D&D 5E Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Official Campaign Settings

[jayoungr]

A comment I made on a similar thread last year:

It even goes beyond desire for official product: there has also been a sense that a product doesn't "count" unless it's a printed, hardcover book. I remember before Tales from the Yawning Portal came out, there were frequent complaints that WotC had not published any short, stand-alone adventures. Whenever I or someone else pointed out that WotC had published dozens of short, stand-alone adventures in the form of AL modules, it never seemed to make the complainers happy.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Okay, for real this time:

I think Validity is a real big thing, especially thinking about a Favorite Setting being like your Home Team.

My family loves the San Francisco Giants. They love the Giants no matter who is playing on the team. But if the Giants moved to Florida, they probably wouldn't love them anymore. They love the Giants because their proximity makes them the "local team."

Let's say TSR used to publish a campaign setting called Fannyshire. Let's say I played in this setting with my friends for years. Then WotC buys D&D, and Fannyshire is no longer supported.

Oh, there's a 3rd Party that has updated the old Fannyshire books, but D&D lived at WotC! Oh, I still have my old Fannyshire books, but they're not 5e, and D&D is 5e now! So my favorite campaign setting isn't in my hometown and it's not even the same sport anymore.

If WotC published a new Fannyshire Campaign Guide, it's like my favorite setting has moved back to my hometown! I can wear the jersey and see other people wearing ball caps and say "go Fannyshire!"

That's what I figure.

Keep in mind I never use published settings, I'm a Homebrew Campaigner for life!

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you missed one aspect: shared experience.

If there's one "official" setting in general use (particularly AL) then players from different games/cities/countries have - pun intended - common ground to talk about when they meet and interact. To some (many?) people, this is important even if not consciously realized as such.

Time was, that shared experience came from the adventure modules: everyone had been through the G-Series and-or KotB and-or Hommlet and could talk about (and laugh at!) their experiences. But those days are largely gone simply because there's so many thousand different adventures out there; and today the only real adventure-based shared experiences come from the first one or two official modules for each new edition (e.g. 3e: Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury; 4e: Keep on the Shadowfell; 5e: Lost Mines of Phandelver).

So, if there's to be a shared experience today then an in-common setting is most likely where it's going to come from.

Isn’t that covered by consistency?

 

[TwoSix]

A comment I made on a similar thread last year:

What a crazy coincidence.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What a crazy coincidence.

You know what, Twosix? I LIKE YOU. You're not like the other people here, in the trailer park.

A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, Twosix; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinking about a night manager. Suddenly someone will say, like, night, or manager, or night manager out of the blue, no explanation.

No point in looking for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.

 

[MarkB]

There's one thing you left out: interconnectivity of dichotomous polarities.

...I don't know what that means, I just wanted to post a "there's one thing you left out" post.

I don't know what it is either, but now I want some.

 

[Mind of tempest]

if it is a truly new setting then it can be the validation of your tastes, like let's say they make a setting with guns then suddenly it is less odd for guns to be a thing in dnd and if you have settings with guns in you home game you are looked at less oddly.

 

[Shiroiken]

I understand the desire to have certain settings reprinted and/or expanded. Popular ones are obvious, such as Realms and Eberron (although I feel Realms didn't get much). Ones with specialized rules that need updating are usually good choices, like Dark Sun, Planescape, and Spelljammer. Others... it doesn't make too much sense to bother with, although I can see the argument of outsourcing it by licensing it to others.

Personally, I don't want WotC to reprint my favorite setting, Greyhawk. I can use the existing material to my satisfaction without any "official" books countermanding my vision. Nothing about Greyhawk needs a mechanical update, as most things have already been covered in the core rules. The only thing that's probably important is dealing with new races in the setting, which is probably best determined by individual DMs (some may ban, some may incorporate, some may make radical changes).

 

[prabe]

Exactly this. "Come play in my game based on my personal notes from a setting that hasn't been published in 25 years" is a hard sell. "Come play in my game based on the shiny new book you can pick up from Amazon" is a much easier one.

How is this any harder to pitch to players than "Come play in my homebrew setting?" IME, homebrew isn't any harder to pitch/sell than something canonical.

 

[Ancalagon]

There's one thing you left out: interconnectivity of dichotomous polarities.

...I don't know what that means, I just wanted to post a "there's one thing you left out" post.

Can it automatically synchronize cardinal grammeters?