D&D 5E Revising Classic Settings

[grimslade]

Spelljammer was another campaign world I missed that I’d like to see be brought back, using the Astromundi Cluster & Rock of Braal as the basic location. Mix in the old Crystal spheres with the Astral Sea and you could have adventures between worlds within a “system” or travel outward past the sphere’s edge into other prime planes (via the old phlogiston method) or other planes - perhaps via gates akin to those from Stargate/Stargate Atlantis.

Imagine if in D&D black holes led to the Abyss...

I agree. Leave the actual Spelljammer out of it. I never cared for the Phlogiston in Spelljammer so I woudn't be sad to see it replaced with a portal to the Astral Sea or the Ethereal with Crystal Spheres being gates to other worlds/systems. We need a way to bring ship based adventuring to 5E. I love the Scro and the Imperial Elven Navy aspects. The Neogi and Illithid menace. I could see some of the 3E Spider Moon drow stuff worked in as well. Spelljammer could fit 5E very well.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The scros need a new and different new, it sounds as scrotum, and it is a horrible name.

Spelljammer could be a fabulous cash-cow, allowing space to add craziest ideas, for example un-canon crossovers with ersatz characters based in famous sci-fi franchises. Lots of fans would dare to publish homebred versions, and why not?

But it also has got serious metagame effects, because if these "spaceships" are possible, and they travel to trade, then they could cause serious effects into the different spheres, for example kenders visiting Greyhawk, or giths exploring Krynn. If Ravenloft has been rebooted, and I don't blame them, the crystal spheres also could be retconned to allow space for future new crunch (PC races and classes with special game mechanics).

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think we get a baseline (which multiple people have mentioned here) of nations that don't trust each other, don't necessarily get along, with shades of grey rather than black and white. That goes back to the wargaming roots of the hobby, and has pretty much been a thread throughout all editions of Greyhawk. Beyond that (okay, and the love of Darlene's map), I think it starts to break down. To some it's human-centric, while others see it as a traditional D&D panoply. But that baseline, as @teitan mentioned, is a pretty meaty hook that easily crosses generations.

well, what do the bickering faction think sells Greyhawk?

I agree on draconians != dragonborn. Tinker gnomes, gully dwarves, and kender should be present in Dragonlance, but there's no way around it - they need to be reworked to eliminate the problematic tropes inherent in them. I don't know that they're core to the Dragonlance experience, but they are part of it, certainly.

Dragonlance/Krynn: Draconians are anything BUT "just dragonborn." They need to be their own, completely independent and separate creatures...with five distinct, completely individual sub-types that all do different things. Tinker gnomes, gully dwarves, and kender are supremely irritating, and I wish they'd never been created, but they are distinctly and foundationally "Krynn." They have to stay in and receive their own gnome, dwarf, halfling, respectively, sub-races.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think we get a baseline (which multiple people have mentioned here) of nations that don't trust each other, don't necessarily get along, with shades of grey rather than black and white. That goes back to the wargaming roots of the hobby, and has pretty much been a thread throughout all editions of Greyhawk. Beyond that (okay, and the love of Darlene's map), I think it starts to break down. To some it's human-centric, while others see it as a traditional D&D panoply. But that baseline, as @teitan mentioned, is a pretty meaty hook that easily crosses generations.



I agree on draconians != dragonborn. Tinker gnomes, gully dwarves, and kender should be present in Dragonlance, but there's no way around it - they need to be reworked to eliminate the problematic tropes inherent in them. I don't know that they're core to the Dragonlance experience, but they are part of it, certainly.

I think someone would need their nostalgia goggles fused to their eyes to disagree the TG, GD and kender do not need a rework.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The scros need a new and different new, it sounds as scrotum, and it is a horrible name.

Or, they keep it, because who the heck makes that connection?

 

[Dioltach]

Or, they keep it, because who the heck makes that connection?

Whoever thought of the name should have been sacked...

 

[Mind of tempest]

Whoever thought of the name should have been sacked...

it is like the town from that terrible movie.

 

[The Glen]

Whoever thought of the name should have been sacked...

Probably the same guy that gave us the nilbog

 

[Quickleaf]

I know there have been more recent surveys about campaign settings, but the last one I bookmarked was from 2015 by Mike Mearls: D&D Monthly Survey | Dungeons & Dragons

Have any of WotC's more recent surveys changed up what Mike described in 2015?

I seem to remember seeing Birthright in something from last year? Which AFAICR was new in the conversation about reviving D&D's settings.

