Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="schneeland" data-source="post: 7902701" data-attributes="member: 6900337">Sorry, that took a little longer then expected.Again, I find that [USER=3586]@MerricB[/USER] and I share a similar perspective w.r.t. problem analysis, but, at least to a certain extent, come to different conclusions.So let's start with the agreement and the problem analysis part. IMO there three major reasons why one might want to reboot a setting (two of which Merric has listed already):<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The amount of existing information (considered canon) is so large that it creates a significant entry barrier to new users</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The amount of existing information limits the creativity of the designers and hampers the development of the setting</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The setting either contains element that feel dated or lacks elements that make it attractive to new audiences</li> </ol>In theory, there is also a fourth reason, i.e. having publications on the setting which contradict each other, but I will ignore that here.So next step is to look at what constitutes a good/successful vs. a bad/failed reboot. For a bad reboot we already have one example, i.e. Forgotten Realms 4e.For successful reboots, we can look to video games, where this happens more often. Examples are:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tomb Raider (2013), which revitalised the line with the same name that had been running from 1996 to 2008 and overstayed its welcome, partly due to rather frequent releases</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Doom (2016), which brought back the classic first person shooter game after its third part turned out to be both economically and critically less successful than expected.</li> </ul>In both cases, the pattern followed was similar: the designers went back to identify key elements of the game, considered other titles in the same area and also what the community was doing, and then went back to origins story-wise, but modified the story a bit. I will say that in both cases, I have elements of these reboots that I dislike, but they were commercial and critical successes.What's noticeable: in both cases, the timeline was reversed to something considered the starting point for the game setting/protagonist. We didn't get to play the story of Lisa Croft, daughter of Lara Croft, or a new recruit following in the footsteps of the Doom Marine - we got to play literally the same characters, but in a modernized way.My impression is that the same thing happened for the New 52 of DC Comics, but I'm not a comics expert, so I will abstain from making comments here that I might regret <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Now if we look to Forgotten Realms 4e, what we see is that the reboot is only partial - on the one hand there is the desire to come up with a blank slate and lower the entry barrier for new players, on the other hand the timeline was kept. Instead of going back and trying to get to the core of the setting, the timeline is advanced, a lot of well-known characters are, or should be, dead and for someone who grew up with the Realms, it is barely recognisable. For an older player this might easily feel like a big middle finger in their face.Unfortunately, Realms 4e is not the only example for this pattern. Another one is Shadowrun 4 with its Crash 2.0. Probably it's no coincidence that this has alienated a lot of older players - similar to the Realms, where I know enough people that keep playing in the pre-spell plague realms, I know another bunch who consider the 2050s and 60s their "true" Shadowrun timeline.This highlights the major risk of a reboot:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">you split your fan base, leading to a mixed critical reception and/or less than expected commercial results</li> </ul>So my conclusion is: you can reboot settings, but successful reboots need to identify the core of a setting and then judiciously modernize it. I will acknowledge, though, that this is rather art than science, and not an easy task.Edit:Minor clarification on risks added. I guess I should still write something on why I am not completely happy with 5e's way to expose setting information, but I have to postpone that due to dinner and other obligations.</blockquote>

Verification