D&D 5E How about this for 5E Campaign Settings: "Classic Worlds of D&D"

[Quartz]

That is essentially what Moore, Mona, et al. did with The Adventure Begins and the Greyhawk Gazetteer. Eric Mona, Roger Moore, Gary Holian, Fred Weining, and Sean K. Reynolds - that was and is the Greyhawk dream team*. Who would you propose to improve on them?

Both of those products were excellent (and I have them both), but they don't go far enough into the lore or geography or geopolitics or history.

 

[MJS]

Eliminating the hypotheticals as much as possible, the core setting of D&D5 is going to be Forgotten Realms, and I personally have always had a mental block when it comes to adopting the Forgotten Realms. I find it unapproachable. There's too much going on, and when I try to engage it I am always feeling like I am missing something, or doing something wrong.

A philosophical point, but important - there is no core setting of D&D regardless of what current publishers say or intend. Settings are gravy.

Trust me, you're not alone. A long-ago poll revealed that something like 80% of the buyers of Dungeon magazine never played anything from the magazine; they just bought it to read. I think I used a grand total of two adventures in twenty years, plus a few maps, and I've never run a prepackaged stand-alone module. I've owned (and sold) almost every 2e and 3e product, but actually using them? Nope.

That's great, I didn't think it was 80%..... this really offers some counter to Rob Kuntz's rant about creatives vs. "eager dependents", and the whole Old School lamentation of the rise of the Railroad plot. Or at least, moves that discussion forward. Railroad modules do suck, but if 80% of us used em for parts, it was hardly the tectonic shift we hear about.
Personally I think the Golden Age of the RPG is now, not the 80's, not the d20 era, but now - it seems every main branch is flowering.

 

[Brock Landers]

Rewind each setting to its original state, none of this Time of Troubles/Spellplague, Age of Mortals, Prism Pentad, Grand Conjunction, Inhuman Wars II, Faction War malarkey, and release each setting as a clean one-off book would be delightful.

Al-Qadim was groovy for not having the meta-plot/busybody writer interfering in the setting deal.

 

[Mercurius]

Expect any treatment of Planescape to be in the core setting, supported by planar sourcebooks. That's the way it's been for two editions, and Mearls' remarks up until this point strongly suggest nothing is going to change. I see no tangible reason for them to.

You're probably right, and when I first started that I post I was going to say something similar, but then I realized that Sigil (and the Outlands) could warrant its own book, and it could be a terrific product.

That's a heavily biased position, Mercurius. I /despise/ what the Fifth Age did to Dragonlance, without fear of exaggeration, but even I can recognize that you're marginalizing a sizable chunk of the fandom, here.

Maybe, but I think its a law of diminishing returns thing (and this goes for the Forgotten Realms as well). You have a huge number of folks who read Chronicles and Legends and enjoyed them, then a gradually diminishing number with the later "generations" of Dragonlance. Yet even more so, and this is more to my point and isn't really about personal bias, Krynn is a world that has been primarily guided by novels and any Dragonlance product has the weight of that history behind it. I think this is also true of FR, but to a lesser extent, and--more importantly--with the driving directive being the world as a game setting rather than as a setting for novels.

In other words, I've always had the feeling that Dragonlance as a game setting was an opportunity to "play in the world of the Dragonlance novels" whereas the FR novels were "examples of how stories and adventures could be in the Realms." That's a very important distinction of orientation.

The Newimprovedshadowfell! Coming 2014!

No doubt!

It pains me to say so, but if the decision has been made to leave Nerath behind, and I believe it has, it should be left behind. It is a fourth iteration of the setting that is Mystara, Greyhawk, and the Forgotten Realms, and while it is my favorite of the four, fondness is not a good enough reason to fight for it further muddying the waters.

I go back to that map employed in the Nerath board game. I want to know what's beyond Nentir Vale, and what's beyond Nerath. I only run homebrew worlds so it isn't a matter of wanting to play in Nerath, but because I enjoy reading about settings.

