D&D 5E restart or rewrite or new?

Would you rather they restart old settings recreate them or just make new ones?


  • Poll closed .

Stormonu

Legend
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.
One-and-done versions I think will work, but when they start tying supplements to those, such as modules - that's where the real revenue split starts to occur, when you start getting into content that is only being picked up by a fraction of a fraction of your customers.

Example: Releasing the Strixhaven campaign setting only picks those with interest in that campaign setting. If the following 5E adventure "Through the Wimbly Woods" is just a 5E adventure, you'll have a fair number pick it up, with perhaps a small percentage being those running a Strixhaven campaign. If, however, the adventure was "Through the Wimbly Woods: A Strixhaven Campaign Adventure", you're only going to pick up people who A) are playing Strixhaven and B) are interested in a megadventure. The customer base will be a fraction of what it could be.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
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.
They are attempting to run sales on nostalgia. However nostalgia only gets you so far. Older fans likely already have material and have to be convinced to buy rather than convert their own. The Large Chunk of new fans have to be convinced to like dressed up old stuff or the play updated stuff not designed to run with the new material and modern mindsets.

Now WOTC isn't doing what TSR did. They aren't having setting cannibalizing each other. The settings have audiences. The situation now is them trying to sell old setting to new fans.
 

edosan

Adventurer
My feelings on updating the old settings is complicated.

When I first read the 5e PHB there was some bit in the front (sorry, it is not within easy reach) that alluded to all the old stuff coming back which I was totally excited about at the time but I have not liked their implementation. I was hoping more actual settings books than the "half setting, half adventure" mishmashes we got. I wanted a real Waterdeep book, not WDH. I guess someone looked at the sales numbers for SCAG and decided it wasn't worth the trouble but if I could get a real FR setting book, or a real Waterdeep book with 300 pages of info with some well-developed plot hooks and some nifty new art? Heck yeah, I'd be all over those.

But in the current format? No, I can get better fanmade content (from DMs Gulid or just off the Internet) that is closer to what I want so I'm not really that excited about a new book at this point.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
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.
TSR was putting out a large number of books for each setting. WotC seems to be putting out one, maybe two, for each setting, with one book being an adventure. So it's not quite the same.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
They are attempting to run sales on nostalgia.
I actually don't think so. I think they were trying to run sales on nostalgia in the first part of 5e's lifecycle, but with what they're doing now it feels less "nostalgia driven" and more "revamp an existing IP for a new audience".

The difference between the two approaches is like the difference between Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios - in the comics they are absolutely trying to mine nostalgia to sell the same dwindling audience the stories they want to read. In the films, OTOH, they're taking those properties and figuring out how to change them to make them mass market successes.

Both approaches attempt to mint money from existing properties, but in the former case the target audience is an existing group of customers who will buy it because they've always bought it, and in the latter the target audience is folks who maybe know the property by reputation but have no real attachment to it currently. There are a lot more people in the second group for most older IP, and if you can convince them that Iron Man is actually a cool character they'll spend lots of money on Iron Man stuff, even if he's not the same Iron Man that folks in their 60s have been reading about since they were 10. The same idea holds for Spelljammer (or for that matter, Ravenloft, which definitely feels less to me like "nostalgia grab" and more "here's an older property we aren't doing anything with - let's see if we can get folks interested in it again").
 

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.
I am pretty confident that the 5e publishing schedule, even as it is increasing compared to early in the edition lifecycle, is a pretty strong case that WotC is definitely not replicating TSR's strategy with respect to settings.

Compare the setting books in AD&D to the books in 5e. Even granting that the AD&D page I've listed merges both editions into one page, I feel confident saying that most of the AD&D stuff happened during the 2e lifecycle, so there's no comparison (as far as I can see).
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
I am pretty confident that the 5e publishing schedule, even as it is increasing compared to early in the edition lifecycle, is a pretty strong case that WotC is definitely not replicating TSR's strategy with respect to settings.

Compare the setting books in AD&D to the books in 5e. Even granting that the AD&D page I've listed merges both editions into one page, I feel confident saying that most of the AD&D stuff happened during the 2e lifecycle, so there's no comparison (as far as I can see).
The way I've seen it explained is that WotC is publishing settings, but they aren't publishing setting lines like they did in 2E. They don't put out a setting core and then 10 other modules or books specific to that setting.

