D&D 5E How do you hope WotC treats the upcoming classic settings?

[Umbran]

But Greyhawk? That's one setting that should be preserved in amber.

Why? I mean, even Shakespeare gets re-imagined. Heck, it is everlasting because it can be re-imagined.

Things preserved in amber... are not active. They are fossils, ossified, not vital or living. Nobody ever uses them, or touches them. They are looked at dimly, distorted, sometimes trotted out as jewelry pieces.

Leaving it in amber means it will be forgotten.

 

[jgsugden]

1.) Pick the right time and use it. Stop advancing timelines. Figure out where the storylines of the setting were best and set the setting at that time. You can update the scenario for modern sensibilities, but don't make the Forgotten Realms mistake and keep moving further and further into a future that either eliminates favorite elements or bends over backwards awkwardly to keep them around - do what Eberron does and tell the best stories around a time where the campaign setting is designed to tell the best stories... The War of the Lance. The Death of Kalak. The Temple of Elemental Evil is founded.

2.) Don't skimp. A supported setting should have a core rulebook and then support that fleshes it out. I want all the iconic monsters, all the iconic NPCs, all the iconic magic items, all the iconic mechanics (Psionics, Krynn's Moons, Defiling, Epic Level Wizards in Greyhawk, etc...) If you're giving us a classic setting, it should feel familiar.

3.) Miniature Support. Make sure that you provide us with the minis that are iconic to the setting that we may not have - especially monsters. I can fake Kitiara with a lot of minis - but a Wyndlass is a creature I do not have and is iconic to me for Dragonlance games. As everyone has different memories of their Dragonlance adventures at younger ages, there are a lot of monsters in each of these settings that we have never seen.

4.) Edition Agnostic. Write the books in a way that the core of them are edition agnostic. Separate the crunch from the lore so that when 6E, 7E, D&X, 9E, etc... roll around, we can be using the same books and just using the crunch supplements that are released for the edition, allowing you to support all of these setting much faster in the future.

5.) To Thine Own Self Be True. Keep things that do not belong in the setting historically out of the core of the setting. Any DM can figure out how to put a gnome in Athas, a Lightfoot Halfling in Krynn, or an Artificer in Greyhawk ... but we don't need them shoved in where they do not belong.

6.) Respect. Don't disrespect the setting by trying to be funny. Using humor to 'update' the setting is making the same mistake we saw in Super Hero movies for so long - the people in charge thought they were ridiculous, so they demanded they be campy. These movies started to be good when they were allowed to be fantastical and have serious emotion. Gamma World in 4E is an example of this going wrong. They didn't respect what came before and it was not well embraced.

 

[MGibster]

The old settings will always be there. You can still use them! If they are going to re-visit them, take the good stuff, and go punk-rock on the rest. Give a new generation something to call their own. The only way to keep something alive is to re-invent it.

That's pretty much how I feel. If they're going to bring back a setting, go all Battlestar Galactica on it using the original premise and doing something different with it. They shouldn't concern themselves overly much with appeasing my generation they should be more concerned with taking care of the bulk of their current customers. Though, you know, it wouldn't kill them to at least nod in my direction.

 

[MGibster]

I'll be frank, I can't stand this model. D&D 5E books are already pretty expensive, about $40 per one. And your saying there should be 4 books per setting?

I realize this is often a contentious issue, but D&D books aren't expensive. It's been more than 30 years, but I think AD&D 2nd edition PHB retailed for $18.00 back in 1989 which is close to the equivalent of $40 today. The books I'm purchasing for $40 today are much higher in quality than the $18 books I bought in 1989.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Hiya!

For me, simple:

"Convert... don't 'Update'..."

I don't care what setting it is (other than Mystara or Greyhawk; I don't want either of those touched...I don't trust WotC to do it 'correctly'...or at least not 'correctly' for me). Whatever it is though, I don't want it "updated"...just converted.

Hope that makes sense.

Um no. Any setting that sees a 5E version needs to be fully updated to modern sensibilities and all the old uncomfortable, or outright sexist and racist, material fully corrected or thrown out completely.

 

[Mercurius]

Why? I mean, even Shakespeare gets re-imagined. Heck, it is everlasting because it can be re-imagined.

Things preserved in amber... are not active. They are fossils, ossified, not vital or living. Nobody ever uses them, or touches them. They are looked at dimly, distorted, sometimes trotted out as jewelry pieces.

Leaving it in amber means it will be forgotten.

My question: why bother (remake Greyhawk)? What's the point? If you want a classic setting adjusted to the modern era, why not the Realms? Or why not just create a new setting?

Greyhawk is different than most classic settings in that it didn't really evolve beyond its original form. Sure, there was the stuff in the 90s, but for most, the "true Greyhawk" is the World box set (or maybe the folio).

I'm not suggesting not bringing it back in a deluxe set, perhaps one that incorporates older elements with newer (better) production value. But I don't see any point in re-envisioning it towards modern sensibilities. It seems unnecessary and creatively lazy.

 

[Zardnaar]

They'll be bland and watered down and no one will care after a year or two.

Just like all those people caring about Theros and Ravnica now. They'll sell well regardless.

 

[Scribe]

I'll be frank, I can't stand this model. D&D 5E books are already pretty expensive, about $40 per one. And your saying there should be 4 books per setting?

Hell no am I paying more than a $100 for a setting package. Even worse, this is locking out a big swathe of players who could be interested in Dark Sun, but don't want to purchase 2-3 books to make a setting work there.

The Ravenloft model is great. I know some Ravenloft fans don't like it, but it's been pretty well-received by reviewers and seems to have sold very well. I personally think it's a fantastic book, it gives you everything you need to make a Ravenloft game.

I'd pay for 3 or 4 Planescape focused books.

1 Planes/Gods, 1 Adventure, 1 Sigil? Easily. Put a premium on it, I'd still pay it, if it captured that 90's feel.

Heck, you could charge me way over the current price of books for a box set like that, I wouldnt blink.

 

[Scribe]

Just like all those people caring about Theros and Ravnica now. They'll sell well regardless.

Yeah but those are MTG, not Planescape.

 

[RangerWickett]

The settings have already been written and published, so I'm not really that interested in seeing an update. Sure, a mechanical update to the new edition is neat, but most of the setting fluff . . . you could just read the old books.

I want adventure.

I want someone to pitch a really cool sandbox-epic quest hybrid around the Great Wheel, to show us all the funky philosophical weirdness Planescape was known for.

I want the party to be slaves on an expedition sent to a land less ravaged by defiling, so that when the party escapes, they can play in Dark Sun and legitimately be tempted to destroy the environment in order to keep a dragon king from taking over their paradise.

I want a boots on the ground, blood in the dirt style campaign during the War of the Lance, where the party play in a different theater from the big 'Heroes of the Lance,' but still go up against an army of the dragon high lords and play their part in liberating Ansalon.

I want someone from WotC to hire me to write one of these.