I've always felt that each new edition of D&D should have its own, flagship setting that best exploits the specifics of the edition and gives new designers a chance to really creatively explore and experiment. Each edition did this to some extent, with a carryover setting from previous edition(s) that became a classic in the new setting, and a new setting or settings:

1E:
Classic - Greyhawk
New - Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms

2E:
Classic - Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms
New - Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, Birthright, etc

3E:
Classic - Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms
New - Eberron

4E:
Classic - Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun
New - Nerath

I think the disappointment with Nerath is that, unlike with previous new settings, there wasn't much development; it felt aborted. This was compounded when the pulled the Nentir Vale Gazetteer off the production schedule.

I suspect that we will see both in 5E: Classic treatments (as this thread was inspired by), but also a new setting, which may take a year or three to emerge.

He's only mentioned it once, but Mearls did specifically call Spelljammer out, and seems oddly set on turning it into its own thing, independent of its transitive roots. This is one to sit back and watch.

Interesting.

I agree with Nellisir. Reboots are unfair to anyone who bought the old books during their initial run, and doubly unfair to people who are buying the PDFs now, expecting them to have validity. New material for established settings should respect what has been published, no matter how vile, but not rehash anything. Give us new material that naturally expands our understanding of the setting -- don't retell old stories, and don't invalidate them with a manufactured apocalypse.

We diverge a bit here. I mean on one hand, for my own sake I'd much rather see something new - a new setting especially, but also a new take on a classic. But commercially speaking, I think it a classic Realms or Greyhawk would be more successful than another major change in the timeline. I mean, let's call a spade a spade: the 4e Realms was an outright disaster. Maybe not creatively, but in terms of community response. Whatever explanation they come up with--whether they just reboot to greybox, or at least pre-Spellplague or, more likely, they have some hokey event that shifts things magically, like Elminster kills Ao and takes his stuff and then reverts the Realms to the time when he and the Simbul were getting it on--the end will result will, I am fairly certain, be something akin to a classic Realms feel - more Greenwoodian than Cordellian.

How is a reboot of the Forgotten Realms (resetting the clock to the original iteration in the grey box) going to substantially differ from the 3e Forgotten Realms book? I'd say that's pretty much the top bar right now (that and Golarion) There would be minor changes, a few gods switched out (Mystra instead of Mystra, or something), and fewer dwarves and elves. Otherwise, same thing.

Good point. For me gray box and the 3e book are close enough. But Spellplague utterly changed the setting. I'm not even saying for the worse, but that is the popular opinion and I'm fairly certain WotC wants to rectify that. So it may be that a 5e treatment - if it is just reverting to something akin to the 3e period - serves a purpose as a "right of wrongs," so to speak, and a declaration of their commitment to a more traditional Realms feel.

But it also could be, again--and I even think this more likely, or at least equally so, as a reboot--that they advance the timeline again and many of the effects of the Spellplague are reversed. This would be the Marvel-esque approach.

In any of the various possibilities, I can still see them having a chapter or section or appendix to offer advice on how to run the Realms in "alternate versions" or time periods.

How would a reboot of Greyhawk significantly differ from the 3e Campaign Gazeteer? It's true, the gold box is actually pretty slim - so what do you beef it up with? In the case of Greyhawk, all the deities are the same; you get a few new countries and the status quo shifts a tiny bit, but otherwise?

I think the point here is not about providing new information as much as it is about new presentation. Greyhawk, in particular, would be geared at the "greying" fans, those who remember Greyhawk from their youth (in that sense, maybe a box set would be more appropriate than a hardcover). But the point is that Greyhawk has never gotten the royal treatment. The most comprehensive product, the 3e gazetteer, wasn't the royal treatment - it wasn't hardcover, nor color, and with a mediocre map.

I'm not against big setting books. I'm not against big setting books that compile and repeat information from previous books. The 3e FR campaign guide is the book to beat right now. But if you're going to do it, and particularly if you're going to roll back the timeline at the same time, you've got to sell it with something concrete; a compelling reason to reject the events that happened after X point in history. "Adding details" or "compiling lore" aren't compelling when the details have already been added and the lore already compiled.

I want to buy into it, but you've got to sell me on it.

