D&D 5E D&D classic settings or new worlds to explore?

[Sunseeker]

I like them expanding their worlds. Adding a new world is nice, but the edition is what, not even a year old? Maybe in a couple years we'll get a new setting but for now I'm perfectly fine with them growing their existing worlds. The older material can always be played through again and really, how many "fantasy settings" can a game really have before they become redundant? A single robust world is far better than many generic, shallow worlds.

 

[Jester David]

Some folks think there's a direct causal relationship between this focus on settings and the demise of TSR; I don't think it is so clear, that TSR fell apart more through mis-handling as a business, not in terms of creative output. But that's another story. But regardless, it is unlikely that we'll see that sort of thing again.

Just thought I'd get this over with before really discussing stuff...
Settings are definitely held up as one of the reasons TSR failed. They're not the reason but part of one of the bigger reasons, which was the division of the audience. Although business mismanagement was also bad. It'd be nice to believe otherwise, but the only people who have studied the numbers and bookkeeping say otherwise, and have to be taken at their word. To do otherwise is just wishful thinking.

A really, really successful company can survive dividing its audience and focusing on multiple competing brands, but I don't think D&D is one of those brands. They can't really afford to release a book that only a minority of their audience will be interested in, and really need to focus on the majority (or largest minority).

One thing I find interesting here is that both posters are, I think, speaking truths that seem opposed but actually aren't. I will agree with @Icon_Charlie that WotC has a tendency to rehash old material and that we haven't really seen a large burst of new ideas, at least in terms of "fluff," probably since Eberron - and even that was nothing like the "Glory Days" of the late 80s to mid-90s when you had an almost gaudy display of riches in the form of new settings flowing forth from TSR: Forgotten Realms (1987*), Spelljammer (1989), Dark Sun (1991), Planescape (1994), Birthright (1995) and probably others in-between.

Risk is something you do after you're established. You don't start with risky products, you build to them after you have established your audience, found out how sales are doing, and have built some trust. Paizo didn't start with Iron Gods but slowly did more and more experimental adventures until they felt it was safe to do a sci-fi/fantasy mash-up, and even then they followed with something super classic.

At this point, D&D is really playing to its strengths and playing safe before the team can try something different.
However, at this point an entirely new world is super unlikely. WotC has a crazy amount of worlds that have barely been used. Creating something new comes at the expense of established worlds with their own fans and established audiences. It's picking a potential audience - a theoretical audience- in favour of real people. Which is a ballsy move that can backfire. It would feel a little like saying "we think this new world is better than all the other worlds".
Lots of people want "something new" but not everyone who wants that vague "newness" will be satisfied by the new world. I'm sure lots of people who wanted a new campaign setting back in 2002 were turned off by Eberron.
Plus there are trademark issues. The copyrights are fine, but undefended trademarks can expire. If they don't use terms like "Birthright" or "Council of Wyrms" or "Ghostwalk" or "Gamma World" in reference to tabletop RPGs they risk allowing other companies to claim those terms.

As you say, new ideas are hit-and-miss. If WotC is throwing its support behind a world, they have to go all in: adventures, storylines, minis, and now potential board game and MMO support. (Like when D&D Online had quests that moved from Eberron to the Forgotten Realms.)
New ideas will almost certainly be limited to storylines. Because that's safer. They have the big somewhat risky adventure arc and if it goes well great, but if it does poorly it only hurt them for six months.

An OGL would help though. Because it would allow 3rd Party Products to take the risks, to do the new things in place of WotC. Look at all the campaign settings that were spawned out of 3e. Some still have their fans (Scarred Lands, Ptolus; I'm a fan of FFG's Midnight setting), but even the ones that were only marginally successful or largely forgotten are still remembered by their fans. And all without financial risk to WotC.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I would like to see a continuation of old settings and an introduction to a new one.

Regarding old settings: If all the old settings had reached a finished point then I could understand not wanting to do them again, but that is not the case. Let's use FR for example. There are lots of places in FR that have not been discovered and lots of other places that have only been given a quick mention. There are loads of areas that could use some information on. We also have the Sundering which has supposedly changed a lot so updating those changes needs to be done.

