D&D 5E Kobolds are also from the Feywild now?

[Voadam]

4e Forgotten Realms seems to me to be a pretty good example that "maintaining continuity" is not enough to make dedicated lore-heads happy. Personally, I liked a lot of what the 4e Realms did, but based on community response, I think most people would be happier if it had been a full reboot.

People were unhappy with various aspects of 2e Greyhawk, the Greyhawk Wars, the FtA dark fantasy tone, the kids modules, the WotC late era resetting to not dark fantasy. People can be happy or unhappy with changes and developments in continuity.

In 3e FR there was some small timeline advancement and developments and changes in the setting (Netheril shadow mage return, Thay going economic, evil being not cartoonishly destined to fail) but was a close match to a lot of 2e and was in continuity and I think fairly well received. 4e advanced the timeline a century to kill off most existing NPCs, rearranged the planet and kingdoms, and killed off a lot of gods. It was still technically in continuity. This was a huge change and less well received. A lot of old setting lore was relegated to history and not for direct use in running FR games any more. It was a pretty hard reboot in continuity.

I am not convinced the lesson learned here is that most people would have preferred a wholescale reboot to a different continuity. If 4e FR had been a reimagining to the general 4e timeline status quo (different lands, fewer gods) without the 1e-3e lore history at all, some might have been happier, but I think a lot of FR setting and novel fans would have still been upset.

 

[TwoSix]

I am not convinced the lesson learned here is that most people would have preferred a wholescale reboot to a different continuity. If 4e FR had been a reimagining to the general 4e timeline status quo (different lands, fewer gods) without the 1e-3e lore history at all, some might have been happier, but I think a lot of FR setting and novel fans would have still been upset.

To my mind, the takeaway is that for a segment of lore-dedicated fans, having both "continuity" and "small, incremental changes that reflect the desires of the dedicated fan base" are necessary components for a release to be well-received. Which is fine for that segment, but I feel is too limiting in terms of what could be released to a broader audience.

I quite like 5e Ravenloft, for example, I'm not willing to trade that in for a version that feels the need to adhere to the core concepts of the 2e and 3e releases.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D seems to always be behind the times, like doing Vampire Diaries and Harry Potter way over a decade after their popularity.

 

[Faolyn]

If you want to use the 3e material for Dragonlance (say) there is absolutely nothing stopping you. But, why do I have to? Why do I have to play in the version of Dragonlance that you like but I don't? Why can't I have a version too?

Well, why do they have to play in a version of Dragonlance that you like but they don't?

No matter what gets put out, some people are going to like it and other people are going to dislike it. That's the way life is. If you don't like it, either play the thing you like the way you like it, even if it means doing rewrites or using a completely different system; play the thing you don't like (and maybe end up liking it after all, or maybe continue to dislike it); or simply don't play at all. Up to you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So the lesson here is to end all campaign settings whenever a new edition comes out. Never put out more content for them again. That way everyone is happy.

 

[Voadam]

So the lesson here is to end all campaign settings whenever a new edition comes out. Never put out more content for them again. That way everyone is happy.

And happiness is mandatory, citizen.

 

[Azzy]

And happiness is mandatory, citizen.

I'm glad you're happy.

 

[see]

So the lesson here is to end all campaign settings whenever a new edition comes out. Never put out more content for them again. That way everyone is happy.

No, the real lesson is never advance the timeline.

Advancing the timeline always alienates existing fans upset by the changes, while also creating continuity that's a barrier to new player adoption. And it is directly contrary to the purpose of a campaign setting, which is to provide a place for the players' stories to happen.

Bare-minimum-of-change adaptation of the setting to a new edition's rules, on the other hand, generally doesn't provoke more than mild disgruntlement at the specific adaptation choices in the existing fanbase, while opening the setting to new-edition players. See the general lack-of-pitchforks around Eberron edition updates, versus the drama that has been around timeline-advancing edition changes in not just D&D settings, but also in cases like the Traveller Third Imperium and the World of Darkness.

As far as re-imaginings of a setting (a la Ravenloft), when to do that is obvious; when falling sales of the original caused it to be discontinued for a good long time, and therefore upsetting the existing fanbase isn't going to kill a living line. If you want to excuse the re-imagination by way of an internal timeline advance, that's okay, but it's not necessary.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I get caring about continuity in a passive media, but I don't really get it in context of RPGs. Once the game starts, it is it's own self-contained version of the continuity anyway. You can kill the Sorcerer-Kings, marry Elminster and convince Vecna to forsake his evil ways. The official publications will not take that into account in any case.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, the real lesson is never advance the timeline.

So... continue producing material but never add anything?

And what about settings like FR that shackled itself to the game mechanics of a given edition?