Does Dungeons and Dragons need supported settings?

[Keefe the Thief]

I think these 'fire and forget' settings are going to be a long term mistake. These new one shot settings are lesser than their previous supported versions. And I am not even making a quality argument here:

There is now less setting available.

Take a look at the FR books. Two books to try and squeeze ALL of FR into? How can that be as useful for a DM as being able to, for instance, get a book that details Waterdeep enough that you could run your own campaign in it as written?

The same for Eberon. Detailed books available about Stormreach and Sharn, the special roles dragons play in that setting, etc...

Yes, DMs can fill in the material that they want. But these core setting books are just outlines of a setting with all the focus taken out. You now have less options available to you, no matter what your preference may be.

Previously if you wanted to run FR using just the core book as an outline, it was just as possible as it is today. But if you wanted details about a specific reagion or dungeon... you could find it! Playing in FR or Eberon, or Greyhawk etc had the advantage of a rich amount of details to use or simply inspire.

And also, they served as examples of how you could detail your own world! As much as I like my own imagination, I am not so overconfident that I would think I had nothing to learn from the efforts of other gamers, authors, and cartogrophers.

Now you only have the one option, if you are only using 4e material, And that is to use the campaign setting and fill in the blanks yourself. Some DMs may prefer it, but if you wanted more details? You no longer have that option.

There is less here, and how can that really be better than the alternative?

A common complaint I see springing up about 4e lately and the 'everything is core' stance to its books is that so many rule books are overwhelming the game.

The common (and I think correct) answer to that is that you don't have to buy/use them if you don't want to! Having more options, books, and resources available does not mean you HAVE to use them.

And if the above is true, then the same is true for settings. Use what you want, don't use what you don't want.

So if 4e continues these Fire and Forget settings, ESPECIALLY if they keep trying to shoehorn in every race/class/option from every other setting and PoLand assumptions to the point that they all seem the same, then I think they are making a rather large mistake.

I disagree completely. For me, the best FR would have been if TSR would have stopped at the Grey Box, continuing "support" for that setting only through:
a) magazine articles
b) modules
c) novels.

All 2-5 years there should´ve been a revised box/book or a "compendium".

I like settings for the creative juices that they make flow in my head. I do not need somebody else to fill my glass. "You can ignore it" is wrong - assumptions and background color a setting while it is developed. Really developing a setting means always tightly integrating stuff with each other. That´s simply not something i want to see for D&D settings.

That´s why i like Abeir so much: Sketch in the rulebook + articles = love.

 

[ggroy]

Currently we have people screaming Dark Sun! Dragonlance! Spelljammer! It's all because of 2nd ed and the setting's products. In 10 years from now, will new 4e D&D settings be nostalgic? People will remember Eberron during the 3.5 era and FR from the 2e (to an extent 3.5e) era. It is all due to the setting's support.

Let's think in a newbie's shoe. He starts with 4e and plays FR or Eberron. Will the current campaign books be memorable to him? Or will be remember more on what he made up for the lack of the setting's lore.

If WotC doesn't produce any outstanding new settings during the lifetime of 4E, either hardly nobody will be nostalgic for any 4E (redone) settings and/or people will only remember the generic mundaneness of "Nethir Vale".

 

[ggroy]

I think these 'fire and forget' settings are going to be a long term mistake. These new one shot settings are lesser than their previous supported versions. And I am not even making a quality argument here:

There is now less setting available.

Take a look at the FR books. Two books to try and squeeze ALL of FR into? How can that be as useful for a DM as being able to, for instance, get a book that details Waterdeep enough that you could run your own campaign in it as written?

The same for Eberon. Detailed books available about Stormreach and Sharn, the special roles dragons play in that setting, etc...

Yes, DMs can fill in the material that they want. But these core setting books are just outlines of a setting with all the focus taken out. You now have less options available to you, no matter what your preference may be.

Previously if you wanted to run FR using just the core book as an outline, it was just as possible as it is today. But if you wanted details about a specific reagion or dungeon... you could find it! Playing in FR or Eberon, or Greyhawk etc had the advantage of a rich amount of details to use or simply inspire.

And also, they served as examples of how you could detail your own world! As much as I like my own imagination, I am not so overconfident that I would think I had nothing to learn from the efforts of other gamers, authors, and cartogrophers.

