WotC Why WotC SHOULD Make A New Setting

[ZeshinX]

Only if you and the Kender are in an empty, locked room and there was nothing else for the Kender to do.

Which, to a kender, is always.

 

[Remathilis]

Only if you and the Kender are in an empty, locked room and there was nothing else for the Kender to do.

Idk man, the look of terror in the eyes of your fellow players when you say "I'm playing a kender" says it all...

 

[Reynard]

Idk man, the look of terror in the eyes of your fellow players when you say "I'm playing a kender" says it all...

Here's where we dovetail in to the "smart chaotic evil" thread?

 

[Remathilis]

Here's where we dovetail in to the "smart chaotic evil" thread?

Singularity achieved

 

[mamba]

Nope. It's horror. Let's look at the board.

Death knights? Scary.
Dragons? Very scary.
Kender? Absolutely terrifying.
A world without gods? Cataclysm? Endless war? Horrifying.

except for Kender, you could say the same about other D&D settings like Greyhawk, FR, or Eberron as well (and yes, you are glossing over a few things there too, e.g. the war never was endless)

 

[SlyFlourish]

If so.eone likes what the dnd team has been making, and wants to see them specifically make a new full standalone setting and not just an adventure location that never gets touched again, that is valid.

I don't know why I don't get a response to this part of it but the same team members who make settings when they work at WOTC also make settings when they're not at WOTC:

• Midgard (Wolfgang Baur, Dan Dillon)
• Islands of Sina Una (Mackenzie De Armas)
• Tal'Dorei Reborn (James Haeck)
• Numenera (Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, Sean Reynolds)
• Arora (Shawn Merwin)
• Aethereal Expanse (James Haeck)
• Primeval Thule (Dave Noonan, Rich Baker, Stephen Schubert)
• Ptolus (Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, Sean Reynolds)
• Path of the Planebreaker (Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, Sean Reynolds)
• Grim Hollow (Shawn Merwin, James Haeck)
• Tal'Dorei Reborn (James Haeck)

All made by D&D team members but not when they were at WOTC.

It's not the team members folks are focusing on here when they say they want a new D&D setting, it's strictly a focus on the brand and the company.

Those can be good dnd, but whether they are official is a question with an objective answer.

And that "objective" answer is "they have the trademark". That's it. There's no other super magical secret sauce going on.
The product quality of current D&D products is really good. The art is awesome (though some disagree). The physical construction is great. So is the construction by Cubicle 7 and Ghostfire and Monte Cook Games and Kobold Press.

The desire for an "official D&D" setting is a desire to see a product the D&D ampersand on it. That's the only difference. And I think that focus dismisses the work published by other publishers, work often done by the same designers.

I argue 13th Age is a more official take on D&D 3e and 4e because it was the version of D&D both of the lead designers of 3e and 4e wanted to make. It just doesn't have the trademark.

People can want want they want, but the desire to see an "official D&D setting" is strictly a desire to see the D&D trademark on a book. It's not a love of the work of the designers. It's not a feeling that the quality of every WOTC product surpasses that of all other publishers. It's just a focus on the legal trademark of D&D.

I think we should judge all settings and all published RPG work based on the quality of the work, not the trademarked brand it happens to have or not have.

 

[TwoSix]

People can want want they want, but the desire to see an "official D&D setting" is strictly a desire to see the D&D trademark on a book. It's not a love of the work of the designers. It's not a feeling that the quality of every WOTC product surpasses that of all other publishers. It's just a focus on the legal trademark of D&D.

I think we should judge all settings and all published RPG work based on the quality of the work, not the trademarked brand it happens to have or not have.

For me, it isn't about the imprimatur of the WotC trademark.

It's about the fact that what WotC releases has greater reach than an identical product released by a smaller company. It will shift conversations and discussion far more than a release by a 3pp.

I'm on record as saying there is a ton of 3pp material that I think is straight up better than what WotC releases. But I'm not going to pretend that a release like a Tasha's or a Xanathar's hasn't had a much greater impact on the D&D community than any 3pp product, no matter how much better design I feel the 3pp has had.

