D&D 5E What's Next for D&D's Campaign Settings? (And an idea/suggestion for WotC!)

[DMZ2112]

I managed to collect all the FR setting guides for every edition of D&D it was ever printed for. This required a lot of trips to the used bookstore and not an insignificant amount of luck.

You always need a fresh starting point for players new to the setting.

And in a year they'll all be available on dndclassics.com. Crisis averted.

 

[Halivar]

And in a year they'll all be available on dndclassics.com. Crisis averted.

I don't think that's a solution. That's a lot of reading, some of it outdated. I still think there needs to be an updated, all-in-one starting point for players new to the setting.

 

[DMZ2112]

I don't think that's a solution. That's a lot of reading, some of it outdated. I still think there needs to be an updated, all-in-one starting point for players new to the setting.

If WotC wants to support all editions' playstyles, /step one/ is a universally viable method of conversion.

If you're referring to fluff and not rules, I question the need to vault the timeline forward every time the rules change. Settings should change over time, but that evolution should not render their histories meaningless.

 

[the Jester]

But the problem here is that with #2, you're just by and large regurgitating old material and re-packaging it. .

I just had to pick this out, because it seems to me you're overlooking another method- what you might call 2.5- where you don't just repackage old material, but you expand and add to it without invalidating the old stuff (as in your case 3).

To stick to Greyhawk as an example, there are hundreds of things or more that are only sketched out. Most of the cities have only the barest descriptions- many are only names and populations. There are countries that have barely been scratched, political relationships that have never been explored, tons and tons of things that can be easily expanded without "overwriting" what has come before (which usually alienates the fans).

 

[TerraDave]

This is why I think WotC needs to put more energy on the new, on fresh ideas and worlds. Yes, produce 5e versions of classic settings if only to say to fans of said settings, "We haven't forgotten about you - we still love you!" But if they're going to support a setting with a line of sourcebooks, why not make it a new one?

The simple problem with this: they have too many worlds, rebooted too many times.

The last thing they should do is come up with yet another one. Whats the point? They don't need it for new players, everything is new to them. And for old players, they are competing with all those existing worlds, which many of those older players prefer. Its very, very hard to justify.

 

[gweinel]

While reading the conversation one word comes to mind for all of us who want more of our beloved world: Kickstarter

Recent paradigms (Pathfinder, Numenera, London 1920 Cthulhu) showed that given the opportunity there are many of us who would buy and fully support the setting we love.
I am watching these days of London 1920 Cthulhu kickstarter and I imagine a similar project for Planescape, Ravenloft or Birthright. Can you imagine a box set of 3-4 books, many many handouts etc? And if that proves succesful (which i find very likely) this would be a start. An annual box set of Planescape would make me a happier person. If a company like Paizo, MCG or Cubicle 7 can raise hundrends of thousands of $ via kickstarter I am sure Wizards can get similar amounts or more.

 

[Mercurius]

I just had to pick this out, because it seems to me you're overlooking another method- what you might call 2.5- where you don't just repackage old material, but you expand and add to it without invalidating the old stuff (as in your case 3).

To stick to Greyhawk as an example, there are hundreds of things or more that are only sketched out. Most of the cities have only the barest descriptions- many are only names and populations. There are countries that have barely been scratched, political relationships that have never been explored, tons and tons of things that can be easily expanded without "overwriting" what has come before (which usually alienates the fans).

And that sounds good to me. In my ideal world, we'd see tons of setting stuff - old and new. But for me, if its the choice of seeing an old classic like Greyhawk or FR re-hashed (and deepened, as you say), or an entirely new world developed, I'd like to go with the latter.

The simple problem with this: they have too many worlds, rebooted too many times.

The last thing they should do is come up with yet another one. Whats the point? They don't need it for new players, everything is new to them. And for old players, they are competing with all those existing worlds, which many of those older players prefer. Its very, very hard to justify.

There's a slight contradiction here, Dave. "too many worlds, rebooted too many times" yet you don't want them to come up with a new world, but instead reboot one of the ones they've already "rebooted too many times?"

In the end, though, it probably matters lesswhich world they support and more how they support it. A very well supported and published Greyhawk or FR will be much better than a crappy new setting. I think part of 4e's relative failure was the lack of a living, developing world, which prevented WotC from saying, "Look, this is how D&D 4e feels."

A living setting gives an edition (or game) a center, a heart.

 

[Jester David]

With the online magazines it would be easy to have a "setting of the month" that updates the crunch of most of the worlds.

We don't need another Eberron or Dark Sun book as the flavour text will not have changed. We just need a few races, some subclasses, and the like. A few other worlds (Dragonlance and Ravenloft) were updated recently and could do with the same treatment. Other settings (Spelljammer and Planescape) don't have as much in the way of setting lore and could be fully updated in a magazine.
Pair these with PDFs of older edition setting material and you're good.

A few settings deserve an update for legacy purposes. Greyhawk for example. A few others could be updated because their content has not been compiled ever, or need some revision after metaplot.

 

[Jester David]

I really don't think we need another world. A new world just spreads out the audience even more.

That said, I think it'd be interesting to make a new world via Organized Play. Establish a world and let the players develop it via adventures.

(edit - I discussed this in a blog some time ago.)

It might also be neat to open up a world to the community. The Point of Light world be fun for that. Set up a wiki on the community site and let the fans copy lore on Nerath from various sources and expand. Let everyone make the world together.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], your posts gave me another idea - how about having a "setting of the month" in Dragon, with a brief overview of a world. Then, after six months or so, readers vote for which setting they'd like to see developed. Or something like that.