WotC Why WotC SHOULD Make A New Setting

Tigris · Tuesday at 7:02 PM

DEFCON 1 said:
Sure! Just gotta hope that whatever Luke ends up writing gets through the editorial process without getting things changed to a more modern paradigm.

One can hope, right?

I think this could only be possible if WotC want to minimize costs, but I dont see this happening.

If you have modern design paradigms you want to use them. Makes no sense to have progress, but not using it.

Scribe · Tuesday at 7:02 PM

DEFCON 1 said:
Sure! Just gotta hope that whatever Luke ends up writing gets through the editorial process without getting things changed to a more modern paradigm.

One can hope, right?

Some may, my dollar goes elsewhere these days.

bedir than · Tuesday at 7:05 PM

Zardnaar said:
Can be. Strixhaven, Exandria etc. If its popular it might get follow up material. Or 3pp can do it.

Unless youre a classic setting I dont think many will have any lasting impact though.

Nope, the current system of seasons is a book or two, plus peripherals, plus marketing theme, plus Encounters, plus maybe AL, plus maybe modules

DEFCON 1 · Tuesday at 7:23 PM

Scribe said:
Some may, my dollar goes elsewhere these days.

Well, then they don't have to bother after all then!

Scribe · Tuesday at 7:27 PM

DEFCON 1 said:
Well, then they don't have to bother after all then!

Not for me no, but it seems perhaps they want to mend things with the wider community, at least that seems to be the take away from the other thread, and the best way to do that is to stop butchering the old settings.

ART! · Tuesday at 7:37 PM

This might be a side-issue, but going forward I would monsters to be fairly different in a not-FR setting. Not just "this monster is more common, this one is less", but "these monsters are rather different in this setting, there's different versions of this monster, these have different resistances", etc.

Remathilis · Tuesday at 7:56 PM

On a purely rational level: D&D needs less settings, not more. Too much of D&D is fractured into settings that are 65% alike but 35% different enough that options don't port over well. Dragonlance elves aren't exactly the same as Greyhawk elves. Ebberon's planes aren't configured like Planescapes. Kender and warforged can't adventure together without world hopping shinanigans. The Scion of the Three subclass must be refluffed to work on Exandria, etc. You create these ghettos of design where people argue X doesn't belong in Y setting or you get overly generic fluff that doesn't tie things to the world because it has to work in any world.

bedir than · Tuesday at 7:58 PM

I do want new settings.

But I don't want new settings if the Character Builder doesn't allow limitations at the campaign level.

Reynard · Tuesday at 8:06 PM

Remathilis said:
On a purely rational level: D&D needs less settings, not more. Too much of D&D is fractured into settings that are 65% alike but 35% different enough that options don't port over well. Dragonlance elves aren't exactly the same as Greyhawk elves. Ebberon's planes aren't configured like Planescapes. Kender and warforged can't adventure together without world hopping shinanigans. The Scion of the Three subclass must be refluffed to work on Exandria, etc. You create these ghettos of design where people argue X doesn't belong in Y setting or you get overly generic fluff that doesn't tie things to the world because it has to work in any world.

Fluff goes in the setting book, not the core book.