D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

[SkidAce]

If you don't want to be a part of the D&D Multiverse, you can't play D&D 5E.

I know you added a smiley, so I am cool with your intent, however...


While the majority of my campaigns are set in the "multiverse", two in particular are not.

A. The Million Spheres; millions and millions of alternate worlds connected to each other via proximity or paths. There is no "in between", no Astral, no Outer Planes, its all worlds (until you hit turtles of course.. ).

B. A spin off of Zelanzy's cosmos. One Prime world, everything else shadows until the shadows become chaos. Again, no "in between", no Astral, no Outer Planes.


Both still D&D 5E. Certainly, you could describe both as sitting off in the corner of the D&D cosmos, should you wish to be labor the point.



That of course would require appointing a second and pistols/swords at dawn, your choice of course. I am the epitome of politeness.

 

[Flyboy]

WOTC's direction primarily comes down to their business model. They want a limited pace of published mega adventures that a large percentage of 5e groups are going to purchase. This is opposed to the torrid pace of material that was published in the 2e and 3e days. It's obviously working for them and I don't expect we'll see a big departure from this recipe. I'm not so much hating on them for going this route, but it's just not for me.

I'm not questioning the quality of the products they're putting out compared to other eras. Some of the products from yesteryear were not tightly developed before they hit the shelves.

Due to their setting mash-up approach, I doubt we'll see anything approaching a reboot of any other settings. They've already pillaged a lot of Greyhawk content and ported it over to FR, so I don't think they are going to be overly concerned with maintaining canon across any setting. I think the idea is that by including iconic characters and events in their releases, older players will rally around the new products, while new players don't really care, but are swept up by the popularity of the movement and the fact that everyone is talking about the very same release at the very same time. The D&D experience has never been more homogeneous.

Although I can see myself using WOTC material in the future if it strikes my fancy, I am in no way counting on them to provide the material I need for my Greyhawk/Spelljammer/Planescape campaigns. I've had years of development using 3PP material, Paizo products, homebrew, etc that would make the little that WOTC puts out irrelevant. I don't want or need any new setting reboots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ath-kethin]

. Although I can see myself using WOTC material in the future if it strikes my fancy, I am in no way counting on them to provide the material I need for my Greyhawk/Spelljammer/Planescape campaigns. I've had years of development using 3PP material, Paizo products, homebrew, etc that would make the little that WOTC puts out irrelevant. I don't want or need any new setting reboots.

I'm with you here. And honestly I think the best way to "reboot" any of the settings is to put out something like the M:tG Plane Shift articles. 40 pages or so max, detail what mechanics NEED to be different from the cookie cutter, describe how to do the rest using tools we already have. Simple, easy, minimal weeping.

 

[KahlessNestor]

That is where we are currently at our table - the multi-campaign storyline has just recently started to reveal itself along with how PC and NPC actions as well as setting lore has affected the storylines over the years.

Although it gets a lot of grief by many hardcore Realmers, the Spellplague was very useful for creating upsets within the multiverse.



This. Just like players create their little special snowflake characters, so too DM's are guilty of their special snowflake campaigns.

And actually, given the conversation over in "Why People Hate the Forgotten Realms", the Spellplague got rid of one of the big reasons people dislike it: most of the NPCs didn't survive. Yet they still complain about too many powerful NPCs LOL

 

[Remathilis]

And actually, given the conversation over in "Why People Hate the Forgotten Realms", the Spellplague got rid of one of the big reasons people dislike it: most of the NPCs didn't survive. Yet they still complain about too many powerful NPCs LOL

To be fair, a lot of them (Alustrial, Eliminster, Drizzt) made it over fine, at WotC has been pretty heavy handed with how many cheated death (Minsc, Drizzt's companions, Volo, Khelban, Dragonbait, Artus, and Durnan).

 

[KahlessNestor]

To be fair, a lot of them (Alustrial, Eliminster, Drizzt) made it over fine, at WotC has been pretty heavy handed with how many cheated death (Minsc, Drizzt's companions, Volo, Khelban, Dragonbait, Artus, and Durnan).

True, though Drizzt survived because elf. Elminster is basically contractually immortal. Alustrial wasn’t anywhere around throughout 4e. And didn’t Khelban give his life raising a mythal? I haven't read that novel yet, but he's not the Blackstaff anymore I don't know anything about the others.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Honestly i'm not thrilled with the attitude toward later interpretations of settings in this thread- I love the 4e Dark Sun setting book and have been hoping the 5e version includes elements from it, especially things like the sorcerer king warlock path. It felt very strong and flavorful to me, with a greater emphasis on survival, an air of hopelessness, and so forth. It was one of the most beloved 4e products overall as well, so i think it's disingenuous to treat it or the edition that spawned it as a failure.

Similarly, I've been a huge Dragonlance fan, and the War of Souls era is every bit as good, if not better, than the original War of the Lance era.

Maybe we can try not gatekeeping setting purity so hard?

 

[SkidAce]

Honestly i'm not thrilled with the attitude toward later interpretations of settings in this thread- I love the 4e Dark Sun setting book and have been hoping the 5e version includes elements from it, especially things like the sorcerer king warlock path. It felt very strong and flavorful to me, with a greater emphasis on survival, an air of hopelessness, and so forth. It was one of the most beloved 4e products overall as well, so i think it's disingenuous to treat it or the edition that spawned it as a failure.

Similarly, I've been a huge Dragonlance fan, and the War of Souls era is every bit as good, if not better, than the original War of the Lance era.

Maybe we can try not gatekeeping setting purity so hard?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Similarly, I've been a huge Dragonlance fan, and the War of Souls era is every bit as good, if not better, than the original War of the Lance era.

Maybe we can try not gatekeeping setting purity so hard?

I'm thinking for Dragonlance, and maybe FR setting guides, it might be a good idea to have at least a sidebar on the different Eras, and how to adjust the rules to fit different periods of the setting history.

 

[MechaPilot]

Honestly i'm not thrilled with the attitude toward later interpretations of settings in this thread- I love the 4e Dark Sun setting book and have been hoping the 5e version includes elements from it, especially things like the sorcerer king warlock path. It felt very strong and flavorful to me, with a greater emphasis on survival, an air of hopelessness, and so forth. It was one of the most beloved 4e products overall as well, so i think it's disingenuous to treat it or the edition that spawned it as a failure.

Similarly, I've been a huge Dragonlance fan, and the War of Souls era is every bit as good, if not better, than the original War of the Lance era.

Maybe we can try not gatekeeping setting purity so hard?

IIRC, 4e Dark Sun being such a popular supplement was in no small part due to it being the book that gave us themes and the table for inherent bonuses to replace +X items.