Regarding new settings: As long as a new setting touches on areas we haven't had before then I am all for it.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], I don't think the many settings in and of themselves were inherently bad for 2E, but the degree to which they supported them was - in other words, how they were handled. For example, Birthright was a great product but did the initial box set need almost 30 followup supplements and adventures? How many copies did Player's Secrets of Stjordvik sell? And so forth. I think what might have worked well was the initial box set, maybe a book of small adventures and a mega-adventure and that's it. If there was huge outcry, maybe one or two more supplements and regular features in Dragon.

As far as 5E is concerned, I would have done (and would do) things different than what I've seen so far. Here's how I'd do it:

Once per year, publish "Classic Worlds of D&D" book that refreshes one of the classic settings. The book would include guidelines for 5E play; the usual world overview including history, gods, geography, etc; and a focus region in greater detail (e.g. the Dalelands). Also publish one story arc to bring that world alive. For many settings, this would be it. For the more popular ones like the Realms, further supplements could be published - modules, one or two setting expansions, etc.

Then, every two or three years, publish a new setting. Support it as above: a main book, a story arc, maybe a book of short adventures, etc. If people love it, expand it in greater detail. If not, move on to the next setting a couple years later.

It is kind of a toned down 2E approach. The problem with 2E was that there was such creative riches in the form of settings that things got out of hand - it was too much of a good thing. But let's not lose sight of just how creatively successful a period 1987-95ish was - the richest in D&D history, at least in terms of settings.

 

[HobbitFan]

It seems like there has got to be a better way of supporting 5E than 2 adventure hardbacks a year.

 

[Bayonet]

I'm solidly with the "Drag-and-Drop" crowd with this one. I'd really like to see articles describing regions, cities, even taverns that I can snatch up and use in any setting I choose (or homebrew).I've recently been tinkering with the Nentir Vale as an episodic adventure setting, and I'm amazed at how versatile a place it is. I can drag in outside adventures from other editions, mess around with the setting itself, and generally just sandbox it however I want.

I'd like to see this kind of stuff. Whether it's released in sourcebooks or in some sort of D&D magazine (what a concept, huh?), I think it'd go a long way.

 

[weldon]

I love the old settings (1st and 2nd Edition). I enjoy going back to those books and fondly remember the adventures that I had in those settings and modules. I sometimes have pangs of nostalgia where I want to revisit those old adventures. That said, I could not possibly care less if they re-release the old settings and update them for 5e. I might buy them out of nostalgia, but I will never love them like I did the books from 20-30 years ago.

Forgotten Realms is a good foundation for this generation. People know it and the books are familiar to many. If D&D has any chance of creating compelling characters and stories that make the leap out of TTRPG to popular media, then I think FR is probably the best bet. I'm not sure *I* need a FR setting book or box set though. I'd just as soon buy the old books from dndclassics.com and then have the conversion PDF open on the computer as I read through them.

What D&D needs is new stories and new adventures that ignite the imagination of boys and girls in their tweens, teens and twenties. That might be FR, but I think it could just as easily come from a brand new setting. I say, let the team loose and let them show us something new.

 

[Jester David]

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], I don't think the many settings in and of themselves were inherently bad for 2E, but the degree to which they supported them was - in other words, how they were handled. For example, Birthright was a great product but did the initial box set need almost 30 followup supplements and adventures? How many copies did Player's Secrets of Stjordvik sell? And so forth. I think what might have worked well was the initial box set, maybe a book of small adventures and a mega-adventure and that's it. If there was huge outcry, maybe one or two more supplements and regular features in Dragon.

The number of products didn't help. But even the campaign settings divided the audience. I was a Ravenloft and Dragonlance man back in the days of 2e, so I never bought the other boxed sets. So it didn't matter it was a big deluxe Birthright Boxed Set or Player's Secrets of Stjordvik or a Birthright adventure, I wasn't buying any. Which is the problem: once people have a setting they're unlikely to buy more settings.