The popularity of settings in the survey fell into three distinct clusters. Not surprisingly, our most popular settings from prior editions landed at the top of the rankings, with Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and the Forgotten Realms all proving equally popular.

Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Spelljammer all shared a similar level of second-tier popularity, followed by a fairly steep drop-off to the rest of the settings. My sense is that Spelljammer has often lagged behind the broad popularity of other settings, falling into love-it-or-hate-it status depending on personal tastes. Greyhawk and Dragonlance hew fairly close to the assumptions we used in creating the fifth edition rulebooks, making them much easier to run with material from past editions. Of the top five settings, four require significant new material to function and the fifth is by far our most popular world.

(A few people asked about Al-Qadim in the comments field, since it wasn’t included in the survey. The reason for that is because we think of that setting as part of the Forgotten Realms. Why did Kara-Tur end up on the list, then? Because I make mistakes!)

 

[Mind of tempest]

Probably the same guy that gave us the nilbog

I heard we got those from white dwarf so super unlikely.

 

[The Glen]

I heard we got those from white dwarf so super unlikely.

Twas a joke. There's a few old references that got changed because of what it sounded like. The city of Specularum was changed to Mirros because of what it sounded like. In Latin it means Watchtower. But people couldn't stop snickering even if they knew what it meant

 

[Mind of tempest]

Twas a joke. There's a few old references that got changed because of what it sounded like. The city of Specularum was changed to Mirros because of what it sounded like. In Latin it means Watchtower. But people couldn't stop snickering even if they knew what it meant

yeah, not seeing it.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Or, they keep it, because who the heck makes that connection?

Maybe because Spanish language is my mother tongue, my naive languange. It is sounds as "escroto", the Spanish word for scrotum.

Did you know? The name of the Lone Ranger's friend, Tonto, was changed into "Toro" ( = bull) because in Spanish language "tonto" means "dumb". Or a Kagami, a character from "Prodigious: the adventures of Ladybug and Cat Noir) in the Latino Spanish the name was changed into "Agami" because Kagami sounds too much as the Spanish verb "cagar" ( = sh*t).

 

[Mecheon]

Is it though? I was talking with my son yesterday (he is 20) and he was saying that he has been thinking about playing D&D again, but he wants to do it in Game of Thrones style. I think Greyhawk could be brought back to fill that niche. Possibly, I don't really know too much about the setting.

Honestly though I'd say that'd be square peg, round hole. Ironically D&D has a setting that'd launch it very much to that style of playing but, it isn't Greyhawk. Its Birthright.

The fact folks are talking about very specific settings here and I think I'm the first to bring up Birthright shows how popular that setting was.

Greyhawk's problem is it moreso has to try to stand out against other settings with its own niche. That nations at war/powderkeg feeling? Unfortunately Eberron and Wildemont already got that one going on spades, and the latter also has the boost of one of the most popular D&D streams. As a fantasy land? FR's gone and done that

Greyhawk needs a niche for them to do a full setting book. I suspect any Greyhawk stuff will just be more like Saltmarsh, little bits and pieces of Greyhawk being updated that could also be pried off of Greyhawk easily and slotted into other worlds. Those little "Can grab and use anywhere" things are what WotC seem to be enjoying at the moment, especially with Candlekeep, so I suspect that's how they'll procede

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Greyhawk needs a niche for them to do a full setting book. I suspect any Greyhawk stuff will just be more like Saltmarsh, little bits and pieces of Greyhawk being updated that could also be pried off of Greyhawk easily and slotted into other worlds. Those little "Can grab and use anywhere" things are what WotC seem to be enjoying at the moment, especially with Candlekeep, so I suspect that's how they'll procede

To be fair, I actually think Ghosts of Saltmarsh captured a lot of the appeal of Greyhawk. It felt like a much more low-magic setting, where the PCs are the best heroes around. Although there are plain evil threats like Sahuagin, there are also more nuanced conflicts with the nautral lizardmen and corrupt town council. This is not a golden age, but a world in decline, where the forces of darkness will likely win by just waiting for the nations of good to falter and weaken under their own squabbles and greed.

It reminded me a lot of the Witcher, or Game of Thrones (specifically the Arya/Hound stuff), where the problems are a bit more grounded and local. Not for everyone of course, but I think there is a lot of appeal there for folks.

 

[TheSword]

I don't believe Dark Sun will come back without a massive overhaul. It's a setting with slavery and exploitation at the core of civilized living.

And those things are explicitly recognized as evil and wrong, and perpetuated by bad and evil leaders.

I have no problem with slavery in game, gladiators, conscripted labourers, slave soldiers etc as long as I’m trying to defeat the b’stards who are doing this to people.

