D&D 5E How WotC will approach the campaign settings?

[gweinel]

One option they have is to simply outsource a lot of the other campaign settings. I'm sure MWP is itching to do Dragonlance stuff, and some of the other companies out there like Kobold Press and Sasquatch would happy to pick up the slack for Greyhawk, Mystara and so on. That let's WotC focus on FR as their primary storyline engine, while taking advantage of the full history and background of D&D. It was a model that worked pretty well for 3e. They don't even need an OGL for it; just a much better GSL than 4e had. Or even with no GSL, some proactive licensing could go a long way.

I would prefer that. Why not? They outsource the adventure paths. In the past they sold ips to 3rd parties. 3e Ravenloft material was quite decent in my opinion. Why should not outsource the other settings?

 

[Mercule]

So, do you think that the only love for the other settings will be only conversion guides? That would be awful imho and a very conservative policy. No new campaign lore, stories, npcs? It would be disappointing!

I've had a queasy feeling since the Eberron conversion guide was released. It seemed... lacking, somehow. More of a technical appeasement that something done with care and interest. Who knows? Maybe just giving it to a layout person, rather than it looking like Mike whipped something out of Word, over lunch, would have made all the difference.

Regardless, I've been hoping for the Realms to fade away for almost 20 years (it wasn't annoying until the mid-1990s). But, it seems that D&D is slowly becoming married to the setting, which is cause enough to bail on the game. Nice system. I appreciate the core books.

After trying to convert Hoard of the Dragon Queen out of the Realms, I've decided it's easier to swap out the crunchy bits of prior edition adventures than the setting elements of the Realms. If the integration with the Realms goes beyond what was in the Phandelver adventure (i.e. "we need a city name" or "insert god of artifice, here"), I won't be even considering any products for 5E.

That said, if they publish a setting-neutral psionics book, it goes on my shopping list, immediately.

In fairness, I probably don't need a new 5E Eberron guide. I'm definitely going to purchase any adventures set in Eberron, though. I may or may not use them; given that Wizards is clearly limiting focus and money talks, I'm going to be just as thoughtful in where my dollars go -- I'm explicitly and intentionally not going to purchase anything set in the Realms, but I will purchase anything released for Eberron. This will continue as long the Realms is tightly coupled (again, Phandelver was fine) to the adventures and/or until they release at least one adventure or source book for another setting.

While I really do dislike the Realms, I think it's more a matter of not wanting to see any single setting define D&D. Even Greyhawk would raise my hackles, if it was as exclusive as it sounds like the Realms will be. The Realms is just a cherry on top. My preference is for them to go more to a "setting-less" model for their adventures, much like many of the early (pre-1990) modules were. If they want to use place/deity names from the Realms, to avoid being totally bland, great. Release an occasional setting-specific adventure, but don't fixate on them. D&D has always been "generic" fantasy (although the genre has broadened quite a bit). Tying it to a specific setting kinda misses the point.

 

[Mercule]

I would prefer that. Why not? They outsource the adventure paths. In the past they sold ips to 3rd parties. 3e Ravenloft material was quite decent in my opinion. Why should not outsource the other settings?

I'd be okay with this. I wonder if Keith would be up for producing a 5E Eberron book, and maybe some adventures. Point me to the Kickstarter, and you've got my $100 for the campaign guide and/or $50 for a HotDQ-sized adventure.

 

[neobolts]

A single big hardcover book that devotes 20 or so pages to each past campaign setting (complete with a map and some races and class paths as needed for each) would be amazing. It would be a "Manual of the Multiverse" Campaign Setting, with the ability to dig deeper with future books or within modules. It would be similar to how Golarion gives PF a ton of unified set pieces. Plus since they seeded this concept in the 5e core books, it wouldn't feel forced onto newer players.

If that's not possible, I'm hoping WotC lets the appropriate third parties do the classic setting work if they don't plan to pursue it themselves. Weis for Dragonlance, Baker for Eberron, etc.

I'd even be interested in a new setting. The last major new setting launch was 2004's Eberron.

 

[neobolts]

I'd be okay with this. I wonder if Keith would be up for producing a 5E Eberron book, and maybe some adventures. Point me to the Kickstarter, and you've got my $100 for the campaign guide and/or $50 for a HotDQ-sized adventure.

He has indicated on Twitter that he would love to revisit the setting, although he is apparently not looped in on the recent UA Eberron playtest document.

 

[Blue]

I've had a queasy feeling since the Eberron conversion guide was released. It seemed... lacking, somehow. More of a technical appeasement that something done with care and interest. Who knows? Maybe just giving it to a layout person, rather than it looking like Mike whipped something out of Word, over lunch, would have made all the difference.

Did you read the description and design discussion accompanying it? To consider it like the first wave of playtest - not even polished playtest a few iterations in. It looks like more effort went in than to an article, but still within the neighborhood. It got something with some semi-official blessing out there to build on (and probably to also judge interest) at a time when people are complaining about lack of new support. It's not supposed to be a polished Eberron document.