Now you only have the one option, if you are only using 4e material, And that is to use the campaign setting and fill in the blanks yourself. Some DMs may prefer it, but if you wanted more details? You no longer have that option.

For these reasons, I used the Pathfinder Golarion setting for my previous 4E sandbox game. It has several crunch-lite setting books outlining particular regions, cities, etc ...

 

[Dire Bare]

If WotC doesn't produce any outstanding new settings during the lifetime of 4E, either hardly nobody will be nostalgic for any 4E (redone) settings and/or people will only remember the generic mundaneness of "Nethir Vale".

I already love the "Nentir Vale" setting of the core game. It provides a framework for me to play fast and loose with the background setting for my games, and I can focus on the adventure of the evening rather than an intricately detailed world.

It's "generic" to be sure, but has some fun elements that inspire. I'm excited about the upcoming "Hammerfast" and "Vor Rukoth" location books, they seem really interesting to me. I also like the back story of ancient fallen empires of the tieflings, dragonborn, and humans.

And, who's to say we won't get completely new settings for 4e? WotC has already published their two best-selling settings from 3e, and a fan favorite from 2e will get the treatment this summer. What's next? Maybe another classic like Dragonlance, or maybe something new. I do think that eventually we'll get at least one new setting before the game turns over to 5e, possibly two or three. We'll see.

 

[bagger245]

If WotC doesn't produce any outstanding new settings during the lifetime of 4E, either hardly nobody will be nostalgic for any 4E (redone) settings and/or people will only remember the generic mundaneness of "Nethir Vale".

Yeah, in fact I think Nentir Vale and Keep of Shadowfell will be the most memorable to all 4e players.

We can consider the campaign settings of 4e to be sourcebooks for the generic implied setting of 4e. Grab a Drow from FR and let him have a Dragonmark of Healing and be sold as a slave gladiator with the Dark Sun theme and fight Irontooth.

 

[hexgrid]

There is less here, and how can that really be better than the alternative?

A common complaint I see springing up about 4e lately and the 'everything is core' stance to its books is that so many rule books are overwhelming the game.

The common (and I think correct) answer to that is that you don't have to buy/use them if you don't want to! Having more options, books, and resources available does not mean you HAVE to use for them.

And if the above is true, then the same is true for settings. Use what you want, don't use what you don't want.

But this is exactly what makes setting supplements less worthwhile for WotC to publish- too many people who don't have a use for them, and decide not to buy.

 

[ggroy]

Yeah, in fact I think Nentir Vale and Keep of Shadowfell will be the most memorable to all 4e players.

This is probably for the same reasons why "The Sunless Citadel" and maybe the first several 3PP d20 modules on the market in August->October/November 2000:

- "Death in Freeport" (Green Ronin)
- "Three Days to Kill" (Atlas)
- "NeMoren's Vault" (Fiery Dragon)

are the most memorable to many players who played 3E D&D during that time period.

With not many modules released around the time when 3E was first released, it's not too surprising the more memorable ones were the first several that were publish by WotC and 3PPs.

 

[Glyfair]

That's an interesting opinoin, but I wonder if it's true. For example, is every Pathfinder buyer doing so because they like Golarion, or because they want to support 3.5/Pathfinder? Because they want to adventure in Golarion, or because they want pregenerated adventurers?

From what I saw, Golarion is close enough to "generic" to fit into most D&D campaigns. That is a big plus because most people can easily put the product into their games. If they have an odder campaign, then they are used to fitting everything into their games.

On the GM's side, I suspect it's the later. For example, when I was buying Dungeon, I wasn't using Savage Tide/Age of Worms/Shackled City in Greyhawk, despite that being the 'default' setting.

Yeah, Paizo's path they headed with Dungeon towards the end of the print version was about to lose me as a customer. Shackled City was an interesting experiment. Age of Worms was interesting because they fixed what they learned from the experiment of the first one. However, I never played either.

I saw the path they were headed in and wanted out. The bulk of my Dungeon magazines was going towards these projects that I really didn't interest me. They were so popular that they were not even really taking a break between the adventure paths. It had even crept into Dragon. The magazines were great if you were on the Adventure Path bandwagon. If not, they were losing value.

I guess it comes down to, if you like what they are doing, you will support them. If not, you won't.