Now, they're operating on the assumption that most groups run games from 6-18 months long and then swap over to the next new thing, rather than just being an "Eberron" player or a "Forgotten Realms" player.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
The way I've seen it explained is that WotC is publishing settings, but they aren't publishing setting lines like they did in 2E. They don't put out a setting core and then 10 other modules or books specific to that setting.
They don't need to anymore - they don't have a business model that requires them to sell X books every month to keep the lights on, and they have DM's Guild and the Adventurer's League both to support the new settings they create. People can get content for the settings, people can create content for those settings and get paid for it, AL generates even more content and brings people into playing the game, and Wizards doesn't have to do anything beyond release the setting book. They don't even have to publish Dragon magazine anymore - all of the stuff that would have gone to Dragon back in the day goes up on DM's Guild. TSR could only have dreamed of having a virtuous cycle working in their favor like that.

(It's astonishing to me to think how much the landscape has changed between the release of 5e and now.)
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
They don't need to anymore - they don't have a business model that requires them to sell X books every month to keep the lights on, and they have DM's Guild and the Adventurer's League both to support the new settings they create. People can get content for the settings, people can create content for those settings and get paid for it, AL generates even more content and brings people into playing the game, and Wizards doesn't have to do anything beyond release the setting book. They don't even have to publish Dragon magazine anymore - all of the stuff that would have gone to Dragon back in the day goes up on DM's Guild. TSR could only have dreamed of having a virtuous cycle working in their favor like that.

(It's astonishing to me to think how much the landscape has changed between the release of 5e and now.)
Not to mention the near-limitless amount of free material generated by the community and available online.

WotC just publishes setting books to establish a new type of genre material for the community, than all the other avenues fill in the gaps. It does work extremely well as a publishing model.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
actually don't think so. I think they were trying to run sales on nostalgia in the first part of 5e's lifecycle, but with what they're doing now it feels less "nostalgia driven" and more "revamp an existing IP for a new audience"

Yes. It's 2 types of nostalgia. True nostalgia and the a false nostalgia of name recognition.

I just wish they attempted to create something that matches exactly want they are trying to sell instead of twisting old settings or Magic planes into them. Especially if they are being weak on variants and only offering background tweaks or new feats/subclasses.
 


Gnosistika

Mildly Ascorbic
I voted "make new" but I'm both lying and a hypocrite; lying because I don't really care since I don't need a new setting and a hypocrite because I wrote the 5th Edition Zakhara Campaign Guide, updating Al-Qadim, and I would love for everyone to buy it.

I'm most interested in pulpy, weird fantasy settings, so I am a huge Spelljammer fan and have been for over 25 years but have no real use for any of the other legacy TSR settings. I love Eberron because it plays right into my interests, but they've done that one for 5e. I'd be down with a Mystara book, but honestly there isn't much that book could do that I haven't done myself already, and frankly I'm coming to like my approach to these updates more than I like WotC's. I'd buy it, but I don't need it and likely wouldn't get much actual use out of it.
The Zakhara Campaign Guide is a superb piece of work. Thank you for that.
 

cbwjm

Legend
The way I've seen it explained is that WotC is publishing settings, but they aren't publishing setting lines like they did in 2E. They don't put out a setting core and then 10 other modules or books specific to that setting.

Now, they're operating on the assumption that most groups run games from 6-18 months long and then swap over to the next new thing, rather than just being an "Eberron" player or a "Forgotten Realms" player.
I think part of the change is that for every/most adventure they release which is set in the realms, they also include notes that help DMs place the adventures in other settings, which I feel is a great model.
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Concurring with the others who have said this... there is absolutely no point in reprinting the old settings the exact same way as they were. It is a waste of time, money, and energy. If you want the old settings exactly as they are... just buy the old stuff-- if you don't already own the material which you probably already do. Just use it. Having WotC just rewrite the books exactly as they were with only mechanical changes to follow 5E guidelines is completely pointless.
Unless of course, you actually want mechanical updates to old settings.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I honestly don't care if or how republished settings match up with their previous versions. If I choose to use one now, it is because what it is now matches what I want to do now. How that relates to the past is not material to my current use.
I value the settings for the stories they tell in the products as much as for any use on the table. Most of them I primarily experienced as reading material. That's why I don't want them changed.

