D&D 5E Seriously, why no setting support?

[dave2008]

Logically, the former is just one of the lines of evidence; this is a theory about the nature of the major rules expansion people have been bandying about for awhile; Artificer getting those subclasses is something @mearls has discussed, in the very survey results in the OP of this thread even, they have talked about other settings, and explicitly said some of the UA material was made with other settings in mind, etc.

Evidence of what? Maybe a need more of the original tweet, I don't see how working on something with Torog (he is mentioned in the 5e Dawn War pantheon in the 5e DMG) relates to all of the other items. Or was simply that Mike is talking about something outside FR?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Evidence of what? Maybe a need more of the original tweet, I don't see how working on something with Torog (he is mentioned in the 5e Dawn War pantheon in the 5e DMG) relates to all of the other items. Or was simply that Mike is talking about something outside FR?

Pretty straightforward, he is working on something not FR in the context of the UA playtest for the Book of Content project, which ties in with a lot of what they have been saying elsewhere.

We'll probably get the specific reference to Torog on Monday...but the why is interesting. The "divine Warlock" class a few months ago focused on a specific Greyhawk god, and the Inquisitive was described as "being 100% designed with Ebereon in mind" a few months ago, so whatever they are making, setting support is part of the picture.

 

[Sunseeker]

Frankly, I don't think it's part of their design goals, and I just don't see the market for it.

Further, I really don't see the need. Maybe it's just me, but I'm comfortable in pretty much any edition of D&D with a couple sessions of warmup and a good players to help scrape the rust off. So I tend to play whatever setting I'm in the mood for in whatever edition I think has the most interesting version of it. But I play established settings VERY rarely. Ravenloft is about it when I think of "settings I'd like to run in the future" that I've played or run in the past. And I still have to convert a lot of that out of 2nd into 3rd, which isn't terribly difficult, just time consuming. I also don't "convert forward" running campaigns as many people here seem to do.

Beyond that, I've never honestly enjoyed any of the published settings. They're either "generic fantasy", "generic whacko fantasy" or "generic gritty fantasy" (which is really why Ravenloft is the only one that I give a loop about). I liked thematic elements from Dark Sun, but I'm not a huge post-apocalyptica fan enough to really get into it.

Worse I think, is the division. Everyone wants a different setting to get support. I want more Ravenloft support, someone else wants Eberron, someone else wants Dark Sun, another Greyhawk, etc.... and everyone wants these BIG comprehensive books that convert all the old material (decades of it in some cases) forward and that really just isn't marketable or even very realistic.

Honestly I think their "Guidebooks to ...." model for WOTC's MTG worlds is probably what people should expect in terms of support and probably all we're going to get.

 

[dave2008]

Pretty straightforward, he is working on something not FR in the context of the UA playtest for the Book of Content project, which ties in with a lot of what they have been saying elsewhere.

We'll probably get the specific reference to Torog on Monday...but the why is interesting. The "divine Warlock" class a few months ago focused on a specific Greyhawk god, and the Inquisitive was described as "being 100% designed with Ebereon in mind" a few months ago, so whatever they are making, setting support is part of the picture.

Got it.

 

[Parmandur]

Frankly, I don't think it's part of their design goals, and I just don't see the market for it.

Further, I really don't see the need. Maybe it's just me, but I'm comfortable in pretty much any edition of D&D with a couple sessions of warmup and a good players to help scrape the rust off. So I tend to play whatever setting I'm in the mood for in whatever edition I think has the most interesting version of it. But I play established settings VERY rarely. Ravenloft is about it when I think of "settings I'd like to run in the future" that I've played or run in the past. And I still have to convert a lot of that out of 2nd into 3rd, which isn't terribly difficult, just time consuming. I also don't "convert forward" running campaigns as many people here seem to do.

Beyond that, I've never honestly enjoyed any of the published settings. They're either "generic fantasy", "generic whacko fantasy" or "generic gritty fantasy" (which is really why Ravenloft is the only one that I give a loop about). I liked thematic elements from Dark Sun, but I'm not a huge post-apocalyptica fan enough to really get into it.