And while I'm a consumer of the product, I'm just as much, if not more, a consumer of the zeitgeist around play and the community. That's why I'm here on ENWorld, after all. A WotC release is always a central driver of those discussion currents.

 

[bedir than]

People can want want they want, but the desire to see an "official D&D setting" is strictly a desire to see the D&D trademark on a book. It's not a love of the work of the designers. It's not a feeling that the quality of every WOTC product surpasses that of all other publishers. It's just a focus on the legal trademark of D&D.

This ignores the ease of evangelism.

Having to consistently answer the question "Is this D&D?" when you talk to normies with "It's kinda like D&D, but not" is exhausting.
When you want to interest someone in playing Risk (an example) you don't say "Here's Axis & Allies it's the same thing, basically." You play Risk.
You don't interest people in basketball by playing netball.

Sometimes people like liking things and one of the things people like is D&D.
One can want official D&D settings that explore new motifs while still supporting Southlands or City of Arches.

I can still mix and match my 5e ecosystem game while wanting to see the ampersand on expanded Strixhaven, expanded Radiant Citadel, romantasy, urban fantasy, ecological disaster.

Arguing against people enjoying things doesn't grow variants

 

[Reynard]

People can want want they want, but the desire to see an "official D&D setting" is strictly a desire to see the D&D trademark on a book.

Yup. I admitted as such -- along with admitting it is a little silly.
Often, our love for things we discovered in our formative years (I discovered D&D at 10 via the Red Box) is a little irrational. It is anchored by nostalgia and even a little melancholy. There IS something about that ampersand sometimes, even in full knowledge that lots of companies and people do it too and sometimes better.

I have bought, read, played, run and written for many different games, and there are many that I love dearly (as much, or even more, than D&D). But none of that changes the simple fact that what D&D is to ME, is deeply personal and nostalgic and I really, really do take great joy in loving something that comes out for D&D with D&D on the cover.

I will stop beating the dead horse now. I just wanted to reiterate it one more time.

 

[Artamo]

I don't know why I don't get a response to this part of it but the same team members who make settings when they work at WOTC also make settings when they're not at WOTC:

• Midgard (Wolfgang Baur, Dan Dillon)
• Islands of Sina Una (Mackenzie De Armas)
• Tal'Dorei Reborn (James Haeck)
• Numenera (Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, Sean Reynolds)
• Arora (Shawn Merwin)
• Aethereal Expanse (James Haeck)
• Primeval Thule (Dave Noonan, Rich Baker, Stephen Schubert)
• Ptolus (Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, Sean Reynolds)
• Path of the Planebreaker (Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, Sean Reynolds)
• Grim Hollow (Shawn Merwin, James Haeck)
• Tal'Dorei Reborn (James Haeck)

All made by D&D team members but not when they were at WOTC.

It's not the team members folks are focusing on here when they say they want a new D&D setting, it's strictly a focus on the brand and the company.



And that "objective" answer is "they have the trademark". That's it. There's no other super magical secret sauce going on.
The product quality of current D&D products is really good. The art is awesome (though some disagree). The physical construction is great. So is the construction by Cubicle 7 and Ghostfire and Monte Cook Games and Kobold Press.

The desire for an "official D&D" setting is a desire to see a product the D&D ampersand on it. That's the only difference. And I think that focus dismisses the work published by other publishers, work often done by the same designers.

I argue 13th Age is a more official take on D&D 3e and 4e because it was the version of D&D both of the lead designers of 3e and 4e wanted to make. It just doesn't have the trademark.

People can want want they want, but the desire to see an "official D&D setting" is strictly a desire to see the D&D trademark on a book. It's not a love of the work of the designers. It's not a feeling that the quality of every WOTC product surpasses that of all other publishers. It's just a focus on the legal trademark of D&D.

I think we should judge all settings and all published RPG work based on the quality of the work, not the trademarked brand it happens to have or not have.

A lot of those settings, because they are 3PP, also get the additional adventure support that WotC often doesn’t provide.