New ideas and modern sensibilities should be catered to by new settings.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I really don't need settings. I'd like some of the races/monsters/spells/etc. of some of the old settings, but I don't need any more settings than what we already have.
 

Hussar

Legend
The way I've seen it explained is that WotC is publishing settings, but they aren't publishing setting lines like they did in 2E. They don't put out a setting core and then 10 other modules or books specific to that setting.

Now, they're operating on the assumption that most groups run games from 6-18 months long and then swap over to the next new thing, rather than just being an "Eberron" player or a "Forgotten Realms" player.
I think this is a point that can't be stressed enough.

WotC isn't publishing settings. Not at least the way that was meant previously where you had a setting guide, a player's guide, a monster book, a handful of adventures (sometimes a double handful), a novel line, and probably a bunch of other books I'm forgetting.

For every single setting. :yikes:

That's why the settings were cannibalizing each other. But, in the new paradigm, WotC doesn't even really produce a setting guide. They bang out a mega-module which doubles as setting guide, monster guide, and everything else in between. You're expected to play out that module, finish it and then move on to the next setting. Other than Forgotten Realms, and I guess Ravenloft, they don't revisit anything. And even the FR stuff was still mostly self contained with nothing but a couple of Easter Eggs between them. There's no reason to expect that a group will own any other Forgotten Realms 5e stuff than whatever Campaign in a Can they are running at the time. I don't need to own Princes of the Apocalypse to run Rime of the Frostmaiden. I'm not expected to own any other 5e books than Rime of the Frostmaiden and the core 3 to run the adventure.

It's a very large shift from what came before where the assumption was that if I was going to run a campaign in, say, Forgotten Realms, I'd need the FRCS, at the very least, and probably half a dozen other books before I even started.
 

Hussar

Legend
Unless of course, you actually want mechanical updates to old settings.

I value the settings for the stories they tell in the products as much as for any use on the table. Most of them I primarily experienced as reading material. That's why I don't want them changed.

New ideas and modern sensibilities should be catered to by new settings.
But, how do I see things to you then? You want settings as reading material, which means the mechanics don't really matter, that's not why you're buying the books, but, you also want the mechanics updated, without changing the setting despite the fact that the original setting material was based on very different mechanics that don't really work in 5e.

That's a pretty difficult thing to satisfy. I mean, if that's true, then I cannot have a lot of stuff in the earlier settings since it didn't exist in the game at the time - no dwarven magic-users, heck, most races can't be most classes - for example. If we're going by that metric, what's the cutoff? Should Greyhawk only draw on material published before the boxed set? So, no PC drow allowed - since PC drow didn't appear until the Unearthed Arcana 1e? What should Vecna be? A lich? A demi-god? A major deity? Never minding the rather large number of deities that have been added to the setting since the boxed set was released. Should they be excised as well?

Any update to a setting is going to have to make any number of decisions. Where you draw that cut off line is never going to make everyone happy. It's impossible to update a setting to new mechanics without changing the sensibilities of the setting.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
But, how do I see things to you then? You want settings as reading material, which means the mechanics don't really matter, that's not why you're buying the books, but, you also want the mechanics updated, without changing the setting despite the fact that the original setting material was based on very different mechanics that don't really work in 5e.

That's a pretty difficult thing to satisfy. I mean, if that's true, then I cannot have a lot of stuff in the earlier settings since it didn't exist in the game at the time - no dwarven magic-users, heck, most races can't be most classes - for example. If we're going by that metric, what's the cutoff? Should Greyhawk only draw on material published before the boxed set? So, no PC drow allowed - since PC drow didn't appear until the Unearthed Arcana 1e? What should Vecna be? A lich? A demi-god? A major deity? Never minding the rather large number of deities that have been added to the setting since the boxed set was released. Should they be excised as well?

Any update to a setting is going to have to make any number of decisions. Where you draw that cut off line is never going to make everyone happy. It's impossible to update a setting to new mechanics without changing the sensibilities of the setting.
The Dragonlance Nexus more or less managed it with Tasslehoff's Pockets of Everything.
 

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top