Brilliant Idea for WotC: "Classic Settings" books (and a poll, of sorts)

[Ruin Explorer]

Fair enough. What got me thinking on this line of thought was take away the mechanical differences between DragonLance and Greyhawk... shake up the pantheon and the average player wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I know there are no Draconians in Greyhawk or Steel Dragons in DragonLance... but I doubt the average player would.

Just a thought,
William Holder

If that's so, it's because those settings are being presented really badly, I'd suggest. Both settings have very different "themes" and rather different tones. Mechanically? Yeah they're not wildly dissimilar, but I've never bought a setting book for it's mechanics, that I can think of.

I mean, look at Planescape. You could play that without a single mechanic. Sure, some stuff flavours it a bit more, but mechanically, it's virtually identical to "vanilla" AD&D 2E. I didn't buy it or play it for the mechanics, though. I bought it and played it for the feel, for the atmosphere, for the setting details for the adventure hooks and so on. Most of the most interesting stuff (i.e. portals and stuff shifting planes) doesn't even HAVE mechanics, just fluff.

I think what you're talking about are basically the opposite of settings. Generic place-based mechanics books (which existed in 3E with some vague campaign materials thrown in). They can exist alongside settings, but they can't replace settings.

I mean, here's the thing for me - sure, perhaps setting books only sell to the 50% of DMs who don't play homebrews (don't buy that running a homebrew = never buying setting books, myself, most "homebrew" DMs I know have many setting books, they just don't use them as setting books per se), but equally, these books full of mechanics seem to me to be far more likely to sell to the 50% of homebrew-type GMs than the setting-oriented GMs.

YMWV, of course. I think both settings and "generic mechanics books" will and should co-exist in 4E, and may overlap, but have entirely different purposes.

 

[The Little Raven]

Most old settings will not see print again, except on D&DInsider. They won't go through the trouble of putting together a book unless the D&DI stuff for it is popular enough to ensure that they'll make money.

That being said, I hope Cam and his people can wrangle the Dragonlance license back.

 

[Mercurius]

Um no, it's not.

Here, I'll help you:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=216546&highlight=setting
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211376&highlight=setting
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208483&highlight=setting

Um no, those are different--or at least moderately so. I'm asking folks to not only vote, but list in order their preferences.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I was excited about this idea when the initial discussions of 4E and the PoL were going on (and the idea has been floated about already by WotC), but after seeing what they are in the process of doing with the Forgotten Realms, I'd be happy to see them give the "Classic Settings" books a pass. My favorite, Mystara, already got one "Time of Troubles" type makeover, and I'd really hate to see it- or any of the others- get another.

Plus, I don't really think there's anyone at WotC (or among their current crop of freelancers) who know or care enough about Mystara to really do the setting justice, either. Though I could be wrong on that one.

 

[Mercurius]

Plus, I don't really think there's anyone at WotC (or among their current crop of freelancers) who know or care enough about Mystara to really do the setting justice, either. Though I could be wrong on that one.

In all honesty, I don't think Mystara would be near the top of the list. I could see them doing Dark Sun, Greyhawk, maybe Dragonlance and Planescape, but the rest are longshots (although I'd love to see them give Spelljammer a revamp).

Actually, I shouldn't say "maybe" Planescape as I hear somewhere that Sigil is mentioned in the new DMG. So I'm thinking WotC is re-intergrating Sigil, and thus probably some version of Planescape.

 

[zealdib]

My Choices

1. Greyhawk
2. Darksun
3. Al-Qadim
4. Planescape
5. Kara-Tur
6. Maztica
7. Spelljammer

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Something to bear in mind: I don't think a 4e edition requires the kind of cosmology / "mood" changes that WOTC is trying with FR. You don't need the Abyss "below" the world (whatever that means) or "points of light" to get a setting that works with the 4e rules.

That said:

1. Planescape
2. Dragonlance

 

[Belorin]

Of the ones I've played in these are the ones I'd spend money on:

1) Spelljammer
2) Ravenloft

Of settings that I've never got to play in:

1) Planescape (especially with the new cosmology)

I play pretty much in the FR and am really only looking for something with a different flavor for a break.


Bel

 

[Mercurius]

Something to bear in mind: I don't think a 4e edition requires the kind of cosmology / "mood" changes that WOTC is trying with FR. You don't need the Abyss "below" the world (whatever that means) or "points of light" to get a setting that works with the 4e rules.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Minicol]

Part of what I didn't like about 3ed, is the lack of settings. Understandably it is more lucrative to focus on a couple popular settings, and of course with the OGL there were tons of settings being created by other companies, but I would like to see Wizards get back to more setting material and not just endless optional rules hardbacks.
buy

While I'd love to see some of your choices come back, I'd rather they were doneby anybody except WOTC to avoid a repeat of the FR slaughter