D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

[Obryn]

The problem with this argument is whether adding new things to the setting (in terms of the PHB options) is "watering it down".

Settings grow and evolve, and sometimes they have to adjust to new material. Mystara in 2e had to find homes for multi-classing, rangers, bards, and half-elves. The 3e FRCS brought over all the planetouched races (previously from PS) to Faerun, as well as ret-conned the story. Arthaus Ravenloft had to contend with sorcerers, barbarians, monks, and half-orcs (the latter re-fluffed as Caliban). 3e Dragonlance did the same with Krynn as far as finding homes for sorcerers, monks, and such. 4e Eberron had to accommodate eladrin and dragonborn, 3e Dark Sun the psionic Handbook races, 4e Dark Sun a huge swath of PHB options like warlocks, bards, shaman, and sorcerers. Each of those settings were not ruined. They grew.

A few compromises can be reached (half-orcs were a poor fit for Ravenloft, so they replaced them with a mechanically similar yet thematically different race). But I think you'll see most, if not all, of the classes in PHB as well as a majority of the races have homes on Krynn, Athas, Cerelia, Mystara, Oerth, and Eberron. It makes sense to sell settings that can accommodate expansion. A DM who runs traditional Athas has little need for Volo's Guide to Monsters, so that is a sale lost. I can't see a scenario where having settings using half-or-less of the printed material out there makes them more money.

This was, like, a week ago, but I think this sums it up perfectly.

Having seen numerous campaign conversions over the past decades, I honestly think 4e Dark Sun was probably the best-handled of them (and the 4e FR was probably the worst).

The 4e DSCS kept what was core to the setting, and was judicious about its deletions and additions. And it went back in time to - probably - the best period for adventuring, right after the death of Kalak but before the whole rest of the Prism Pentad metaplot. So you have one 'free' city, and the rest of the setting is exactly what you'd expect.

It removed Divine classes. It could do that because of how 4e worked, in general, with its class roles. Yes, Dark Sun 2e had clerics. No, they were not "divine" casters. Solution? An elemental shaman subclass. A good, workable change within the rules framework, while preserving Dark Sun flavor.

Gnomes were removed, again in keeping with the original setting. But it added Tieflings and Eladrin. Tieflings are easy enough; there's plenty of room for more desert raiders on the sands of Athas. Eladrin could have been fumbled badly, but instead they were Dark-sun-ized; the "Feywild" - The Land Within the Wind - is a shattered, broken realm with mere pockets here and there, which you can enter into purely on accident. And the Eladrin are wizard-hating, fiercely secretive psionic warriors. A pretty neat edition, IMO. Dragonborn? I kept them out of the game until the party met Dregoth and his Dray; then they were available.

I ended up even having a Warforged - in this case a sentient golem of bone and obsidian - and it worked better than I had feared. (By this level, the whole sustenance/privation business wasn't an issue anymore.)

No, it's not identical to the 2e setting. But it was a mindful conversion and update, which is what I think is fair to expect from setting re-releases.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Pretty much every fan of 4E seems to mention the MM3/Monsters vault and DDI for some reason, the 4E core books (not the everything is core rubbish) is very very sparse.

Nah. We played with 3 core for a few years before we got other stuff or. A ddi sub.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mike's recent tweets have me worried that 5e versions of settings will be changed from what they should be to something more "compatible " with the core fluff.

I'd rather see no settings updated than that.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Mike's recent tweets have me worried that 5e versions of settings will be changed from what they should be to something more "compatible " with the core fluff.

I'd rather see no settings updated than that.

There are many different opinions on what each setting "should" be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are many different opinions on what each setting "should" be.

Haven't seen anyone suggesting turning Dark Sun or Eberron into a world with the core 5e assumptions on magic items, rarity of magic, how common/uncommon each race is, making a nit gnolls in Eberron into slavering mindless murder beasts, etc.

The details can be fiddled. They were fine in 4e, for instance. But they shouldn't be forced into being more like FR.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are many different opinions on what each setting "should" be.

Haven't seen anyone suggesting turning Dark Sun or Eberron into a world with the core 5e assumptions on magic items, rarity of magic, how common/uncommon each race is, making Znir gnolls in Eberron into slavering mindless murder beasts, etc.

The details can be fiddled. They were fine in 4e, for instance. But they shouldn't be forced into being more like FR.

 

[Gradine]

Mike's recent tweets have me worried that 5e versions of settings will be changed from what they should be to something more "compatible " with the core fluff.

I'd rather see no settings updated than that.

Personally, this is exactly what I'd like to see out of WotC precisely because that's the exact opposite of anything I'd do. I don't want, say, the ECS basically re-printed with a few mechanical tweaks. I want to see a different interpretation, one specifically designed to jive well with 5e.

I don't have to (or expect to) like everything they'd do, but if nothing else it'd allow me to flex my creativity by deciding exactly how much to incorporate, how much to dig from the original setting. Ideally, even if I absolutely hate the changes they give, it would illuminate the stuff that I wouldn't have otherwise noticed probably needed changes, and fill in those holes myself.

I'm not a purist and I don't care one whit about canon, certainly not in a game-world I'm designing myself (which any DM is doing regardless of if they're using a published setting or homebrewing). More material (and more varied material) is always going to be a more worthwhile to me than a basic retread with 10-20 pages of mechanical updates, for the creative spark if nothing else.

Campaign settings are always more interesting to me when there are an infinite number of different versions of them.

 

[Gradine]

Haven't seen anyone suggesting turning... Eberron into a world with the core 5e assumptions on magic items, rarity of magic...

I seem to recall the two of us having this exact conversation here before.

This is actually something I'm extremely interested in exploring, as a thought exercise if not an actually played campaign.

 

[MechaPilot]

No, it's not identical to the 2e setting. But it was a mindful conversion and update, which is what I think is fair to expect from setting re-releases.

I agree. I can't honestly say I've seen anyone saying they must be identical to the 2e releases, merely that any changes should be true to the setting's themes. A good example of this is what was done with Van Richten in 3e Ravenloft, with his twin nieces taking over for him while he pursued a cure for one of his niece's having been cursed with lycanthropy.

Mike's recent tweets have me worried that 5e versions of settings will be changed from what they should be to something more "compatible " with the core fluff.

I'd rather see no settings updated than that.

I wouldn't. Let them update the settings. I don't have to buy it if I don't like it. And I can always find someone who bought it who can tell me what the relevant mechanical changes are.

There are many different opinions on what each setting "should" be.

A setting should be true to the themes intended by its creators. That doesn't mean the setting can't change or grow, it just means any alterations or additions should be in keeping with the established identity of the setting.

I'm not a purist and I don't care one whit about canon, certainly not in a game-world I'm designing myself (which any DM is doing regardless of if they're using a published setting or homebrewing). More material (and more varied material) is always going to be a more worthwhile to me than a basic retread with 10-20 pages of mechanical updates, for the creative spark if nothing else.

Campaign settings are always more interesting to me when there are an infinite number of different versions of them.

I don't care about canon either, but I do care about preserving the unique character and feel of the settings. The details can change, but the overall nature of the setting should not.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I seem to recall the two of us having this exact conversation here before.

This is actually something I'm extremely interested in exploring, as a thought exercise if not an actually played campaign.

Then don't buy an Eberron product. Just make your own wworld that is like superficially like Eberron but actually like the core assumptions.

I've no interest in dnd if it is only done one way, and right now it is long past time to use Eberron and Dark Sun, and even Dragonlance, to showcase the greater scope of what dnd is.

What is the point of even having other setting if they all have the same assumptions?