D&D 5E restart or rewrite or new?

[JEB]

Didn't vote, because "new setting" and "classic setting" shouldn't be mutually exclusive options. Both should be possible.

As for how to handle classic settings... I'm perfectly happy with classic settings being updated and advanced, as well as retconned to deal with stuff that doesn't hold up for modern audiences. I'm opposed to total, sweeping reboots, since they create unnecessary divisions in the fanbase.

Resets are an interesting compromise, where you don't rebuild the setting from scratch but simply roll it back to an earlier version, essentially making the old setting merely a possible timeline. I generally don't see an issue with this, as long as you don't make it impossible for things to turn out the way they did the first time around.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I love Mystara, but it's definitely one that I'd rather see a complete reimagining of rather than trying to tweak it. My own version when I use it leans heavily on certain elements (Thyatis, Alphatia, Glantri, etc.) and ignores or reworks others (Atruaghin for starters, among others). Call it a parallel universe version of the original setting or a new setting inspired by it rather than a continuation of it. But the amount of effort to do it means its doubtful that would happen.

When I feel like I care about such things that's how I treat all of the various setting iterations - parallel universe versions of the same setting. The version I play at my table is already different from everyone else's - what's one more parallel universe in that sense?

I don't think Mystara can be saved for 5E. It's just way too tied to real-world cultures mashed together... I understand it's appeal, but I think it's firmly in an OSR sector.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think Mystara can be saved for 5E. It's just way too tied to real-world cultures mashed together... I understand it's appeal, but I think it's firmly in an OSR sector.

Which is kind of a shame, since one of my DMs adores the setting and would love an updated version. But it'd would probably be too difficult to make an authentic and non-insulting pre-colonial South American setting that also fits with what's known about Maztica.

 

[gamerprinter]

I always put in huge amounts of effort into the development of all my settings - some so much so that I publish them. Now while I do plan to create the Starfinder version of my published Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror, as a Mini Setting Guide as a single star system, it will be a slight emulation of the previous and much less in content, really more a nod to the original setting. Aside from that I far, far prefer to create new settings, which my Kaidan update fits within a larger interstellar setting, I'm at the start of development now. I enjoy creating new settings, and have others to finish and new ones to start... I almost never revisit past settings. I let each stand on their own.

 

[cbwjm]

Not sure which option I'd choose. Generally, I'm not too worried if a setting release in a new edition continues the setting from where it left off (sort of like FR across editions), or resets it to the classic setting (like dragonlance's war of the lance). Generally, I just want to see a good update of specific content like races, classes, factions, etc. If the don't fit well, or still honour the concept of the older content, then it is a little jarring. Kind of why I want psionics to be well built for dark sun, though admittedly I only really need wild talents which should be easy enough to do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Make new ideas. There are still other settings besides Eberron that performed well in that old contest. Dredging one or two of them up and doing what they can to improve it could be great.

Likewise, building settings that reflect the observed statistics in D&D Beyond, among other things, could be pretty cool. If you can literally track what things people find interesting, then a setting that specifically caters to those interests in a productive and functional way is practically a guaranteed moneymaker.

 

[Stormonu]

For old settings, go back to the original release, update the rules and leave the original lore alone as much as possible. Fixing "issues" is a two-way street of madness (Orcs of Thar, I'm looking at you) so only as minimal a change as required should be made and the really bad supplemental lore can just be never mentioned. While the Van Richten's Ravenloft turned out okay for me, it went too far with changing things for the sake of changing things at times (Hell, that even happened in 2E with the blasted "Great Conjuction" and the "Grim Harvest").

With that in mind, I'd definately like to see a few new settings. And I'd make sure they were boxed sets with poster-sized maps.

 

[Lyxen]

So I'd have to hope somehow that cowardice was overcome, and they actually created worlds at least as interesting as Eberron, not "even safer than Eberron".

Honestly, I can understand this "cowardice" these days. Whatever you publish, someone will be offended and will try to roast you.

 

[Yora]

Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun are both prime examples of setting that were at their best in the original box set and then quickly started going downhill with expansions that were basically tie-ins to novels that went against the original setting concept.

Timeline advances are how you ruin a setting. Because those advances usually reflect things happening in novels. In a good campaign setting, players should be free to kill and burn down anyone and anything, without being held back because it might contradict with what happens in a novel that might come out at some point. When you do timeline advances, a setting becomes basically unplayable.

 

[Jer]

Honestly, I can understand this "cowardice" these days. Whatever you publish, someone will be offended and will try to roast you.

It isn't about getting roasted, it's about making money. What people are calling "cowardice" is just capitalism in action - going where the market is and making the product that is most likely to sell to the largest possible audience.

It's also why every movie made by a big studio these days is so similar to every other movie and you don't see a lot of experimentation- it's all about figuring out what sells and then doing that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Honestly, I can understand this "cowardice" these days. Whatever you publish, someone will be offended and will try to roast you.

I don't think it's that kind of cowardice though, I don't think they're afraid of pushback because they "do an Oriental Adventures" and people get mad or something, I think they're just afraid of investing time/money in a setting that might not be popular. And the main reasons they're afraid are both the very legit one that TSR pumped out a bunch of unsuccessful settings and blew a ton of money, and the much less legit one that they've only ever done one new setting, and whilst it was very well-received, what if the next one wasn't?

