Mercurius
Legend
In the Forgotten Realms thread I ran across this interesting quote, with a brief reply.
I thought this was worthy of its own thread, so here we are. One thing I find interesting here is that both posters are, I think, speaking truths that seem opposed but actually aren't. I will agree with @Icon_Charlie that WotC has a tendency to rehash old material and that we haven't really seen a large burst of new ideas, at least in terms of "fluff," probably since Eberron - and even that was nothing like the "Glory Days" of the late 80s to mid-90s when you had an almost gaudy display of riches in the form of new settings flowing forth from TSR: Forgotten Realms (1987*), Spelljammer (1989), Dark Sun (1991), Planescape (1994), Birthright (1995) and probably others in-between.
(*I realize that the FR goes back much further, but it was first published as a setting in 1987).
Anyhow, I don't expect that we'll ever see a similar Golden Age of Settings. Some folks think there's a direct causal relationship between this focus on settings and the demise of TSR; I don't think it is so clear, that TSR fell apart more through mis-handling as a business, not in terms of creative output. But that's another story. But regardless, it is unlikely that we'll see that sort of thing again.
That said, what we might see--and what WotC has been implying--is that if 2E was the Golden Age of Settings, then 5E could be the Golden Age of Stories. If this is the case, then recycling old IP might not be a bad thing, as long as that recycling is more of a re-freshing than a regurgitation.
But back to these two seemingly opposing views, I think @chibi graz'zt makes a good point, that "wow factor" is often indicative of trendiness, or novelty, as opposed to deeper archetypal resonance, which is, in my opinion, a necessary ingredient to something becoming a "classic." All consumer domains follow this basic pattern: Tons of new ideas come out, but only some of them "stick" and become lasting successes, and only some of those become true classics. Or think in terms of literature - how many novels are published each year, and how few of them having lasting success, let alone become classics.
Now of course not every new idea needs to become a classic and there's no way to plan for it. In fact, I would argue that if you try to create a classic you're doomed to fail, because your creation will likely be too synthetic, could involve pandering, etc.
Anyhow, I see two extremes: One is the endless generation of new product and ideas, what we could call the "shotgun approach." In a way the early years of the OGL were like this, even though post of it wasn't published by WotC. There was tons of stuff coming out, very little of which had lasting success, and almost none of which became classics within the field (although there are quite a few lesser or cult classics). The problem with this approach is what we saw with the OGL: a glut of mediocrity that both figuratively and literally clutters up the shelf and obfuscates higher quality product. The other extreme is the more conservative approach of sticking to what is tried and true; the problem here is that it inevitably leads to stagnation. This is what, I think, Icon Charlie fears is happening - and it is hard to refute this, although we're too early in the edition cycle to make too sharp of a judgement.
As might be obvious by this point, I think that the best approach is both. Fearlessly trying new things, creating new worlds, but also refreshing the tried and true. It doesn't have to be either/or. The only problem, of course, is that WotC is running a skeleton staff. This may change, or it may not. The obvious solution is for WotC to focus on the tried and true and create a license that allows for other publishers to generate fresh ideas. I maintain hope that we'll see this and even, hopefully, WotC to expand a bit and create their own new ideas. Maybe we'll see that with Chris Perkins' setting, which has been rumored for 2016 or 2017.
Anyhow, there you have it. The answer, or my answer is: both. I want to see the old classics revived and explore new worlds.
Oh yeah, while I'm at it, for crying out loud, WotC, please bring back the 32-module for quick and easy placement in any campaign setting!
I thought this was worthy of its own thread, so here we are. One thing I find interesting here is that both posters are, I think, speaking truths that seem opposed but actually aren't. I will agree with @Icon_Charlie that WotC has a tendency to rehash old material and that we haven't really seen a large burst of new ideas, at least in terms of "fluff," probably since Eberron - and even that was nothing like the "Glory Days" of the late 80s to mid-90s when you had an almost gaudy display of riches in the form of new settings flowing forth from TSR: Forgotten Realms (1987*), Spelljammer (1989), Dark Sun (1991), Planescape (1994), Birthright (1995) and probably others in-between.
(*I realize that the FR goes back much further, but it was first published as a setting in 1987).
Anyhow, I don't expect that we'll ever see a similar Golden Age of Settings. Some folks think there's a direct causal relationship between this focus on settings and the demise of TSR; I don't think it is so clear, that TSR fell apart more through mis-handling as a business, not in terms of creative output. But that's another story. But regardless, it is unlikely that we'll see that sort of thing again.
That said, what we might see--and what WotC has been implying--is that if 2E was the Golden Age of Settings, then 5E could be the Golden Age of Stories. If this is the case, then recycling old IP might not be a bad thing, as long as that recycling is more of a re-freshing than a regurgitation.
But back to these two seemingly opposing views, I think @chibi graz'zt makes a good point, that "wow factor" is often indicative of trendiness, or novelty, as opposed to deeper archetypal resonance, which is, in my opinion, a necessary ingredient to something becoming a "classic." All consumer domains follow this basic pattern: Tons of new ideas come out, but only some of them "stick" and become lasting successes, and only some of those become true classics. Or think in terms of literature - how many novels are published each year, and how few of them having lasting success, let alone become classics.
Now of course not every new idea needs to become a classic and there's no way to plan for it. In fact, I would argue that if you try to create a classic you're doomed to fail, because your creation will likely be too synthetic, could involve pandering, etc.
Anyhow, I see two extremes: One is the endless generation of new product and ideas, what we could call the "shotgun approach." In a way the early years of the OGL were like this, even though post of it wasn't published by WotC. There was tons of stuff coming out, very little of which had lasting success, and almost none of which became classics within the field (although there are quite a few lesser or cult classics). The problem with this approach is what we saw with the OGL: a glut of mediocrity that both figuratively and literally clutters up the shelf and obfuscates higher quality product. The other extreme is the more conservative approach of sticking to what is tried and true; the problem here is that it inevitably leads to stagnation. This is what, I think, Icon Charlie fears is happening - and it is hard to refute this, although we're too early in the edition cycle to make too sharp of a judgement.
As might be obvious by this point, I think that the best approach is both. Fearlessly trying new things, creating new worlds, but also refreshing the tried and true. It doesn't have to be either/or. The only problem, of course, is that WotC is running a skeleton staff. This may change, or it may not. The obvious solution is for WotC to focus on the tried and true and create a license that allows for other publishers to generate fresh ideas. I maintain hope that we'll see this and even, hopefully, WotC to expand a bit and create their own new ideas. Maybe we'll see that with Chris Perkins' setting, which has been rumored for 2016 or 2017.
Anyhow, there you have it. The answer, or my answer is: both. I want to see the old classics revived and explore new worlds.
Oh yeah, while I'm at it, for crying out loud, WotC, please bring back the 32-module for quick and easy placement in any campaign setting!
