Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5793172" data-attributes="member: 59082">There are rumors flying that the default setting for Edition Next is going to be the Forgotten Realms (or, if Morrus has his way, Greyhawk). While I would love to see 5E treatments of many long-time favorites, my preference—and what I feel is the best advice for the health and vitality of 5E—is not to deeply support previously published settings, but to develop a new one with ongoing supplements. But let me take that a step further and present what I think will best support what we know of the 5E vision.     Some have proclaimed that the day of a deeply supported setting are over, that the endless supplements for the Forgotten Realms and Eberron in 3E didn’t bring in the desired profit margin. This, I think, is missing the point and potential of such products. Paizo’s model is proof that supporting a setting can and does work, but only if it in turn is a support of a more lucrative line, namely the Adventure Paths. I’m guessing that if Paizo did not publish the Adventure Paths then the Golarion books wouldn’t be profitable enough to publish.      Not only has Paizo proven that there is a place and purpose for publishing setting books, but that adventures can be successful, even wildly so. The Adventure Paths and Chronicles books support each other, feed each other; the latter brings to life the world around the former, which in turn gives meaning and purpose and, well, adventure to the latter. From a broader perspective they are, like bees and flowers, one organism: you can’t have one survive-and-thrive without the other.     If we can agree that Paizo’s model works and that WotC should either try to emulate it or come up with something similarly successful, then we can agree that some sort of setting should be supported. So the question is, which one? Fans are arguing over whether it should be the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or Eberron or even Planescape, with the occasional Mystara or Dragonlance fan chiming in. Let’s take a moment and look at the major TSR/WotC D&D settings, and when they were first introduced/published in a significant form. By “major” I mean those that have been one of the dominant settings for a period of time, and to some degree have received more than just a few ongoing supplements, and have existed across multiple editions. For those reading this, this is a judgement call on my part so don’t be offended if I don’t consider your favorite setting “major”; remember, “major” does not necessarily equate with “better” (props go to Blackmoor, Council of Wyrms, Al-Qadim, Jakandor, Ghostwalk, etc)…but I digress:     1980 – Greyhawk (1E, 2E, 3E)  1984 – Dragonlance (1E, 2E)  1987 – Mystara (BECMI)  1987 – Forgotten Realms (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)  1989 – Spelljammer (2E)  1991 – Dark Sun (2E, 4E)  1994 – Planescape (2E)  1995 – Birthright (2E)  2004 – Eberron (3.5E, 4E)  2008 – Nentir Vale (4E)     Let’s look at the same list in another way; below are the major editions of D&D (not including OD&D and B/X because neither of which had significant setting support beyond, say, the Blackmoor supplement):     BECMI – Mystara  1E – Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms  2E – Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, Birthright  3E – Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron  4E – Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Nentir Vale     Now the point of these lists is not to argue over minutia like “When exactly did Greyhawk start, 1975 or 1980? What about Mystara? Is it with Isle of Dread or the Grand Duchy of Karameikos?” The point is to look at these settings in their historical context, when they first were published and in which editions they were supported.      We could say that Greyhawk was the definitive 1E setting – when one thinks of 1E AD&D, one thinks of Gary Gygax and Greyhawk. The Forgotten Realms, while first published as a 1E product, is more associated with 2E and 3E; it certainly was the dominant “kitchen-sink” setting from the late 80s onwards, and possibly the most popular FRPG setting of all time. Eberron was very much a product of the 21st century, with its steampunk flavorings and edgy aesthetic (probably influenced by the Iron Kingdoms).      The Nentir Vale hasn’t really been developed beyond bits and pieces here and there; many, including myself, were disappointed when the Nentir Vale Gazetteer was shelved. Then there are the more theme-specific and flavor-heavy settings like Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Birthright, none of which has had the huge popularity to likely be under consideration for forming the default of the next iteration of D&D.     Which brings me to the focus of this piece. One question that the good people a WotC should ask themselves, perhaps the most important question, imo, is: What kind of setting would best bring 5th Edition to life?      To answer that we would need to know what the default flavor of 5E will be, what sort of atmosphere it hopes to create. We know that they want to bring (back) to life the “old school” feeling of earlier editions, but also support the style of every edition. This is a hard thing to do, especially in a single setting.      Which brings me to my recommendation, which is to take a two-fold approach:  1.       The 5E Default Setting – design a new setting for the new era of D&D, one that is based firmly in classic D&D tropes but, perhaps even the further geographically removed from the starting setting region, becomes more and more exotic. In other words, and this is the key, design the setting with the same considerations as the rules itself: classic, simple core with open-ended modular options. In other words, start with a classic sandbox region reminiscent of Nentir Vale or Shadowdale, then expand outward and, the further you go, the more exotic the setting becomes.   2.       Legacy Settings – Start with an article in Dragon that discusses the “settings of editions of yore,” then further detail each in further articles, spotlight articles, if you will. Assess the demand for each setting through polls and then give further support to those that require it, either through Dragon articles or, preferrably, short 64-page supplements. You don’t need to detail every nook and cranny, just give us the 5E treatment and, perhaps, a primer (see Paizo’s Golarion Gazetteer). Then, and here’s the kicker, bring back the PDFs and for a relatively inexpensive price. So, for instance, in the Dragon article that describes Birthright, give a list of products and a link to the Birthright page of the online catalogue (or work with RPGNow). For more popular settings, add in a 64 or 96 page sourcebook that better facillitates 5E play in that setting.     To put the above in a different way, you’d have three levels of settings in 5E:     The new setting that will be fully supported and in which most adventures (and Adventure Paths) would be set. The exact details aren’t important but I would imagine a quarterly schedule with a new setting expansion book and adventure path each quarter.     Legacy settings would all receive initial mention in a Dragon article, and then a follow-up spotlight article, and then further support via PDFs. The more popular settings would receive a conversion supplement  and at least an adventure or even a shorter adventure path, with a new legacy setting released either once per quarter or twice per year.     This, in my opinion, is a best-of-both-worlds approach. No, it won’t make diehard fans of specific campaign settings ecstatic, but it will at least give some support to older settings and continue to break new ground. Game groups can choose to stay “core” and play in the default setting, or they can sample the different worlds.</blockquote>

Verification