D&D 5E Hope for Nerath? (On D&D Next Campaign Settings and a Plea to WotC)

[Mercurius]

I was browsing the web for sandbox ideas and came across this badboy:

(For a high res version click here)

I was one of the folks that was mightily disappointed when the Nentir Vale Gazetteer was cancelled; it was not out of any particular love for the Nentir/Nerath setting, but because I was simply curious. One of my favorite aspects of our dear hobby is getting to know a new campaign world, whether my own, another DM's, or a published setting. Consequently, one of the biggest disappointments for me with the 4E publication cycle was no new campaign worlds. Sure, the Forgotten Realms was re-fluffed, Dark Sun brought to new light, and there were glimpses of the Nentir Vale setting, and of course the new planes and the Shadowfell, but there wasn't really a deeply explored (new) setting.

From what I've heard so far, WotC is (tentatively?) planning on, once again, making the Forgotten Realms the central campaign setting of D&D Next. Now I'm all for re-publishing old classics, and I'm quite excited to see the Greenwood iteration of the Realms, but do we really need another round of Forgotten Realms products?

Which is where the plea comes in. Dearest Wizards of the Coast, please can we have a new campaign setting for 5th edition? My recommendation would be to have two parallel publication lines for setting:

1) D&D Classic Settings - publish a book or (preferably) a box set for the classic settings, say two a year. If you do a box set then you don't need to do more than that: it could include maps (world and starting region), world book, player's book, and adventure book. If you leave the monsters and crunch to D&D Insider or core rulebooks you've got a lot of room to play with.

2) New Setting (or two) - start with either a box set as above or a hardcover as per 3rd and 4th edition, then fill publish something new every quarter - regional splat books, adventure paths, encounter books, etc. Do this for a couple years and then switch to something new, with ongoing support of the first setting via D&D Insider.

I personally would love to see Nerath developed and explored as a kind of archetypal/iconic D&D world in which all published adventures are set as a default (and perhaps open it up via some kind of OGL so that 3PP can use the background for their adventures). I'd also be just as happy to see something new, but it seems from the above map that there has been some thought put into that setting and it is worth seeing more.

This isn't either/or - either you stick with the tried and true classics or you risk something new. It accomplishes the best of both worlds. You publish the classics, starting with the Forgotten Realms, and you also develop something new. You don't really risk the law of diminishing returns with either product line because you don't go too deeply into either - just a box set for the classics (except in one or two cases where you might want to flesh it out a bit more), and just a half dozen or so products for the new setting(s) before moving on.

Alternately you could have three lines: classics, Nerath, and a new worlds line that offers a new world or two a year and then community members vote on which ones they'd like to see further developed. Actually, while we're at it, how about a new setting competition with community member participation ala the playtest?

What do you think, fine fellows and ladies of ENWorld?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think the problem with releasing a new campaign setting to go along with a new set of rules is that it has to be pretty damned generic, else the rules aren't applicable to lots of campaign settings in the first place. Forgotten Realms is pretty damned generic, as all they have done in the past is throw in a new class/race, and this time around I'm sure we'll see regional backgrounds and themes.

I'd say that a year after the launch of the new system, that's when people would be interested in seeing something exciting and innovative - they did a good job with the 3rd edition competition, as although Eberron isn't to my taste, it carved out it's own little niche. After a year we'll know the rules, know how to play with them and that's the time to go for a new niche.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Looks like part of a lost continent of Oerth, to me.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the problem with releasing a new campaign setting to go along with a new set of rules is that it has to be pretty damned generic, else the rules aren't applicable to lots of campaign settings in the first place.

All the more reason to start with Nerath rather than something more exotic. Nerath seems to have been designed with iconic D&D tropes in mind, as a kind of archetypal D&D world. With the "two-pronged" product line approach, they can still release both Forgotten Realms and Nerath products in the first year, FR being the first in their "classics" line and Nerath being the first new setting to develop.

Once Nerath has been adequately fleshed out, say after about two years, they can bring in something new like they did with Eberron in the 3.x cycle, even do another setting search.

Part of the reason I think they should focus on Nerath or some other new setting is that I believe one of the mistakes they made with 4E was not supporting a campaign world in an ongoing manner, but the "one a year" approach that left no setting all that developed and didn't give the community any anchors. Think of how the Golarion Chronicles products flesh out the Pathfinder game and give the Adventure Paths a context that makes them seem meaningful and alive. I have no idea if the Chronicles products are lucrative, but the APs certainly are and part of their success hinges on the development of Golarion itself.

(This has been an ongoing criticism I've had of WotC - they don't seem to understand the concept of "loss leader" or "losing the battle to win the war." Cancelling the print Dragon is a good example, or not developing any settings; someone at the top must have looked at sales figures and decided they didn't generate enough profit, seemingly ignoring the way such products influence the community and in turn drive sales of other products).

