D&D 5E restart or rewrite or new?

[Micah Sweet]

But, how do I see things to you then? You want settings as reading material, which means the mechanics don't really matter, that's not why you're buying the books, but, you also want the mechanics updated, without changing the setting despite the fact that the original setting material was based on very different mechanics that don't really work in 5e.

That's a pretty difficult thing to satisfy. I mean, if that's true, then I cannot have a lot of stuff in the earlier settings since it didn't exist in the game at the time - no dwarven magic-users, heck, most races can't be most classes - for example. If we're going by that metric, what's the cutoff? Should Greyhawk only draw on material published before the boxed set? So, no PC drow allowed - since PC drow didn't appear until the Unearthed Arcana 1e? What should Vecna be? A lich? A demi-god? A major deity? Never minding the rather large number of deities that have been added to the setting since the boxed set was released. Should they be excised as well?

Any update to a setting is going to have to make any number of decisions. Where you draw that cut off line is never going to make everyone happy. It's impossible to update a setting to new mechanics without changing the sensibilities of the setting.

And I do have some wiggle room. New options can be added as long as they don't retroactively alter the setting's history in-universe. That's what I care about. The integrity of the story.

 

[Umbran]

I value the settings for the stories they tell in the products as much as for any use on the table. Most of them I primarily experienced as reading material. That's why I don't want them changed.

So, if they don't change them at all, there's nothing actually new for you to read. At that point, you can go reread the old versions, and let others have new ones, no?

New ideas and modern sensibilities should be catered to by new settings.

There is value in the new. There is also value in reworking the old for a new era. I, for one, am glad that there's Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, as well as two different movies of West Side Story. There's a richness to be found in reinterpretation. And every human legend, fairy tale, fable, and mythology has been told and retold and changed with the times. The one thing our stories aren't is static.

 

[Scribe]

The one thing our stories aren't is static.

Sure, but sometimes Han shot first, and change is not always for the better.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I voted remake with a new take... Only because the setting (Al Quadim) had some very rules centric content that has never been correctly updated, at least IMO. The setting was rich amd ripe with possibility and it just went...nowhere. Of all the settings based on any sort of 'real world' area it seemed to have the best grasp (although it had flaws too). One of the best was its depiction of women through the rules which depicted pre-Islam roles, where women were more than just property. Also it discussed the modesty veils from both sides, all historically accurate. 1001 Arabian Nights is a serious stretch of reading in the unabridged multi-volume editions (The one I read had 24) and was obviously a huge resource. I would live to see it resurrected, but I'm leary as to the treatment it might get.

 

[Older Beholder]

My preference would be for remakes with a new take, or new settings.

The main thing is to have writers and artists that are passionate about the what they're creating.
Making Ravenloft a toolbox of different horror genres for example, was one of the best things they've done in 5E.

I'm really excited to see what they do with Spelljammer.

 

[Minigiant]

I think there is value in all three methods.
However I don't get why the methods were done one at a time.

I mean dragonborn wasputin the 5th edition PHB as a strong, proud, slightly militaristic, and charismatic race. It was published in 2014. It's 2022 now?

Does any published setting have major dragonborn country or empire?

Can my DM buy a book from WOTC that lets my elf wizard experience, take quests from, and gain info from a whole city of breath spewing. element resistant, talkative, scalies with their own cultures and subculutres? Or a nation of tieflings who proclaim only23.775% of them are non-good edgelords? Or a theocracy of druids and rangers will really big (negative) opinions of the Far Realm or whomever they think is a threat to nature?

New takes and old conversions are fine. But we're in Year 8. I don't want D&D to become a nostalgia hobby.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, if they don't change them at all, there's nothing actually new for you to read. At that point, you can go reread the old versions, and let others have new ones, no?



There is value in the new. There is also value in reworking the old for a new era. I, for one, am glad that there's Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, as well as two different movies of West Side Story. There's a richness to be found in reinterpretation. And every human legend, fairy tale, fable, and mythology has been told and retold and changed with the times. The one thing our stories aren't is static.

Old things can be added to without changing what's already there. Marvel Comics manages it, more or less. I'm all for that.

And you can tell a similar story with different names, in a different setting, without messing with the original. West Side Story is not Romeo and Juliet 5e.

 

[JEB]

And I do have some wiggle room. New options can be added as long as they don't retroactively alter the setting's history in-universe. That's what I care about. The integrity of the story.

Just to clarify, are you OK with retcons that are explained in canon ("you thought it was X but actually it was Y"), or do your ideal new options have to be purely additive (and previously published canon is set in stone)?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just to clarify, are you OK with retcons that are explained in canon ("you thought it was X but actually it was Y"), or do your ideal new options have to be purely additive (and previously published canon is set in stone)?

I am ok with those kind of retcons, yes.

 

[Irlo]

I never take a published setting and implement it as written. I always make small or drastic changes to geography, history, religion, etc. to suit my needs in the moment. A published setting is a useful springboard for my imagination -- it's always easier to edit than to create. I don't follow D&D novels or meta-plots, and I always figured the gaming audience was different than the reading audience. Because of that, I don't have any attachment to the stories of the setting, and if those change from one edition or update to the next, it doesn't bother me at all, because I've already diverged. I just can't see changing aspects of an RPG setting as akin to retroactively editing movies. (I'm looking at you, Greedo.)

RPG settings were made to diverge, if only by the events of various campaigns at various tables. And D&D has always encouraged making the game our own.

I never liked Spelljammer, but I was enthralled by the more serious 3e mini-setting based on it that was published in Dungeon Magazine. I picked up one or two Dragonlance modules, but I saw right away they weren't for me, perhaps because I didn't care about the story, and those modules as I remember were definitely all about The Story.

I thought my use of published settings was prevalent, but I'm seeing other perspectives in this thread, so now I wonder if I'm even typical.