D&D 5E Dark Sun, problematic content, and 5E…

[Micah Sweet]

Witchlight and Radiant Citadel feel more like demi-settings. Places you inject into other settings.

But then technically Ravenloft would be the same.

Ravenloft as an adventure yes. But it was presented as a playable setting since early 2e.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What's the difference between a WOTC setting and a setting I can buy off of Kicstarter?

 

[Minigiant]

Ravenloft as an adventure yes. But it was presented as a playable setting since early 2e.

Ravenloft is also treated as a setting.

You can say. "We are playing the Ravenloft setting". There are themes, rules, lore. obstacles, and monsters associated with it even if each Dark Realm is different.

Can you say that about Radiant Citadel? Witchlight is the Feywild. And the MTG setting were written by the MTG side.

 

[Minigiant]

What's the difference between a WOTC setting and a setting I can buy off of Kicstarter?

One is promoted and updated/designed to make millions of American dollars.
The other is only designed to make more than its kickstarter goal.

 

[Faolyn]

If you mean, "is legally owned by WotC", then yes.

No. It's a WotC setting. It doesn't matter if it was made in-house or not. It's a WotC setting.

And so are is Witchlight and all of their tie-in settings, MtG or otherwise.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm sure the 4e defiling rule can be adapted pretty straightforwardly to 5e, given the structural similarity between the two systems.

Writing up monsters doesn't seem that hard. Just build them around ankhegs as a reference point.

I dunno, there's a lot of monsters that don't have a good analogy to any current 5e monster. Although I suppose if you give an existing monster the right psionic spells you can fake it well enough.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. It's a WotC setting. It doesn't matter if it was made in-house or not. It's a WotC setting.

And so are is Witchlight and all of their tie-in settings, MtG or otherwise.

Like I said, legally owned by WotC, regardless of source, means WotC setting. Still not a strong statement on the creativity of their in-house team.

 

[Zardnaar]

My point is that if WOTC did Dark Sun without changing anything and it flopped, many fans of it would blame the 5e audience for not liking it.

But that's the point, old school Dark Sun is probably too problematic to make WOTC enough money to bother doing it.

They haven't done a somewhat faithful old school anything so who knows? I expect them to tone down the worst things but they tend to retcon everything usually badly.

I woukdntbhave done Darksun first and wouldn't bother with Mystara but Planescape, Greyhawk or Spelljammer perhaps. They kinda butchered Spelljammer though and there's not much in the old SJ core set that's a problem iirc.

I dontvexpect 100% conversions hence somewhat faithful. They did good with Eberron for example but it's not really old school.

Personally I've just stopped buying their settings last one was Wildemont or Theros iirc. I'm happy enough with Midgard.

 

[Faolyn]

Like I said, legally owned by WotC, regardless of source, means WotC setting. Still not a strong statement on the creativity of their in-house team.

They hired people to create new settings. It doesn't matter if they're permanent or contract employees. WotC wanted new settings, they got writers to do this. I know you don't like WotC. Neither do I. But it's factually wrong to say that WotC has not created new settings.

 

[Zardnaar]

They hired people to create new settings. It doesn't matter if they're permanent or contract employees. WotC wanted new settings, they got writers to do this. I know you don't like WotC. Neither do I. But it's factually wrong to say that WotC has not created new settings.

I would fount the MtG ones as new setting. Sure they came from Magic but WotC still created them.