I think Golarion's Inner Sea Guide might be the book to beat now, although they're close. But I basically agree with you here. Whatever they end up doing, they need to not only do it well, but explain why they're doing it.

 

[DMZ2112]

Rewind each setting to its original state, none of this Time of Troubles/Spellplague, Age of Mortals, Prism Pentad, Grand Conjunction, Inhuman Wars II, Faction War malarkey, and release each setting as a clean one-off book would be delightful.

Al-Qadim was groovy for not having the meta-plot/busybody writer interfering in the setting deal.

To paraphrase Gandalf, "Many setting plot threads that live deserve death. And some setting plot threads that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out reboots in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

 

[DMZ2112]

You're probably right, and when I first started that I post I was going to say something similar, but then I realized that Sigil (and the Outlands) could warrant its own book, and it could be a terrific product.

I still want my Sigil box. With a real map.

Maybe, but I think its a law of diminishing returns thing (and this goes for the Forgotten Realms as well). You have a huge number of folks who read Chronicles and Legends and enjoyed them, then a gradually diminishing number with the later "generations" of Dragonlance.

Show me the numbers. The War of Souls trilogy was still bestselling.

In other words, I've always had the feeling that Dragonlance as a game setting was an opportunity to "play in the world of the Dragonlance novels" whereas the FR novels were "examples of how stories and adventures could be in the Realms." That's a very important distinction of orientation.

I don't disagree, but by Wizards' own gaming publications, just about everything ever published in a Dragonlance novel is established D&D canon. Although the details were only ironed out in third-party supplements, the 2003 Dragonlance Campaign Setting covers everything up through the Age of Mortals. You just want to retcon all of that? Why?

I go back to that map employed in the Nerath board game. I want to know what's beyond Nentir Vale, and what's beyond Nerath. I only run homebrew worlds so it isn't a matter of wanting to play in Nerath, but because I enjoy reading about settings.

I do too, but does D&D really need a /fourth/ Tolkien-knockoff world? Especially one that basically co-opted all of its major landmarks from Greyhawk? I loved the concept of Nerath as a default D&D reboot, but, well, 'I dreamed a dream, and now that dream is gone from me.' ''Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.'

I've always felt that each new edition of D&D should have its own, flagship setting that best exploits the specifics of the edition and gives new designers a chance to really creatively explore and experiment. Each edition did this to some extent, with a carryover setting from previous edition(s) that became a classic in the new setting, and a new setting or settings:

I think this strategy has given us some really mixed results. You've pointed out the trouble with Dragonlance, Planescape and Spelljammer are classic examples of 90s AD&D2 gonzo, Eberron is I don't know what, and Nerath, much as I love it, is bog-standard elf-and-dragon adventure fantasy.

Maybe what we need isn't full-on setting treatments at all, so much as inspiring vignettes that suggest the flavor of a larger world, like Paizo's Polyhedron work in the early 2000s. No commitment to a time-share, just a bunch of intense weekend holidays.

Elminster kills Ao and takes his stuff

I would buy this. I would buy Elminster: Defenestrator of Ao.

 

[Mercurius]

I still want my Sigil box. With a real map.

Sounds good, althoug a hardcover would do.

Show me the numbers.

The War of Souls trilogy was still bestselling.

I don't have the numbers but its a pretty consistent pattern in all product lines.

I don't disagree, but by Wizards' own gaming publications, just about everything ever published in a Dragonlance novel is established D&D canon. Although the details were only ironed out in third-party supplements, the 2003 Dragonlance Campaign Setting covers everything up through the Age of Mortals. You just want to retcon all of that? Why?

I don't particularly care, to be honest. Actually, I think Dragonlance may be a setting best left in the vault that has had its day - unless, of course, there's a major clamor from fans. I do think, though, that the Wars of the Lance is still the classic period, if only because it was first and (I think) most popular.

I do too, but does D&D really need a /fourth/ Tolkien-knockoff world? Especially one that basically co-opted all of its major landmarks from Greyhawk? I loved the concept of Nerath as a default D&D reboot, but, well, 'I dreamed a dream, and now that dream is gone from me.' ''Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.