Go read Keith Baker's blog. He's working on Phoenix Dawn right now, but reading some of his Eberron-related posts seems that there's nothing set in stone for 5e Eberron but it is a possibility for a fuller treatment.

 

[Gecko85]

I've had a queasy feeling since the Eberron conversion guide was released. It seemed... lacking, somehow. More of a technical appeasement that something done with care and interest. Who knows? Maybe just giving it to a layout person, rather than it looking like Mike whipped something out of Word, over lunch, would have made all the difference.

From the UA Eberron page:

You can think of the material presented in this series as similar to the first wave of the fifth edition playtest. These game mechanics are in draft form, usable in your campaign but not fully tempered by playtests and design iterations. They are highly volatile and might be unstable; if you use them, be ready to rule on any issues that come up. They’re written in pencil, not ink.

The material presented in Unearthed Arcana will range from mechanics that we expect one day to publish in a supplement to house rules from our home campaigns that we want to share, from core system options such as mass combat to setting-specific material such as the Eberron update included in this article. Once it’s out there, you can expect us to check in with you to see how it’s working out and what we can do to improve it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A single big hardcover book that devotes 20 or so pages to each past campaign setting (complete with a map and some races and class paths as needed for each) would be amazing. It would be a "Manual of the Multiverse" Campaign Setting, with the ability to dig deeper with future books or within modules. It would be similar to how Golarion gives PF a ton of unified set pieces. Plus since they seeded this concept in the 5e core books, it wouldn't feel forced onto newer players.
.

I disagree, that's just making people buy junk they don't want for stuff they do. 20 pages falls into the "why bother" category.

 

[Mercule]

Did you read the description and design discussion accompanying it? To consider it like the first wave of playtest - not even polished playtest a few iterations in. It looks like more effort went in than to an article, but still within the neighborhood. It got something with some semi-official blessing out there to build on (and probably to also judge interest) at a time when people are complaining about lack of new support. It's not supposed to be a polished Eberron document.

Fair enough, which is why I didn't complain about it when it was released. I genuinely appreciated (and still do) the bone they threw us. It's only an issue in context with the "we're focusing on the Realms" comment. Together, that makes it feel like there really isn't a plan to do any more and they can use it as a technicality to dodge the pitchforks of Eberron fans.

In fairness, there may be additional context that's missing. It could be that they're short-staffed enough that they've only got the pipeline to work on one setting book at a time (almost certainly true) and they want and intend to work on another setting after that release, but they're too heads-down to really make a commitment on their next project. That I get. I'm a software developer and I get hammered all the time about what I'm going to work on "next", when I'm still trying to plan out the current six-to-nine-month project.

If that's the case, I get that. Personal feelings aside, the Realms are the most popular setting and will sell the most books. Cool. Carry on. I'd like to see the adventures more generic, but I've also advocated that each setting release comes with a single, tightly-coupled adventure to get folks going on it.

That's not the way I understood it, though. The quote sounds more like they're going to have some level of formal support for the Realms, but won't be revisiting other settings until/unless something changes. Evidence from HotDQ indicates that the third-party adventures will be pretty hard to decouple from the Realms. If the internal effort is also focused on the Realms, then it's not just a matter of no setting getting first-class treatment, but of one setting taking all the resources to the point where not only do the other settings get left in the cold, but DMs who want to home brew (the norm, IME) lack support.

In this case, it's not just a matter of prioritizing limited resources. It's that, but it's prioritizing in a way that I believe is detrimental to the game. I'll change my behavior in such a way as to most effectively send that message (i.e. reduce the fiscal viability of the proposed course) and would encourage others to do the same.

Again, if they're going to have reasonably setting-agnostic adventures, my statement doesn't hold. The priority should be 1) home brew or generic setting, 2) basic support for best-selling setting, 3) basic support for premier (i.e. sufficient to break-even or turn profit, with the idea of encouraging core/generic sales) settings, 4) deeper support for higher-profit lines. FWIW, this is why I think a reimagining of Dragon and Dungeon, with occasional hardcover releases, would be the best support model.

 

[lkj]

While Jeremy certainly tweeted that, and that's the official position, also relevant is - as you say - what's actually published. And brand director Nathan Stewart says "The Forgotten Realms is the universe that we at Wizards of the Coast are focusing our storytelling in for the foreseeable future", which seems fairly unequivocal.

So I'm expecting occaisional PDF documents for settings on wizards.com like the recent Eberron one, but print stuff will be all Realms based.

I interpreted this to mean that their adventures, video games and board games would all be Realms, but that this didn't exclude other setting support, perhaps printed and hopefully more substantial than an occasional tiny pdf. I took 'storytelling' to basically refer to adventures and tie ins. But then, I'm probably just being optimistic, and your interpretation is of course very reasonable.

AD