D&D 5E Hope for Nerath? (On D&D Next Campaign Settings and a Plea to WotC)

[Dire Bare]

Uniting the community - if that's one of the goals to one degree or another - is yet another great reason to use Greyhawk. Everyone, regardless of which edition they support or play the most knows of, has played in or in some way interacted with Greyhawk over the years. There are whole websites dedicated to it today supporting the lore (both pre- and post-Wars and every time in between), the sandbox is big enough for everyone. Plus there's been efforts in some corners of the Interwebs to go beyond the continent of Oerik.

Now don't get me wrong, suggesting Greyhawk is in no way meant to denigrate the other worlds. I think the grognard community at large would welcome the return to Greyhawk as well as the number of newer players that would come to the community to continue the growing setting.

I love Greyhawk myself, but whenever it comes up, a fair number of people diss it.

I assume Forgotten Realms is the most popular setting, but I don't know for sure. I have no personal interest in/very little knowledge of FR, but my impression is it's the leading brand.

I don't think we really need to get WotC to release their secret sales numbers on this one. It's pretty darned obvious that the Realms is the most popular D&D setting ever . . . . if it weren't, those classic Black Isle video games would have been "The Free City" instead of "Baldur's Gate", we'd have a huge catalog of Greyhawk novels, and we'd be seeing "Gary Gygax's Greyhawk" this fall instead of "Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms".

I love Greyhawk (and really, all the classic settings), but it isn't really the best choice for the "default" setting. WotC already tried that with 3E, and it didn't seem to work all that well for them. Hardcore gamers are familiar with Greyhawk and hold it up as Gary's holy work, but most gamers are much more familiar with the Realms. Not a diss on Greyhawk or even a plug for the Realms, it just is what it is.

If your goal is to produce a "unifying" edition, you already know that even if you succeed beyond your wildest dreams, you will leave some fans out in the cold. Why would you choose an older setting that relatively few are famiilar with and love, rather than an only slightly newer setting that has dominated D&D and its fandom for decades?

As we discuss the issue, I'm coming around to this scenario as my personal favorite . . . . use FR as the default setting, but give it a light treatment in the core books, much like Greyhawk got in 3E and the new "Nerath" setting got in 4E. Revamp the setting to try and keep what was cool from the 4E cosmology, but bring it back to a more classic feel (subjective, I know). Don't bother with yet another RSE (Realms Shaking Event), just reboot and not worry about breaks in continuity. New FR-branded books (and DDI support) can deliver the immersive world-building that FR is know for.

Make sure that the other existing settings get a good page or two in the 5E DMG, to both celebrate the history of D&D and to show new DM's how different D&D can be with some tweaks and good story.

Then, for other settings, from the classics Greyhawk and Mystara to the more offbeat like Dark Sun and Eberron, give us one beautiful, coffee-table, big-ass celebration of a book for each setting, and leave it at that . . . except for more support in DDI as demand, well, demands.

Then give us another Eberron, something brand-new and different. But make it a limited run of perhaps a dozen books or less.

 

[Dire Bare]

To me, saying Greyhawk is "kitchen sink" or "random" is like saying D&D is "kitchen sink" and "random".

It's true, but what's the point?

(EDIT: I should say "a" point rather than "the" point, as I don't think I've stated what Fifth Element meant by the line, only my own opinion.)

The point is that both D&D and the Greyhawk setting are inextricably intertwined and are both a part of the "classic" D&D experience. If you want to produce a new edition that has that "classic" D&D feel, you need to include some Greyhawk in there.

But Greyhawk as a distinct setting isn't going to work as the new default setting, nor as a viable setting for a new line of books. Again, not a knock on quality, not disrespect, just the way it is.

If you can't (at least not wisely) use Greyhawk as a whole, and yet you must include Greyhawk to gain the classic feel, the only option left is to "steal" some classic bits . . . especially classic bits that were not branded or strongly identified as "Greyhawk" back in the day.

To see that as disrespect, IMO, is very silly. It's not the way setting design works, it's not the way literature works, mythology works, art works . . . good design is taking something classic and reworking it into something new and exciting in its own right.

Did WotC succeed with that with "Nerath", 4E's default setting? Opinions vary, of course, but that was what I LOVED about the new setting, was it gave us a lot of new awesome for my D&D game, but also integrated a lot of classic awesome too, both in feel and in the specifics. To me, it was genius.

I don't like seeing Greyhawk used as a setting that's not good enough to treat with respect, but is good enough to salvage pieces from as spare parts. Respect the work of the guy who invented industry, or leave his work alone. Don't make LOTR movies by Disney with singing tea pots, or redone Star Wars movies where Greedo shoots first -- like Marge Simpson's art teacher told her, "Walk away from it, it belongs to the ages now."

Perhaps I should point out, my being pissed about seeing "Kingdom of the Ghouls" published without Wolfgang Baur's name on it wasn't JUST fandom anger . . . I actually know Wolfgang from working with him for a couple of years (non-gaming related, on his former "day job").

If it had been Bruce Cordell or Gary Gygax or Erik Mona (all of whom I also respect a lot, but never personally met) that was being "ripped off", my reaction probably wouldn't have been "pissed off", and might even have been to buy it and find out how they'd reworked it.

But WOTC doing something "mean" to someone whose work I respect and who I actually know, that made it much more real for me. I was curious to see if the forward thanked him or even was written by him, but I couldn't bring myself to spend the money to find out.

The fact that "Kingdom of the Ghouls" was originally set in Greyhawk's Underdark was maybe 1% of the reason I was pissed off.