Worse I think, is the division. Everyone wants a different setting to get support. I want more Ravenloft support, someone else wants Eberron, someone else wants Dark Sun, another Greyhawk, etc.... and everyone wants these BIG comprehensive books that convert all the old material (decades of it in some cases) forward and that really just isn't marketable or even very realistic.

Honestly I think their "Guidebooks to ...." model for WOTC's MTG worlds is probably what people should expect in terms of support and probably all we're going to get.

On the contrary, they have consistently said that supporting these settings is an active design priority, same as with race or class support. They have asked us in surveys that verified the desire, and have said over and over mechanical support is coming. Now, they are working on a major mechanical update...and setting elements outside the FR seem to be cropping up. 2 + 2 = X, solve for X?

I think that you are right on signifanct fluff support, though: go to older books from DMsGuild, or they will release coffee table books without significant crunch.

 

[Sunseeker]

On the contrary, they have consistently said that supporting these settings is an active design priority, same as with race or class support.

I'm going to stop you right here. Companies say a lot of things. That's how they work. If investors or consumers get interested in the idea and tell them they'll throw money their way if they made it, those companies usually follow through on those things. We know WoTC isn't looking for investors, they're not even looking for new staff. And I think they know that actual consumer desire for campaign support is low, too low to justify any real support, at least any time soon. So in the meantime they'll continue to say things, ask questions and take the market's temperature. But nothing else.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm going to stop you right here. Companies say a lot of things. That's how they work. If investors or consumers get interested in the idea and tell them they'll throw money their way if they made it, those companies usually follow through on those things. We know WoTC isn't looking for investors, they're not even looking for new staff. And I think they know that actual consumer desire for campaign support is low, too low to justify any real support, at least any time soon. So in the meantime they'll continue to say things, ask questions and take the market's temperature. But nothing else.

Wizards says practically nothing at this point, so what they do say, and say consistently is meaningful. "we will provide support for settings beyond the FR" has been as consistant as their promise to bring the OGL to 5E; which, this time last year, people were insisting would never happen, and was just "something they are saying.". Then, they brought the OGL and the DMs Guild.

We don't know what they are working on bringing out; but still they are working.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I agree with Parmandur's theory on the BBoC, but I am not sure that will lead to much for the settings beyond the BBoC. The history of specialty settings from one edition to the next is full of a lot of heartache. Better to throw the settings some bones (like the BBoC) and let the sacred cows graze as they will.* If the D&D movie does Titanic business and they want to do D&D II: Dark Sun, there will be plenty of time to dust it off (and for Dark Sun fans to see Michael Bay ruin their childhood).

* Setting books tend to want to make changes to justify the book, and I don't think anyone wants to see Ebberon: Guess where the Spellplague Hit This Time or Dark Sun: the Gods have Come Back just so they can have a 5e source book.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree with Parmandur's theory on the BBoC, but I am not sure that will lead to much for the settings beyond the BBoC. The history of specialty settings from one edition to the next is full of a lot of heartache. Better to throw the settings some bones (like the BBoC) and let the sacred cows graze as they will.* If the D&D movie does Titanic business and they want to do D&D II: Dark Sun, there will be plenty of time to dust it off (and for Dark Sun fans to see Michael Bay ruin their childhood).

* Setting books tend to want to make changes to justify the book, and I don't think anyone wants to see Ebberon: Guess where the Spellplague Hit This Time or Dark Sun: the Gods have Come Back just so they can have a 5e source book.

Yeah, they've made a big deal of stepping away from metaplot; and without metaplot, there is not much to recommend a new version of a setting. They have emphasized that older edition setting books are perfectly usable with 5E, over and over. So, no traditional campaign guides seem likely...

Give the mechanics for the settings distinctives, open them up on the DMsGuild...that would be good business sense.