Keefe the Thief
Hero
I reread my post and saw that i could condense it into a single sentence: "Setting support should appear in Dragon - if at all."
Does Dungeons and Dragons need supported settings?
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
Baz King
Explorer
I'm happy with the current support for settings. I appreciate that those settings become mine as soon as I start generating content from the massive lego box they've provided me with. Yes, that means the books are less of a 'good read' and more functional, but that's cool. There's a whole set of novels available if I want to read them.
Also, the DM books like Underdark are where I go to support the settings.
Also, the DM books like Underdark are where I go to support the settings.
Derulbaskul
Adventurer
I've DMed FR since the original grey box and am now running my games in the 4E version.
I don't actually need any support because, unlike others, my old stuff provides me with the basis for what I need. However, I really would like to see more regional articles, not for the articles per se, but for the maps. The FR4E maps suck beyond all suckage.
Clearly WotC's numbers suggest that it is not important to support published settings so that means obviously I am the odd man out: it's my liking of the settings (FR first, but I also like Eberron and Greyhawk too) that has caused me to stick with D&D even when I didn't like the rules.
I don't actually need any support because, unlike others, my old stuff provides me with the basis for what I need. However, I really would like to see more regional articles, not for the articles per se, but for the maps. The FR4E maps suck beyond all suckage.
Clearly WotC's numbers suggest that it is not important to support published settings so that means obviously I am the odd man out: it's my liking of the settings (FR first, but I also like Eberron and Greyhawk too) that has caused me to stick with D&D even when I didn't like the rules.
john112364
Explorer
I remember with the original Greyhawk setting back in 1e, the support took place as modules. Sure they were actually areas in the world of Greyhawk, but they were generic enough that you could drop them into almost any setting. Or not if you chose not to. In the setting books, each area got a couple of paragraphs, at best. The gave enough information to allow you to build your own world based on the frame work the books gave you. And that was cool! My WoG was very different than anyone else's, but we could sit down at one another's game and still feel like we were in the World of Greyhawk. It wasn't until 2e that TSR started really developing their setting for you. I guess that's good if you lack the time to develop your game, but I don't always like someone else's concept of how my campaign setting should look like.
With 4e however, I like that they are focusing on options that you drop into any setting you want. I do agree that the sheer number of options is staggering! I've already started limiting what I will and will not allow based on our style of play and what doesn't fit in my game. Eberon is a good example. I like Eberon. I think it was the most creative setting to come out of 3e. But certain concepts don't really work for me outside of Eberon. Warforged are a good example. Warforged are cool, but not for my game. Dragonmarks on the other hand can be reskinned and transplanted. I like being able to pick and chose without feeling constrained by a setting.
I do agree that some of the original books (such as MM1) need some revision and reissuing to bring them up to speed with the current editorial philosopies. And yes, I realize what an uproar this would cause which is why they probably haven't done it.
I guess this is a very long winded way of saying that, for me at least, setting books are not nessesary.
Phew
With 4e however, I like that they are focusing on options that you drop into any setting you want. I do agree that the sheer number of options is staggering! I've already started limiting what I will and will not allow based on our style of play and what doesn't fit in my game. Eberon is a good example. I like Eberon. I think it was the most creative setting to come out of 3e. But certain concepts don't really work for me outside of Eberon. Warforged are a good example. Warforged are cool, but not for my game. Dragonmarks on the other hand can be reskinned and transplanted. I like being able to pick and chose without feeling constrained by a setting.
I do agree that some of the original books (such as MM1) need some revision and reissuing to bring them up to speed with the current editorial philosopies. And yes, I realize what an uproar this would cause which is why they probably haven't done it.
I guess this is a very long winded way of saying that, for me at least, setting books are not nessesary.
Phew
The settings were supported through modules. All the popular modules were set in either Mystara or Greyhawk. Forgotten Realms was mostly supported by novels.
Sure the current model for settings is easier on our wallets, but are the current published settings getting enough attention? Seems the generic implied setting "Poland" is more popular. I understand most older D&D players have all their resources for the FR and Eberron, but what about a complete newbie? Is he supposed to buy the old books for info?
JeffB
Legend
These are my feelings as wel. 12- 15 years ago, I might have disagreed- I came to the conclusion that I vastly preferred the Greyhawk Folio over Gary's boxed set. Or The Adventure Begins & Player's Guides over FTA and the Living Greyhawk Gaz. I LOVED the Scarred Lands Gaz, and hated the hardcover. and yes, the OGB (and FR1-5) through anything produced in the 2E and 3E era.
Nowadays I'll take the lightly supported frameworks- whether its the Nentir Vale, the FRCS, or the upcoming Dark Sun books. It as mentioned also opens up room for MORE settings and the core supplements like Open Grave, MotP & AV are extremely adaptable to any setting whether I want to run FR, or my homebrew Nentir Vale, or my homewbrew S&S setting.
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.
I strongly suspect that WotC is producing books based in large part upon previous sales figures. They have had some fine setting products in the past, but if even mediocre rules materials sell better than excellent setting material, the economic choice comes clear.
I think settings are... a little dicey for larger producers. You can produce a book of monsters, and not worry about fitting them into a game - the DM is expected to find ways to make them fit. Setting material is less flexible from one person's game to another.
pawsplay
Hero
D&D needs supported setting, but it doesn't need regular releases for each setting. A published setting saves the GM the work of creating their own backdrop, provides context for adventure design, and provides a shared language across campaigns to talk about D&D experiences. However, increased detail is increasingly likely to be less useful in a given game, and as pointed out above, each gaming group is probably only going to buy from one setting line at a time. So main book, plus the occasional mega-module, is really the way to go. Even if you want to deep-mine a given setting for certain themes, motifs, or character concepts, you are better off making a broadly usable version, then emphasizing it in a given setting, rather than making it more or less exclusive to a given setting.
For example, the Wizards of Thay are campaign specific. On the other hand, if you created a "tattoo mage" concept, you could then say, "The Wizards of Thay are a group of tatoo mages yadda yadda yadda." Meanwhile, in someone else's campaign, the tattoo mage PC in the group is the apprentice of one of the Circle of Sproy, each of whom has one apprentice of their own who carries on their mark.
For example, the Wizards of Thay are campaign specific. On the other hand, if you created a "tattoo mage" concept, you could then say, "The Wizards of Thay are a group of tatoo mages yadda yadda yadda." Meanwhile, in someone else's campaign, the tattoo mage PC in the group is the apprentice of one of the Circle of Sproy, each of whom has one apprentice of their own who carries on their mark.
Perram
Explorer
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar Threads
