D&D 5E D&D Needs New Settings

[Minigiant]

I dont think youre allowed to give a player, their PC (race & class) any drawbacks, penalty's or disadvantages anymore.

You're are allowed to give a players race class any drawbacks, penalties, and disadvantages AFTER you frame stage and set up the game.

Choosing setting is done before the game starts and everyone has already agreed.

 

[R_J_K75]

You're are allowed to give a players race class any drawbacks, penalties, and disadvantages AFTER you frame stage and set up the game.

Choosing setting is done before the game starts and everyone has already agreed.

Yes, I know.

 

[Tonguez]

I think D&D needs to do at least big "political drama* setting and one real War of the Pantheons setting.

By political drama, I mean kings, lords, and government. Have more concrete feels to the powerful NPCs and tie in the idea that adventurers are doing the work nobles can't or won't do with their power or are using the adventurers as cheap labor to clear out monsters for development.

So a setting like Brithrights Cerilia or the Pathfinders Kingdom buildings rules?

 

[aco175]

I think the trick is to get the players to see the world in new ways. An underwater world is cool, but if the players see a kelp bed and play it as a grassland than it is still 'default' D&D. When players keep defaulting like; I want plate armor. We have kraken scales that are like plate, or How come I cannot swim over the pit. Well there is a down current so you need to jump. I guess the DM needs to buy in as well.

 

[Haffrung]

As much as I’d like to see it, the chances of WotC publishing a new and original setting are pretty much zero. Everything in entertainment today is about leveraging the brand and built-in audiences of existing properties. From a business standpoint, there’s nothing to gain and a lot to lose by taking a chance on something new.

Which is sad. Because I really liked the last original setting WotC created, the Nentir Vale, and was disappointed that the official guidebook fleshing out the Vale was never published.

 

[jayoungr]

Does Wildemount count?

Also, I have bought more than a few new, imaginative settings from third-party publishers. Mostly from Kickstarter.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Does Wildemount count?

No, as WotC did not make it. I love the setting and have the book, but it was just WotC making money off of Critical Role's setting.

 

[Blue]

Just to clarify, I do not mean that D&D needs new books for M:tG settings, or settings from previous editions, or anything else that already exists. I mean, D&D needs completely new, official settings created by WotC (at least one). What do you think? What would you like to see if they were to make another setting?

Why?

I don't disagree that I'd like to see a new setting, or better yet a setting search open to all like the one that led to Eberron. But why does WotC need a new setting? They have a backlog of settings for veteran players who are waiting for existing settings to be updated, and those same veteran players have something new in Theros, Ravnica, and Wildemount. All of which also cater to demographics of new players who got into the game via M:tG or Critical Role. As well as new players who want something besides the Realms. I saw you discounting Wildemount, but you really can't. It's a new setting to D&D, it's not "tainted" or unusable to a large amount of gamers because it's affiliated with CR.

So, what market niche is missing? What large group of players has not been served, and will be served better by a completely new setting than updating a old one?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why?

Because sometimes new things are cool and interesting. If they were to make a new setting with fresh ideas, it would get more hype than just a reprint of a M:tG setting or redone setting from a previous edition and bring something new to the game.

I saw you discounting Wildemount, but you really can't. It's a new setting to D&D, it's not "tainted" or unusable to a large amount of gamers because it's affiliated with CR.

Oh, I did not mean to dismiss Wildemount as a setting, I am really very fond of it and have done a campaign in it already. I agree that it is a new setting in D&D, and its great that we have it officially now. I would love to see more 5e content for Exandria. However, WotC did not make it. It is a homebrew setting that has now entered the D&D "canon," which is great, but IMO it doesn't count as a "new setting."

A new setting for D&D, IMHO, would be made by WotC, possibly while collaborating with the original designer (like how Eberron came about).

So, what market niche is missing? What large group of players has not been served, and will be served better by a completely new setting than updating a old one?

I'm not sure what specifically the community would like and which setting would be best if brought to D&D, but here are some examples of niches that could have a setting:

• Modern. With technology, the internet, and magic. Like this.
• Underwater. A water world with aquatic races and peoples.
• Feudal/political. Different conflicting nations in a medieval type world. It would be different from the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, where magic is extremely rare and possibly even seen as a myth or legend.
• Psionic Eberron. Basically a world where instead of magic and artifice being their technology, psionics is their technology.
• Lovecraftian world. Basically an aberrant-horror setting.

There's a lot of others that I'm sure I could think of if I were to give more time to it. There is a lack of a world that has a major dream-realm connected to it (Dal Quor doesn't count, I mean a dream realm that doesn't have worm-crabs in it), or a medieval type fey-touched realm, and so on. There are design spaces that could be filled with new worlds. If you can't think of any, you need to think outside of the box.

 

[aco175]

I would go for a Nentir Vale like 4e had. The box sets are a bit like this, but in FR. I liked that NV was contained and had several areas to explore and several towns to rest.