WotC did nothing "mean" to Baur, and nothing "disrespectful" to Greyhawk or KIngdom of the Ghouls. Baur IS a great guy and a great designer, and Kingdom of the Ghouls IS a wonderful classic. But Baur doesn't own it, WotC does. And by choosing to revamp this classic, they are showing the original work and it's creator RESPECT, not disrespect. Why remake something that was crap to begin with?

I could understand frustration if the 4E version was crap. Which it might be, I am not familiar with it. I remember how disappointed I was with the D&D movie because it was crap. But the choice to have it remade, with or without Baur's involvement, does not deserve anger or being pissed off. Please.

 

[Dire Bare]

I respect Forgotten Realms, but it never really held my interest. I assume it's the most popular setting because WotC keeps going back to it, in terms of sourcebooks, video games, and novels. But I am personally not interested in FR as a default setting, at all.

I think you have it backwards there. WotC keeps dipping back into the FR well because it is the most popular setting, they are not "creating" the popularity by not using other settings instead.

Love it or hate it, I think a lot of folks underestimate the power of Drizzt and Elminster. The Realms might get a lot of flak on internet message boards, but remains a strong seller.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Love it or hate it, I think a lot of folks underestimate the power of Drizzt and Elminster. The Realms might get a lot of flak on internet message boards, but remains a strong seller.

Yup. There's a reason why Salvatore keeps churning out Drizzt novels. They keep asking him to.

 

[Mercurius]

I thought (was hoping) that Drizzt and Elminster died in some horrible fiery conflagration during the Spellplague?

 

[Yora]

No. Elminster is sitting on his porch keeping his nose out of everyone elses business, like he always did, and Drizzt is in his best years going strong on his 200s.

Drizzt is a good entry to the setting, since his stories are quite self-contained and work for people who don't know anything about the setting or D&D, and he's a cool swordsman like they have been popular for the last decades all over the world. At the same time, he isn't really an important personalty in the setting. You can understand all the big dynamics without knowing anything about him.
Elminster is a very different case. I think he's "interesting" really only in the context of the greater setting and he's supposed to be one of the really big players in its history. I don't think he really affects interest in the setting. If he has any relevance, than it's to people who are already diehard fans of the setting.

 

[haakon1]

On creators owning their work, or WOTC owning it.

I'm not sure of the copyright legalities, but from what I understand of the music biz, it used to be that the record company owned and could do whatever they wanted with songs created by people they had signed -- use it for a commercial, make into musak, sell it to Michael Jackson, any hideous thing.

As I understand it, copyright law has been changed so that the creators of music (and books) now have a 75 year stake in their creation, that's inalienable.

I might be understanding it wrong, and I have no clue if it applies to D&D works or not, but morally, I think the idea that a creator has some say in the future use of his works is right.

If you buy the rights to Forgotten Realms and start turning out Elminster porn, Ed Greenwood should morally have the right to complain vehemently, if not actually stop you witn an injunction. Lesser messing with someone's work, that's less true.

And perhaps it's moot anyhow and WOTC does check in with the creators (or Luke in Gary's case) before altering stuff drastically . . . who knows.

 

[Dire Bare]

On creators owning their work, or WOTC owning it.

I'm not sure of the copyright legalities, but from what I understand of the music biz, it used to be that the record company owned and could do whatever they wanted with songs created by people they had signed -- use it for a commercial, make into musak, sell it to Michael Jackson, any hideous thing.

As I understand it, copyright law has been changed so that the creators of music (and books) now have a 75 year stake in their creation, that's inalienable.

I might be understanding it wrong, and I have no clue if it applies to D&D works or not, but morally, I think the idea that a creator has some say in the future use of his works is right.

If you buy the rights to Forgotten Realms and start turning out Elminster porn, Ed Greenwood should morally have the right to complain vehemently, if not actually stop you witn an injunction. Lesser messing with someone's work, that's less true.

And perhaps it's moot anyhow and WOTC does check in with the creators (or Luke in Gary's case) before altering stuff drastically . . . who knows.

Not a lawyer, but your understanding does not apply to the situation. It's not like Baur or any other D&D author in recent decades has lost rights to completely original work . . . they were playing with the D&D property and their work, while perhaps having a lot of originality, is both derivative and collaborative . . . and COMPLETELY owned by WotC. And this is mostly due, not to any larger legal principle, but to the specific type of contracts WotC requires, called work-for-hire contracts. WotC pays an author to write a D&D adventure, gamebook, novel, or whatever, and WotC keeps all the rights. It's only works that TSR published before they started using work-for-hire contracts that WotC does not have complete rights too, and it's my understanding that it only includes certain articles in Dragon Mag during the early days of the magazine.

If Salvatore decided to no longer write Drizzt novels for WotC, they would be perfectly within their rights, legally and morally, to have someone else do it. In fact, this actually happened a number of years ago. I don't remember why, but Salvatore was "done" with WotC, and they hired a completely different guy to write the next Drizzt novel. The guy finished the novel, WotC started marketing it . . . but before they could publish it, they repaired their relationship with Salvatore, mothballed the now "lost" Drizzt novel (they didn't have to), and Salvatore went on to write a pile of new Drizzt books over the years.

I love Salvatore's work, but I want to read that "lost" Drizzt novel. It will probably never happen though . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

I thought (was hoping) that Drizzt and Elminster died in some horrible fiery conflagration during the Spellplague?

Sigh. Haters gonna hate.

 

[Mercurius]

Uh, I think I'm entitled to be tired of Drizzt and Elminster without being called a "hater."