The 4E adventures didn't really have that feeling of context, except in a vague sort of way. There was no world map, no detailed history to draw from - just intimations of a world that WotC never really brought into reality, even cancelling the only product that they had planned to flesh it out.

Why not Forgotten Realms, you ask? Been there, done that - I've got a bookshelf and more to prove it, with four editions worth of Realms material, from the beloved grey box to the 4E Neverwinter book. I personally think the best Realms products were the grey gox, the 2E Waterdeep box, the 3E hardcover, and a few of the 3E splats. Are they going to try to re-do and/or out-do those? Seems like a waste of resources to me. I'd rather see them put similar energy into a new world(s), preferably Nerath and others down the line.

Let's go forward and not back, continually re-digesting old tropes and memes, which simply further waters down the D&D noosphere.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

One of the few pieces of news about 5e/D&D Next that I haven't liked has been the idea that the Forgotten Realms will be the central setting.

I am so sick of that setting.

Please, WotC, anything--anything--but the F'Realms. I'd even accept Nerath instead, and that's saying something, given my negative associations of the setting with the despised 4th edition of the game...

 

[Dragoslav]

I've never even played anything pre-4e aside from Neverwinter Nights 2, and I'm already sick of the Forgotten Realms, too.

 

[jadrax]

From what I've heard so far, WotC is (tentatively?) planning on, once again, making the Forgotten Realms the central campaign setting of D&D Next. Now I'm all for re-publishing old classics, and I'm quite excited to see the Greenwood iteration of the Realms, but do we really need another round of Forgotten Realms products?

Erm, the Forgotten Realms has never actually been central campaign setting of any edition of D&D.


(and TBH, I doubt it will be for 5th either).

 

[Dire Bare]

Erm, the Forgotten Realms has never actually been central campaign setting of any edition of D&D.

Not true. During the run of 2E, the Realms became the "sorta default" as many of the extensive player and DM supplement series used the Realms for background.

(and TBH, I doubt it will be for 5th either).

I also doubt it, and I'm wondering where folks are getting the idea that WotC has already stated that the Realms will be the default setting. If they did, I missed it.

I wouldn't be upset if the Realms became the default setting as it is a pretty generic fantasy world and is very popular. WotC has avoided doing so, so far, because the wanted the Realms to be it's own brand separate from the core D&D experience.

What worries me the most is that whatever the new default setting will be, that we will lose most of the innovative and awesome cosmology changes that came with 4E. I love the new planar cosmology, I love the reconcept of the Eladrin. I guess we'll see what happens . . .

 

[Yora]

Not true. During the run of 2E, the Realms became the "sorta default" as many of the extensive player and DM supplement series used the Realms for background.

Also, look at all the setting books that were released by WotC before Eberron.

Unless you consider Oriental Adventures and Ghostwalk to be settings, I think Forgotten Realms pretty much gets 100%.

 

[Remathilis]

Not true. During the run of 2E, the Realms became the "sorta default" as many of the extensive player and DM supplement series used the Realms for background.

This gets bandied about alot, but I can't think of too many examples of it. I have found a few examples of "Realms origin" stuff appearing in generic 2e stuff (the examples that I can think off are wild mages in Tome of Magic, crusader, monk, and shaman classes in Spells and Magic, and Saurials in Complete Humanoid's Handbook). There were some references to world specific subraces in the various racial handbooks, but they had just as many Krynn references in those as Toril ones. Once WotC bought TSR, I saw FAR MORE Greyhawk references than Realms ones. I guess you can say that moving Kara Tur, Al-Quadim and Mazitca to the same world counts, but that seemed more like a ploy to get Realms players to buy three settings that didn't have much standing strength on their own.

What I think makes most people think of Realms as the "default" 2e setting was the novels and computer games. There were no "generic" D&D novels, so the most generic often were the Realms ones. Likewise, Realms was used for a huge amount of Gold-box games, Neverwinter Nights (both versions), and the Baldur's Gate/Infinity Engine games. While there were some non-Realms games, it was usually another setting (Ravenloft, Planescape, or Dark Sun).

Beyond that, and a couple of cross-references in Planescape, Ravenloft, or Spelljammer, Realms stuff seemed pretty centered on the Realms. It was probably their biggest, and most prolific setting (and hence why so much of their stuff seemed to feel like it was generic) but 2e had few overt Realms references beyond its line. It certainly felt larger than its GH references (or Mystara, or Birthright, or any other setting that was "generic" fantasy) but if 2e was intended to be "default Realms" it didn't do a good job of dovetailing in..

EDIT: A thought. Dragon accepted an inordinate amount of Realms-dressed articles. Perhaps the fact that much of Dragon Mag had Realm-themed stuff has lead to this?