Just as we can say that D&D doesn't need yet-another kitchen sink fantasy setting, so too can we say they don't need yet another line of the same old settings, no matter what era. But what do we mean by "need?" I don't need any RPG book, certainly no setting books. It has more to do with want - what the people want, what will sell, and what will invigorate the game.

This was the genius of Paizo. They likely knew that setting books don't make anyone rich in and of themselves, but as part of a subscription plan and as a kind of "loss leader" to bring the adventure paths and game itself to live, with a living, breathing exemplar of what Pathfinder can be...and this is partially why, in my opinion, 4e ultimately "failed" (neither thriving nor surviving) - it didn't have a living world. By "living" I mean with ongoing development, and beyond the occasional Dragon article or Dungeon adventure.

I've spent a few hundred dollars on Pathfinder campaign books, from both versions of the main book to a few dozen chronicles/campaign supplements. And know what? I'll never run a game in Golarion. I like Golarion, but I prefer to design and run my own homebrews. But I enjoy browsing (and even occasionally reading!) setting books; its a way I spend what disposable income I have. Now I may not be the typical RPG player or collector, but I know there are many folks like me who do something similar, whether with Golarion or RPGs as a whole: buy without the intention of playing.

My point is that while Paizo has a primary revenue stream of subscriptions, by producing a quality product they also have a secondary revenue stream - folks like me. I think WotC could take one from their playbook (take a few, really).

But I digress! The main point is that it isn't about "need" but "want" or what people enjoy and what makes the game sing. 4e didn't "sing" partially because it didn't have a living core world that brought to life what was best about the game.

I think this strategy has given us some really mixed results. You've pointed out the trouble with Dragonlance, Planescape and Spelljammer are classic examples of 90s AD&D2 gonzo, Eberron is I don't know what, and Nerath, much as I love it, is bog-standard elf-and-dragon adventure fantasy.

Maybe what we need isn't full-on setting treatments at all, so much as inspiring vignettes that suggest the flavor of a larger world, like Paizo's Polyhedron work in the early 2000s. No commitment to a time-share, just a bunch of intense weekend holidays.

Isn't that what they tried to do with 4e and Nentir Vale? Even the setting books were along those lines. How well did that work?

While this thread was started about the classic settings, I actually like a three-pronged approach best:

1) Develop a new flagship world in a similar fashion as Golarion
2) Publish a few choice hardcovers of classic settings
3) Publish smaller vignettes and mini-settings and see if any stick and warrant further development (this could be a "world of the month" column in Dragon, with reader submissions summarizing their own campaign worlds...sort of like an ongoing setting competition).

I don't expect them to take this approach and it may not even be what would ultimately be successful, but I like the idea of it.

I would buy this. I would buy Elminster: Defenestrator of Ao.

Ha ha. I may have to sig my own line: Elminster kills Ao and takes his stuff. That's a lot of stuff.

 

[DMZ2112]

Sounds good, althoug a hardcover would do.

BOXED. SET.

I don't particularly care, to be honest. Actually, I think Dragonlance may be a setting best left in the vault that has had its day - unless, of course, there's a major clamor from fans. I do think, though, that the Wars of the Lance is still the classic period, if only because it was first and (I think) most popular.

Again, I do not disagree with you, but I think an /absolute horde/ of people would.

this is partially why, in my opinion, 4e ultimately "failed" (neither thriving nor surviving) - it didn't have a living world. By "living" I mean with ongoing development, and beyond the occasional Dragon article or Dungeon adventure.

There's probably some truth in that. Other than GURPS and a few other definitively generic systems, D&D is the only game that doesn't.

I know there are many folks like me who do something similar, whether with Golarion or RPGs as a whole: buy without the intention of playing.

No doubt. It might help you understand my perspective if I tell you I am not one of those people.

Isn't that what they tried to do with 4e and Nentir Vale? Even the setting books were along those lines. How well did that work?