If WotC only plans to release the Realms, I might break down and buy that book out of curiosity. But if I know Ravenloft is coming, I'd skip the Realms.

Once per year, publish "Classic Worlds of D&D" book that refreshes one of the classic settings. The book would include guidelines for 5E play; the usual world overview including history, gods, geography, etc; and a focus region in greater detail (e.g. the Dalelands). Also publish one story arc to bring that world alive. For many settings, this would be it. For the more popular ones like the Realms, further supplements could be published - modules, one or two setting expansions, etc.

Then, every two or three years, publish a new setting. Support it as above: a main book, a story arc, maybe a book of short adventures, etc. If people love it, expand it in greater detail. If not, move on to the next setting a couple years later.

It is kind of a toned down 2E approach. The problem with 2E was that there was such creative riches in the form of settings that things got out of hand - it was too much of a good thing. But let's not lose sight of just how creatively successful a period 1987-95ish was - the richest in D&D history, at least in terms of settings.

The catch being, WotC really wants every book to be a must-buy. If people know that in 2-3 years there'll be a new setting, then they're not going to buy the FR book now. And if they already bought the FR book, they're not going to buy the new setting. And it's potentially confusing for new players, possibly making them ask "is this the same game?"

Even if they release a new setting every 2 years, it will take a long time to go everywhere. There are a good dozen campaign settings. Are you really going to be happy waiting 24 years for your setting of choice?

And not every setting *needs* an update. You can run an Eberron game using the rules pamphlet and a 3e or 4e book. Literally nothing has changed in the world. The market for settings is awkward because you're selling to non-fans (who don't care and/or already have a setting they like) and fans (who have books from previous editions). A Greyhawk fan already has the Greyhawk material, otherwise they wouldn't be a fan. They have more content then you can fit in a single book. And the mechanics for Greyhawk haven't changed.

WotC's current strategy seems solid: focus on the Realms. That world has changed and needs an update, and they need to release at least one setting product for new players.
Other settings can benefit from the Eberron approach, where we get a document of essential races and classes. Pair that with DnDclassics.com and we have all the content we need. We don't need new Dragonlance books, we need a PDF with kender, draconians, primal sorcerers, and moon magic, then make the classic products and the licenced 3e books available as PDFs.

At best WotC can expand on the Realms. Kara Tur and Al Qadim sourcebooks would be neat and offer opportunities for new stories while still remaining in the Realms.

 

[Umbran]

The problem with a setting, overall, is that it is a niche-of-a-niche product. If you write a Dark Sun product... only those who like and play in Dark Sun are going to use it. For a game like D&D, that traditionally supports multiple settings, developing a product on a particular setting is developing a product that you *know*, from the outset, is only going to be attractive to some smallish segment of the overall player base. The payback on that development is going to be limited.

So, you wind up considering opportunity-cost - with the same creative resources, can you create something that more people will buy and use? If so, then it pays both you, and likely the game, to do that other product.

 

[HobbitFan]

The problem with a setting, overall, is that it is a niche-of-a-niche product. If you write a Dark Sun product... only those who like and play in Dark Sun are going to use it. For a game like D&D, that traditionally supports multiple settings, developing a product on a particular setting is developing a product that you *know*, from the outset, is only going to be attractive to some smallish segment of the overall player base. The payback on that development is going to be limited.

So, you wind up considering opportunity-cost - with the same creative resources, can you create something that more people will buy and use? If so, then it pays both you, and likely the game, to do that other product.

oh, I don't disagree Umbran.
I think the problem is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to make it generic enough so people can pug it elsewhere and use it...
but they alsoo want to set it in the Realms to sell to Realms fans.

The thing is, I'm sure that in "trying to serve two masters" so to speak, that they aren't shooting themselves in the foot.
It's like having the adventure path hardbacks double as adventure league material...trying to do too much with too little.
Or so it seems to me.
I'm not saying I'm 100% right or that I know all. That's just how it looks to one fan.