 

[Dice4Hire]

As with many posters here, I have to ask what "supported means" I certainly do not want Birthright/FR/etc like in the 2E TSR days where there was a thin book for EVERY region or cult or demense in the entire world.

It is just too much, and interferes with my ability to run a game in that world. Among my playing groups, FR was infamous in 2E and 3E for its core fanatics who would join other DM's FR games and then assume everything was core, absolute, unchanging core, so that their first level characters knew the names, motivations and such of every NPC in the whole world. It was a real downer trying to play with these people, or even worse run games for them. Of course it was kind of fun to watch huffy FR fanboys leave the games once the DM changed things to make the game work or put his own imprint on FR.

I want worlds that have the basics and not a lot else, that are rich in plot devices and adventuring opportunities, but not overly-detailed. I loved the 3.0 FRCS, not because it had information about FR, but because it was so full of plot ideas and interesting situations. What is what I want, a 3-4 paragraph overview of an area, 2-3 interesting sites ,and 2-3 interesting plot hooks, and then move on to the next area.

I'm hoping Dark Sun will be like that, and I strongly encourage WOTC to make up a totally new campaign world for 4E.

 

[john112364]

I think these 'fire and forget' settings are going to be a long term mistake. These new one shot settings are lesser than their previous supported versions. And I am not even making a quality argument here:

There is now less setting available.

Take a look at the FR books. Two books to try and squeeze ALL of FR into? How can that be as useful for a DM as being able to, for instance, get a book that details Waterdeep enough that you could run your own campaign in it as written?

The same for Eberon. Detailed books available about Stormreach and Sharn, the special roles dragons play in that setting, etc...

Yes, DMs can fill in the material that they want. But these core setting books are just outlines of a setting with all the focus taken out. You now have less options available to you, no matter what your preference may be.

Previously if you wanted to run FR using just the core book as an outline, it was just as possible as it is today. But if you wanted details about a specific reagion or dungeon... you could find it! Playing in FR or Eberon, or Greyhawk etc had the advantage of a rich amount of details to use or simply inspire.

And also, they served as examples of how you could detail your own world! As much as I like my own imagination, I am not so overconfident that I would think I had nothing to learn from the efforts of other gamers, authors, and cartogrophers.

Now you only have the one option, if you are only using 4e material, And that is to use the campaign setting and fill in the blanks yourself. Some DMs may prefer it, but if you wanted more details? You no longer have that option.

There is less here, and how can that really be better than the alternative?

A common complaint I see springing up about 4e lately and the 'everything is core' stance to its books is that so many rule books are overwhelming the game.

The common (and I think correct) answer to that is that you don't have to buy/use them if you don't want to! Having more options, books, and resources available does not mean you HAVE to use them.

And if the above is true, then the same is true for settings. Use what you want, don't use what you don't want.

So if 4e continues these Fire and Forget settings, ESPECIALLY if they keep trying to shoehorn in every race/class/option from every other setting and PoLand assumptions to the point that they all seem the same, then I think they are making a rather large mistake.

And yet, I remember how excited when I first read that Greyhawk folder with the full color maps! And the maps were huge. each country had a couple of paragraphs, a couple of lines about rulers, import/exports, etc.
And that was it!! There were no supplements detailing the various regions and cities (except maybe the City of Greyhawk, but I don't remember if that was 1e or 2e). There were some Dragon articles by Gary Gygax (and maybe a few others). Other than that, it was all up to me to fill in the blanks. And I loved it! Yes, I got off to a very rocky start, but I was young and inexperienced a a DM. But I ran a Greyhawk campaign for years and it was uniquely mine. I had a couple of friend who played with me who spun off my game with games of their own and they were very different from mine. All of this without setting supplements.
And like Keefe the Thief said, a revised or compendium versions would be fine. I remember when "From the Ashes" came out it fired me up again by shaking up the world. I know not everyone was happy with this revision, but I thought it was a logical update based on what was hinted at and written previously. But this led to the best campaign I have ever run. All this again without the supplements (which by this time had started to come out. I bought a few and said "Meh. This isn't what I want to happen." So I didn't buy any more and I don't think I was alone.)

Wow. Being snowed in is making very longwinded (longfingered?). I have severe cabin fever. I hate snow