D&D 5E restart or rewrite or new?

[JEB]

Didn't vote, because "new setting" and "classic setting" shouldn't be mutually exclusive options. Both should be possible.

As for how to handle classic settings... I'm perfectly happy with classic settings being updated and advanced, as well as retconned to deal with stuff that doesn't hold up for modern audiences. I'm opposed to total, sweeping reboots, since they create unnecessary divisions in the fanbase.

Resets are an interesting compromise, where you don't rebuild the setting from scratch but simply roll it back to an earlier version, essentially making the old setting merely a possible timeline. I generally don't see an issue with this, as long as you don't make it impossible for things to turn out the way they did the first time around.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I love Mystara, but it's definitely one that I'd rather see a complete reimagining of rather than trying to tweak it. My own version when I use it leans heavily on certain elements (Thyatis, Alphatia, Glantri, etc.) and ignores or reworks others (Atruaghin for starters, among others). Call it a parallel universe version of the original setting or a new setting inspired by it rather than a continuation of it. But the amount of effort to do it means its doubtful that would happen.

When I feel like I care about such things that's how I treat all of the various setting iterations - parallel universe versions of the same setting. The version I play at my table is already different from everyone else's - what's one more parallel universe in that sense?

I don't think Mystara can be saved for 5E. It's just way too tied to real-world cultures mashed together... I understand it's appeal, but I think it's firmly in an OSR sector.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think Mystara can be saved for 5E. It's just way too tied to real-world cultures mashed together... I understand it's appeal, but I think it's firmly in an OSR sector.

Which is kind of a shame, since one of my DMs adores the setting and would love an updated version. But it'd would probably be too difficult to make an authentic and non-insulting pre-colonial South American setting that also fits with what's known about Maztica.

 

[gamerprinter]

I always put in huge amounts of effort into the development of all my settings - some so much so that I publish them. Now while I do plan to create the Starfinder version of my published Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror, as a Mini Setting Guide as a single star system, it will be a slight emulation of the previous and much less in content, really more a nod to the original setting. Aside from that I far, far prefer to create new settings, which my Kaidan update fits within a larger interstellar setting, I'm at the start of development now. I enjoy creating new settings, and have others to finish and new ones to start... I almost never revisit past settings. I let each stand on their own.

 

[cbwjm]

Not sure which option I'd choose. Generally, I'm not too worried if a setting release in a new edition continues the setting from where it left off (sort of like FR across editions), or resets it to the classic setting (like dragonlance's war of the lance). Generally, I just want to see a good update of specific content like races, classes, factions, etc. If the don't fit well, or still honour the concept of the older content, then it is a little jarring. Kind of why I want psionics to be well built for dark sun, though admittedly I only really need wild talents which should be easy enough to do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Make new ideas. There are still other settings besides Eberron that performed well in that old contest. Dredging one or two of them up and doing what they can to improve it could be great.

Likewise, building settings that reflect the observed statistics in D&D Beyond, among other things, could be pretty cool. If you can literally track what things people find interesting, then a setting that specifically caters to those interests in a productive and functional way is practically a guaranteed moneymaker.

 

[Stormonu]

For old settings, go back to the original release, update the rules and leave the original lore alone as much as possible. Fixing "issues" is a two-way street of madness (Orcs of Thar, I'm looking at you) so only as minimal a change as required should be made and the really bad supplemental lore can just be never mentioned. While the Van Richten's Ravenloft turned out okay for me, it went too far with changing things for the sake of changing things at times (Hell, that even happened in 2E with the blasted "Great Conjuction" and the "Grim Harvest").

With that in mind, I'd definately like to see a few new settings. And I'd make sure they were boxed sets with poster-sized maps.

 

[Lyxen]

So I'd have to hope somehow that cowardice was overcome, and they actually created worlds at least as interesting as Eberron, not "even safer than Eberron".

Honestly, I can understand this "cowardice" these days. Whatever you publish, someone will be offended and will try to roast you.

 

[Yora]

Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun are both prime examples of setting that were at their best in the original box set and then quickly started going downhill with expansions that were basically tie-ins to novels that went against the original setting concept.

Timeline advances are how you ruin a setting. Because those advances usually reflect things happening in novels. In a good campaign setting, players should be free to kill and burn down anyone and anything, without being held back because it might contradict with what happens in a novel that might come out at some point. When you do timeline advances, a setting becomes basically unplayable.

 

[Jer]

Honestly, I can understand this "cowardice" these days. Whatever you publish, someone will be offended and will try to roast you.

It isn't about getting roasted, it's about making money. What people are calling "cowardice" is just capitalism in action - going where the market is and making the product that is most likely to sell to the largest possible audience.

It's also why every movie made by a big studio these days is so similar to every other movie and you don't see a lot of experimentation- it's all about figuring out what sells and then doing that.