No, Nerath's treatment in the D&D4 material is anemic, but still clearly follows the D&D3 model of full core setting development. As you pointed out, the problem was that Wizards did not commit. Others have stated that they want "homebrew" to be the core setting of D&D5, but I tend to agree with you: that is what D&D4 did wrong. The core setting of D&D4 was not Nerath, it was "your setting," and the Nerath stuff never made the jump from inspirational filler to gazetteer.

The Paizo settings in Polyhedron ten years ago were sort of the opposite. Gazetteer detail, but with no attempt made to cover /everything/.

An example:

If Wizards wanted to support multiple settings in D&D5, maybe they start with an appropriately priced 80-page book updating JUST Waterdeep, or the Dales. Good detail, all new stuff. Lots of what, who, and why. Adventure hooks. Reference the old material.

Then they follow up with a similar book updating the City of Greyhawk. Then Abanasinia. Then Cormyr. Then a big premium collector's edition boxed set for Sigil (of course). Then Solamnia.

I mean, I'm only just now realizing this, but isn't that still Paizo's model, essentially? I don't collect Golarion books, but it seems like the vast majority of the setting material for Pathfinder is not in a big hardbound book entitled GOLARION: THE PATHFINDER CAMPAIGN SETTING.

 

[Nellisir]

The core setting of D&D4 was not Nerath, it was "your setting," and the Nerath stuff never made the jump from inspirational filler to gazetteer.

I'll agree with this. I'm one of the people that buys settings to read, not play. I'm also one of the ones that bought Dungeon to read, not play. Dungeon was a fantastic value for the money. I don't buy modules because for me, they're not a good value. The 4e material was not enough setting, not enough adventure, and (since I don't play 4e) the rules content was irrelevant (except that it left less room for setting material). I bought the 4e Forgotten Realms book, and sold it again a few months later. I would have loved to check out a new WotC setting, but the value was never there.

I'm OK with another vanilla medieval fantasy setting, btw. That's what I play. Medieval India or Asia would be OK too, but I have no interest in psionics, or steampunk, or most of the other specialized concepts that get kicked around. Forgotten Realms, Mystara, Birthright, and Greyhawk are all pretty vanilla, but they're all different enough to be interesting.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm in a time crunch; I want to respond to a lot of what you said, but gotta pick and choose. :/

But commercially speaking, I think it a classic Realms or Greyhawk would be more successful than another major change in the timeline. I mean, let's call a spade a spade: the 4e Realms was an outright disaster. Maybe not creatively, but in terms of community response.

5e Realms is going to lose a lot of the 4e stuff, I think that's a given. Some of it will change; in a sense, what WotC is doing is honing the setting by periodically getting rid of the stuff no one likes or uses. In the upgrade from 2e to 3e, chunks of the Shaar, Great Glacier, and Anarouch (sp?) disappeared because, frankly, nothing was there and it was boring. Abeir might have been interesting, but WotC never developed it at all . There are aspects of the 4e version that probably worked, however, and will remain.

I think the point here is not about providing new information as much as it is about new presentation. Greyhawk, in particular, would be geared at the "greying" fans, those who remember Greyhawk from their youth (in that sense, maybe a box set would be more appropriate than a hardcover). But the point is that Greyhawk has never gotten the royal treatment. The most comprehensive product, the 3e gazetteer, wasn't the royal treatment - it wasn't hardcover, nor color, and with a mediocre map.

I'd go for a new presentation of Greyhawk, but not one that invalidated the material I already have. I want to upgrade, not undercut. I don't think that means a radical reset, though.
Failure to utilize Anna B Meyer's maps for Greyhawk from here on out will constitute an automatic fail for WotC. I don't care if they revive Gary to write a 700 page opus; there is nothing, and I mean nothing, even close to Anna's maps for Greyhawk.

It doesn't surprise me that we're mostly talking about FR and Greyhawk. I could be really interested in a serious reskinning of Mystara to take away some of the "gee-whiz" factor, and a new treatment of Birthright would be really cool; one that deals with it as a "normal" setting rather than the domain game it never quite succeeded at (it should get bigger, too. It's actually really really tiny - according to Roger Moore, the whole "continent" is about the size of Nyrond.)