But it looks like we have 1-2 new settings on the way at least. I just hope they're less generic.

 

[Minigiant]

And the main reasons they're afraid are both the very legit one that TSR pumped out a bunch of unsuccessful settings and blew a ton of money, and the much less legit one that they've only ever done one new setting, and whilst it was very well-received, what if the next one wasn't?

Well did TSR have the analysis tools and do the researchto know what themes and tones were popular with which audiences? Or did they shoot out a lot of settings because they had to and thought they were cool.

Quite frankly, the designers in WOTC has the tools and skills to make a new setting that sells well. The fact that they haven't yet is proof that milking nostalgia was a core goal by those in charge of strategy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Quite frankly, the designers in WOTC has the tools and skills to make a new setting that sells well. The fact that they haven't yet is proof that milking nostalgia was a core goal by those in charge of strategy.

I mean, that's one interpretation. I don't think it's "proof" or the only interpretation. I think equally until the last few years there wasn't much of an appetite to invest in D&D, and the popularity took them by surprise. I suspect that ever since that happened they've been looking at new settings, because Winninger implied they'd rejected a few (IIRC), but just hadn't found the right one. Indeed he was somewhat circumspect even in talking about the fact that they did have one now, and seemed to indicate it might not make the cut. So it seems like whilst playing to nostalgia and using D&D as a cross-marketing tool was an initial goal with 5E (as an "apology edition" - note Blizzard are doing a similar "apology expansion" with World of Warcraft after deviating too far from what people actually enjoyed with that game), and they're still interested in that, they are interested in doing more and have been for at least a little while.

 

[Hussar]

Well did TSR have the analysis tools and do the researchto know what themes and tones were popular with which audiences? Or did they shoot out a lot of settings because they had to and thought they were cool.

Quite frankly, the designers in WOTC has the tools and skills to make a new setting that sells well. The fact that they haven't yet is proof that milking nostalgia was a core goal by those in charge of strategy.

Thing is, the company goals are so different now than they were before that it's really hard to compare.

Since the release of 5e, WotC has pursued a pretty clear policy - every release is a major event. So, they bank on having only a couple of releases a year, but, they are going to do everything in their power to make sure that those releases are successful. And, I'd say that this policy has been an unbelievable success.

Now, as far as milking nostalgia goes, sure, they certainly did that. But, there's been stuff that's been new too. Candlekeep Mysteries, Dragon Heist, now Strixhaven and soon Radiant Citadel. These are all pretty original stuff. So, they aren't just banging the nostalgia drum.

Given that the 50th is coming up, I really don't think we're going to see a really original setting. Although, I might be totally wrong. Maybe they'll use the 50th to try to really hammer a new setting down. I doubt it, but, it could happen.

Honestly? I think they'll do a sort of mini-playtest period to create a new setting. We'll get a truly original setting when you start seeing a series of Unearthed Arcana's teasing features of the new setting in order to drive up hype. But, considering we're getting Dragonlance and then Spelljammer? Naw, we're not going to see a completely new setting for a while. If you want a new setting, much better to go 3rd party for that.

 

[aco175]

I would be happy if they got off the Sword Coast and explored other parts of FR. There are so many other kingdoms and lands that have enough variance that they can have whole campaigns that make a 50$ themselves. Let the Dales or Cormyr have an Toril-shaking event.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I would be happy if they got off the Sword Coast and explored other parts of FR. There are so many other kingdoms and lands that have enough variance that they can have whole campaigns that make a 50$ themselves. Let the Dales or Cormyr have an Toril-shaking event.

This. I thought I was tired of FR but now that our campaign has moved to Chult, it seems I was just tired of the Sword Coast.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would like to see an official setting where humans are actually the minority. They can have grand cities, but there should be equally powerful kingdoms for the other races.

yeah, I had notes on an idea way back in 2e that I found right around the end of 4e and I think are still on my book shelf... basicly playing on the idea that all the half___ races other half is human made 'pure' humans rare but elves (anyone with more then 3/4 elf heritage counted) being the dominate race and Hafling a close second... but there were more half elves and Muls then anything

 

[Minigiant]

So it seems like whilst playing to nostalgia and using D&D as a cross-marketing tool was an initial goal with 5E (as an "apology edition" - note Blizzard are doing a similar "apology expansion" with World of Warcraft after deviating too far from what people actually enjoyed with that game), and they're still interested in that, they are interested in doing more and have been for at least a little while.

Making a new setting wasn't a priority now or back then. However I think it should be one in order to display what the base view of the edition. It shouldnt take 6 years.

 

[delericho]

Well did TSR have the analysis tools and do the researchto know what themes and tones were popular with which audiences? Or did they shoot out a lot of settings because they had to and thought they were cool.

I'm actually very surprised they're suddenly doing so many settings - as noted, one of the big problems faced with TSR was that many if not most people didn't use any published setting and very few used more than one. So they were competing with themselves, turning a potential success into multiple failures. It's a surprise to see WotC doing the same again.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I've changed my mind on this from some months ago.
I'd prefer altogether new settings as I don't need my old settings sanitised.