Does Dungeons and Dragons need supported settings?

[Matt James]

I have been writing FR articles to support the setting. They may not end up in their own hardcover book, like in the past, but the settings are supported with new content. In fact, I have my next one coming out on Monday (how is that for a plug?)

 

[JoeGKushner]

As for the crunchy books- I only bought the PHB1/2 and MM1/2. So it doesn't really bother me what WOTC continues to pump out on that front. If players want to use XYZ Power-they can buy the book and get it approved (or not) by me. I'm not falling into the 3E trap of feeling the need to constantly buy more and more and more splats. The only "rule books" I plan on picking up are DMG2, MM3, and I'll likely grab the red box/essentials line just for fun

I think the direction WOTC has gone down, and is going down is great. I don't mean to sound like a fanboy but I've been super happy and excited with the revamp to the D&D line/business. They seem to be catering to my tastes and needs. I did not care for the late 2E/3E era of WOTC on the whole- the products-the design philosophy, the magazines, etc etc.

A serious question. If you're not actually buying the books... how is their direction actually great?

 

[Shemeska]

I have been writing FR articles to support the setting. They may not end up in their own hardcover book, like in the past, but the settings are supported with new content. In fact, I have my next one coming out on Monday (how is that for a plug?)

Your attempts are appreciated, very seriously so. It makes the best of the situation.

I worry though that the ship has already sailed for a lot of FR fans, and that the lack of actual printed support for FR (and every other setting) will end up destroying their long term success and continued presence. Plus, the amount of support through the DDI, from what little I've read of it (not actually paying for it and all), doesn't hold a candle to the amount that fans of the setting would get from even a few books. The page count for setting support has plummeted, and if you want that setting support, you can't just purchase those articles, you have to pay for a whole heck of a lot of stuff that you aren't interested in.

Write some pre-Spellplague stuff and I'd be totally interested. Just saying.

 

[ggroy]

Your attempts are appreciated, very seriously so. It makes the best of the situation.

I worry though that the ship has already sailed for a lot of FR fans, and that the lack of actual printed support for FR (and every other setting) will end up destroying their long term success and continued presence. Plus, the amount of support through the DDI, from what little I've read of it (not actually paying for it and all), doesn't hold a candle to the amount that fans of the setting would get from even a few books. The page count for setting support has plummeted, and if you want that setting support, you can't just purchase those articles, you have to pay for a whole heck of a lot of stuff that you aren't interested in.

Write some pre-Spellplague stuff and I'd be totally interested. Just saying.

I know of one Forgotten Realms "canon lawyer" type, who has been adapting some of the 3E/3.5E FR books (and some 2E AD&D ones) for his 4E D&D game. He absolutely refuses to use the 4E FR books, for the most part.

 

[bagger245]

I think the currently popular fantasy setting now is Warhammer Old World and D&D Poland. Not FR, Eberron or any old TSR worlds.. which is a shame.

 

[Khairn]

As the product list looks... different this year than it has in the past, I ponder WoTC decesion not to support their settings in print supplements outside of the core firing methodology that looks to be at least going through Dark Sun this year, although in a changed format.

For example, I don't play Pathfinder, but I'm still buying Pathfinder books for their campaign setting because I like reading them. I still read older setting books, mining them for names, ideas, themes, etc...

WoTC focus on pushing out all of the mechanical information that they have thus far, cannot continue without the need for massive revision on the original books. For example, the original Monster Manual... especially if people like the way MM 3 works out in terms of background/details? Coup that with the redesigned methodology of monsters from the MM2 and the first one is well, crap.

Now that's an extreme example and might be true regardless of what else happened, but I don't think game systems are designed to have so much weight put on them so instantly without more things to... lighten the load? To bring some oddities out in settings as opposed to just the core rules?

What do other people think? More PHBs, Martial Powers and other books hitting sequel after sequel or that we'll see more setting material?

Does D&D need supported settings? Should WotC be providing that? Absolutely to both questions. Not every GM wants to create a homebrew. Many GM's simply don't have the time or believe that the professional settings are better than what they themselves can create. So having an exciting and creative setting that grabs their imagination is crucial for those GM's and groups.

Now, do I think WotC has provided that kind of original, exciting and creative setting for 4E? Nope, not in the least. They may have slapped on a heavy coat of make-up and ret-conned a couple of older settings to fit 4E. But a couple of books or DDI articles is not quite a "supported setting" in my opinion.

Its interesting to note that a lot of 4E players and GM's say they still buy Paizo AP's and Golarion setting material even though they have to convert it. While on the flip-side I haven't seen anyone say that they play Pathfinder 3E or any other system, and buy or convert any of WotC's 4E setting material (book or DDI adventures etc). I know that many players will already have the 3E (or earlier) books for FR, Eberron or DS. But unlike Paizo, none of WotC's new adventures or settings looks to be generating any real buzz or excitement with gamers outside those that use their system.

When it comes to settings and adventures, it looks to me that WotC's marketing plan is to publish the minimum they can while still being able to say that they "support" a setting. I can't help but feel that ceding the publication of original and exciting setting & adventures to other companies will end up hurting WotC (and 4E) in the end.

 

[Weregrognard]

Let it not be said that I do not love campaign settings (my bookshelf will attest to that). Still, something needs to be said for the "no setting" option. As in, starting with a "home base" and an adventure location and building the world as you play. I remember starting a campaign using the old Dungeoncraft articles by Ray Winninger which pretty much used this method. The campaign was short-lived (about 3 adventures), but the players loved it. Especially since they got to participate in world creation through their character backgrounds.

I think I should dig up those articles for my next campaign.

 

[hexgrid]

It seems to me that WotC does support a setting, quite extensively, in almost every D&D product they publish. It just doesn't have an official name or map.

 

[ScottS]

Settings sell your game to people that either don't like the G in FRPG, or else grok the abstract notion of 'fantasy combat engine' but don't think yours is particularly awesome. In the case of 4e I'd put myself rather solidly in the latter category; I essentially wouldn't be playing the game if it weren't for the huge TSR/WOTC back-catalog of settings/mods/etc., and as it is I'm pretty much at minimum buy-in level for this edition (PHB + intermittent DDI sub). How many people play RIFTS for the excellent rules system?

 

[Windjammer]

Not sure if the news made their impact on this thread, but WotC positively plans to bring out a wholly new setting for 4E. As announced by James Wyatt earlier recently here:

If you got to make the full decision, what would be your choice for the next setting? JW: I really want to do something new.
DM: That was actually my next question.
JW: So bringing something old back would not be my first choice. I really like what we are doing with Ravenloft on Insider with the Domains of Dread web series. I have a very dear place in my heart for Ravenloft, but not as a setting. As a set of rules and atmosphere that I don’t want to treat the same way again. I have no great love for Spelljamer, but it has been kind of folded into our idea of the Astral Sea. I never got into Mystara. There’s always Greyhawk, which is not a huge personal favorite of mine but I had the very first Greyhawk book. I kind of lost track of Greyhawk during second edition. What am I forgetting? Red Steel! No, I really want to do something new.
DM: So next question, are we going to see a completely new setting for 4e like Eberron was for 3rd edition?
JW: Almost certainly. It is just a question of when.