another single supporting book?

What if it gets a single sourcebook and periodic articles in Dungeon/Dragon?

What if it can be played easily with the rules we are given, but no explicit mention of the setting is made?

What if it regularly is used as an example in the core books, but gets no books specific to the setting?

To me, here's what I would like to see. This would make a good schedule for WOTC as well.

A Limited time-frame for products. Al-qadim used this and while it should make no difference to a DM/player if a campaign setting is "open" or "closed", psychologically, I'm betting that more players would be willing to try a campaign setting if they know they don't have to keep up infinitely.

If we're getting a new PH/DMG/MM, then a campaign setting book a la the 3E FRCS, should be released in the quarter that no "core" book is released. The MM for that year would be heavily influenced by the campaign setting that was released in that year as would be the DMG to a lesser extent.

Minimum support.
1. Campaign setting book

2. Sourcebook detailing either the major kingdom or the major city that is the hub of the setting. Think Waterdeep or the Free City of Greyhawk. This would be released in the quarter with the DMG as the DMG is the core book that sells the least and sourcebooks that talk about where the PCs actually live and kick back tend to be bought by players so this would mitigate the lower sales of the DMG

3. Adventure/Sourcebook that talks about the major bad guys in the setting. Basically a campaign hook that expands on the material released in the campaign setting book.

 

[Visceris]

I like to see Eberron continue to be supported but in 3.5e instead of 4e. I would like to see Planescape start being supported but using 2e rules. The rest of the junk can have 4e.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What? No spelljammer update?

The thing about Spelljammer (and this might be worth a thread of its own, come to think of it) is that it is, by far, the most dynamically polarizing of all D&D settings, vis-a-vis the fanbase. People may have differing opinions of Greyhawk, FR, Eberron, Mystara, Birthright, Al-Qadim, Ravenloft--*pauses for breath* --Kara-Tur, Dark Sun, and the like. But in most cases, any objections they have are based on specific details. There's nothing about any of those worlds that hideously violates most people's conception of what's possible in fantasy.

Planescape, while presenting a view of the planes that's not to everyone's taste, isn't alien in its overall concept: The planes themselves exist in standard D&D, and always have, and thus are also an accepted part of D&D fantasy, even if people exclude or change them for their individual campaigns.

But Spelljammer... Spelljammer is the only setting that is built around a central, core conceit that is absolutely alien to "standard" D&D play. That's neither a good nor bad thing; it just is. But it tends to mean that the people who reject it, reject it wholeheartedly and emotionally, whereas they might simply pass on other settings they dislike with a "Meh, not for me." And thus, the people who like/defend it are forced to do so with greater force.

It may just be own experience, but I've never met anyone neutral on Spelljammer. People tend to either really love it, or really dislike it.

 

[Visceris]

Well, I was kind of neutral on it. I liked the concept of Spelljamer but the execution could have been better.

 

[M.L. Martin]

For a bit of an explanation/digression of my own wish list . . .

Anyone here remember 4th Edition Champions? The Genre Book section included 'campaign worksheets' that a GM could fill out, highlighting campaign tone and style, as well as what rules options were in use in the campaign. They included several worked examples highlighting several types of campaign play (standard four-color, grim & gritty, and far-future/interstellar campaigning, for example).

I'd like to see the 4E DMG build on that a bit by including not only options and worksheets, but half a dozen two-page spreads of 'worked examples' highlighting key campaign settings and how they would work in 4E and show off what it can do. Three of these should be fairly typical D&D settings--Forgotten Realms and Eberron are two, and the third . . . I'd like it to be Mystara, since I've long been intrigued by that one and think it might match 4E better than the other two options, but if they want to keep the 'core D&D' elements alive, Greyhawk's probably the better choice. The other three--the more offbeat ones--should be Planescape (which, along with Eberron, sort of straddles the gap between 'traditional' and 'offbeat'), Dark Sun, and my beloved Ravenloft.

Following that, standalone setting books for each at 6-12 month intervals, with supplements if sales and demand justify them, but not quite the 'full support' of the 2E days. I loved getting new RL products 9 months out of the year, but I don't think WotC could justify that to the bean counters. Supplements that highlight the setting but can be just as useful to homebrews would be favored, a la the old Monstrous Compendiums, the later 2E planar products, or the Van Richten's Guides.

 

[drothgery]

Eberron, because I rather like the setting, and that's where my D&D games are set at right now
FR, because even though it's not my cup of tea, it has a huge fanbase, and killing it off would be bad for D&D without question.
Birthright because I really like the concept, though I suppose a standalone 'Book of Regency' would do as well for that.
And Other because I think WotC probably ought to do at least one original setting per edition, hopefully doing something that's a definitively 4e as Eberron is definitively 3.5e or FR is definitively 2e.

 

[Sage]

Define "supported."

Supported like FR and Eberron was supported in 3e

 

[Scarbonac]

I voted Greyhawk, Al-Qadim, Mystara, Kara-Tur and Other (Spelljammer is my Other of preference).

 

[Minicol]

After the release og 4e, which campaign setting(s) do you want to see supported by WotC?

I know this was probably done with third edition too, but my memory isn't that good.

I voted :
FR - lots of material to update here
GH - like it
Eberron - had no time to read it yet
Al-Qadim - best ever
Ravenloft - not the setting, but the rules and monsters
Birthright
Other : 4 E should have its own setting

And I will add that in 3rd party settings, I would LOVE Living Arcanis to continue

Barring that, I would like an "antiquity" WOTC sourcebook / world.

 

[Jer]

It may just be own experience, but I've never met anyone neutral on Spelljammer. People tend to either really love it, or really dislike it.

Oooh, oooh! I kind of "average out" to being neutral on Spelljammer. I love the idea of fantasy space travel, with flying ships and travelling to different worlds through the void of space. It's a great visual, and it makes for some great ideas.

But using established campaign settings? And the whole "crystal spheres/phlogiston" stuff? And the way the spelljammer helms worked (effectively voiding out your wizard's usefullness except as a fuel source)? And just about every flavor element of the setting? Active loathing. I mean serious, active loathing of the whole thing.

So, on balance I'm neutral towards spelljammer. I did really like the update done for Dungeon magazine a few years back though - it had everything I liked about the setting and managed to gloss over almost everything I hated. If they did a revamped Spelljammer setting that was a setting unto itself - no connections to the Realms or Greyhawk or (shudder) Krynn at all, and they got rid of the crystal spheres and came up with a way to keep the ships flavorful without crippling one of the characters, I would buy it.