There is a reason newly freed Tyr was the main campaign setting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And those things are explicitly recognized as evil and wrong, and perpetuated by bad and evil leaders.

I have no problem with slavery in game, gladiators, conscripted labourers, slave soldiers etc as long as I’m trying to defeat the b’stards who are doing this to people.

There is a reason newly freed Tyr was the main campaign setting.

Dude.

Just because you profoundly do not understand that there is a problem does not mean that there is not a problem.

You could not just bring back Dark Sun "as is" from 2E or even 4E and expect it to be well-regarded. Muls, for example, whilst perhaps a "cool concept" in 1992, are actually a synthesis of a bunch of horrifically racist stuff when it comes down to it. And with slavery, just making it a case of "well they're the baddies so it's fine" is really not getting it. If you're centering slavery in the way earlier versions of DS did, you need to engage with it in a more complex and serious way than D&D really allows for, I'd suggest.

 

[TheSword]

Dude.

Just because you profoundly do not understand that there is a problem does not mean that there is not a problem.

You could not just bring back Dark Sun "as is" from 2E or even 4E and expect it to be well-regarded. Muls, for example, whilst perhaps a "cool concept" in 1992, are actually a synthesis of a bunch of horrifically racist stuff when it comes down to it. And with slavery, just making it a case of "well they're the baddies so it's fine" is really not getting it. If you're centering slavery in the way earlier versions of DS did, you need to engage with it in a more complex and serious way than D&D really allows for, I'd suggest.

Okay. That’s you’re opinion. There are lots of really bad things that happen in games. Genocide, invasion, human sacrifice, piracy, murder, mass starvation, and world ending destruction.

I believe that Muls need a re-work. The name is far too close to the dated and offensive and should just be replaced with half-dwarf just like half elf and half giant.

In principle though I see no problem being able to explore issues of slavery in a game context. Provided the game isn’t encouraging or enabling that behaviour. Odyssey of the Dragonlords had Minotaur slave gladiators The PCs are strongly encouraged to free at least one of them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Okay. That’s you’re opinion. There are lots of really bad things that happen in games. Genocide, invasion, human sacrifice, piracy, murder, mass starvation, and world ending destruction.

I believe that Muls need a re-work. The name is far too close to the dated and offensive and should just be replaced with half-dwarf just like half elf and half giant.

In principle though I see no problem being able to explore issues of slavery in a game context. Provided the game isn’t encouraging or enabling that behaviour. Odyssey of the Dragonlords had Minotaur slave gladiators The PCs are strongly encouraged to free at least one of them.

See, your example is proving my point.

You're talking about a setting where slavery is not common, not everyday, not centered or focused on, and acting like, because it technically had a scene involving slavery, that's the same as a setting built around slavery.

This is what I'm trying to get across to you: that's not the same. That you think it is, is demonstrating a problem in your thinking (imho of course). It's making you unable to comprehend the premise that other people are working from. Even if those others are wrong, you don't even get where they're coming from.

Genocide, invasion, human sacrifice, piracy, murder, mass starvation, and world ending destruction.

Okay, make a game setting that centers genocide, holocaust-style genocide, or even Rwanda-style genocide, in the way that Dark Sun centers slavery, and see how that works out for you, eh? Because it's not going to work out well. I can't think of any games that center on-screen "mass starvation" or even human sacrifice in that way, and murder and invasion are so vague as to be meaningless. Piracy seems pretty randomly thrown in there - "You wouldn't download a car!". World-ending destruction is averted, generally speaking. Settings are either set before it, or after it, and I guarantee any one set in the utter misery of "during" in it, when it's not possible to avert, would not do great.

To be clear, I'm not saying you're not entitled to an opinion here. I'm saying you literally don't understand what the objection is here, and once you do understand it, then your opinion could be a lot more useful.

 

[Mecheon]

in the way that Dark Sun centers slavery

I think here's where we're having the disconnect, as I'd argue very strongly that Dark Sun doesn't centralise slavery. Its a setting element, yes, but a central one? You can very easily have adventures in Dark Sun where it will never come up. I would not call it a central element in Dark Sun at all.

World-ending destruction is averted, generally speaking. Settings are either set before it, or after it, and I guarantee any one set in the utter misery of "during" in it, when it's not possible to avert, would not do great.

That's Dark Sun's whole thing. The world is dead and there's people trying to make it worse. You have the chance to stand up against them and make it better. Its Mad Max or Conan. Honestly there's a good argument for enviromentalism being a strong theme in it.