D&D 5E 5e most conservative edition yet? (In terms of new settings)

[FitzTheRuke]

That's my only distinction. WotC's D&D team hasn't created any new setting for 5e. They just move licensed settings through the pipeline.

I would agree with you if the Theros, Ravnica, and Wildemount settings existed as available RPG settings before - but they didn't, so I feel like excluding them to make your point, kind of ruins your point.

It took them awhile (and I'd still like to see some 2e settings done) but 5e has added new settings. They absolutely have. If you don't like 'em, that's cool, but they are there.

I mean, you gotta at least give it to Wildemount. If that doesn't count as "original" because it was Mercer's 4e world in his home games, than Forgotten Realms can't count as original either. Nor could Ravenloft. Could any setting?

 

[Jester David]

I count zero (0) new settings published by WotC. Everything is either from D&D's past; or licensed from another property.

True.
Unless you count Ravnica and Theros. Or Wildemount.

Which I imagine don't count for... reasons.

1) They don't need to. Based on the list above and including the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, they already have 10+ settings they can access at any time. Because of the popularity of streaming and D&D itself in the mainstream, they now have access to fresh new properties like Mercer-verse; Acquisitions Inc; Rick and Morty; Stranger Things; and of course Hasbro's own Magic the Gathering. And there are many many many (I can't type an entire googol's worth of "many" - but it's a lot) other settings they can license in the world.

Well... yeah. They have settings for days.
They already have un-supported IP and trademarks that are being unused. Why add more?

Why make something brand new and spend three times as long designing the world in the hope it finds an audience when you can update something that you know people already like?

2) They don't want to. Based on the sales so far of their books, they are selling books like hot cakes. If things are going well, why release something brand new that could be a risk? And a publicly traded company like Hasbro is going to be waaay more risk averse compared to a private company.

See above.

It it "the most conservative in terms of new settings?"
Well, no, that would be OD&D: no settings. Or Basic D&D: one setting period.

Even AD&D 1e only really had three settings: Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and the Realms.

 

[Fenris-77]

How much more time do they need? Game's been out since 2014.

Well, however much time elapses before someone has a really killer idea I guess. They aren't hurting for sales, so it's not like there's a rush (on their end anyway, obviously we'd like to see it).

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Why make something brand new and spend three times as long designing the world in the hope it finds an audience when you can update something that you know people already like?

Exactly. This is exactly my point. Hasbro is very risk averse (as a publicly traded company, it should be). "Risk Averse" = "Conservative". As such, there is no incentive for them to make an original setting.

What I'm hearing mostly on this thread is that folks don't seem to care the source of new settings. I guess I can align with that. As long as they are quality.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that the settings WotC has published so far have been Low Risk (from a business standpoint)? Ie, that they are super conservative in a business sense.

 

[dave2008]

At this point, I would take a new setting that isn't also designed to be a commercial for something else.

Like, anything.

See I would rather they be smart and make use of things they already have. I will never buy or play MtG, but there is already a lot of cool ideas and art invested in that IP. I would prefer, if it makes sense, for WotC to utilize that material and give us new to D&D settings. Most importantly, I want the product to be good, whether it is original or not. Asking for "anything" without a qualifier on quality is harmful IMO.

 

[dave2008]

How much more time do they need? Game's been out since 2014.

They don't need more time, but they have no need or responsibility to issue more settings.

 

[dave2008]

What I'm hearing mostly on this thread is that folks don't seem to care the source of new settings. I guess I can align with that. As long as they are quality.

That is the most important to me as well.

 

[dave2008]

That's my only distinction. WotC's D&D team hasn't created any new setting for 5e. They just move licensed settings through the pipeline.

Is there a problem with that? If you don't know about MtG they are new to you. I for example have never played MtG and have almost no knowledge of the settings. Every time they port one to D&D for me it is like a breath of fresh air IMO.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Huh. That's an interesting take; and true I suppose - Hasbro doesn't pay itself licensing fees. But would you say they are original to D&D?

By that standard the Realms is licensed. After all, it was created by someone else and not originally a D&D setting.

I think people need to stop using 2nd edition as a yardstick when it really was the outlier. Ever other edition has been 3 or fewer settings.

 

[Jester David]

Exactly. This is exactly my point. Hasbro is very risk averse (as a publicly traded company, it should be). "Risk Averse" = "Conservative". As such, there is no incentive for them to make an original setting.

What I'm hearing mostly on this thread is that folks don't seem to care the source of new settings. I guess I can align with that. As long as they are quality.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that the settings WotC has published so far have been Low Risk (from a business standpoint)? Ie, that they are super conservative in a business sense.

That and make a whole bunch of new settings didn't lead to financial success during 2e.
For every Dark Sun that was a financial success, there's a Planescape that was popular but didn't sell (at time time). Or a Red Steel. Or a Council of Wyrms.

Furthermore, even if the new setting is super well-received and equal in popularity to Eberron or Dark Sun... they might as well have published Eberron or Dark Sun. They're not any better off. And that's the best case scenario.
It's High Risk and Average Reward.

The MtG settings work because they're being written by someone on the MtG team who was on the D&D team. So it's not taking D&D RPG team resources for much of it. And are cheaply made, since they can use recycled art.

At this point, I would take a new setting that isn't also designed to be a commercial for something else.

Like, anything.

And Explorer's Guide to Wildemount doesn't count because it's tangentially related to someone's homegame that also airs as a streaming show?
That doesn't affect the quality of the product. And there's large stretches of the setting the show never touched on.

But, okay then... how about:
Esper Genesis
Talislanta: The Savage Land
Arcanis
Amethyst
Scarred Lands
Primeval Thule
Midgard

I mean... it's not like the WotC team has magic powers that make their writing better than other people's words. And the big part of campaign settings is the lore and the world, so even the crunch and mechanics is less important.

Heck, it doesn't even need to be for 5e since lore is mechanic neutral. You could easily use Golarion, and take advantage of the second most supported and detail rich fantasy world in gaming.