Updated Settings: Advance or Reimagine?

[Oni]

The thread about a 4e Greyhawk got me to thinking about which is more important to preserve, the continuity and canon or the feel of a setting.

It made me wonder if the 4E Forgotten Realms might not have been better accepted if they had taken a different approach. They advanced the timeline so far as to relieve the burden of canon and yet still maintain it, while simultaneously making sweeping changes through huge world changing events to remold the setting to account for the idiosyncrasies of the new rules set. What if, instead, they had chosen to reimagine the setting to fit 4E, simply throwing out the canon that isn't to be specifically reincorporated and attempting to recreate the feel of the previous iterations, in essence attempt boil it down to what makes the Forgotten Realm, the Forgotten Realms. So say, instead of creating a world shaking event to include dragonborn, just treat it as a fresh start and write them in as through it were a new campaign setting without it having to go through some traumatic happening. Rather than killing off NPC's, change their level to make them less overshadowing, that sort of thing.

So in short, which is a better way of handling a setting when editions change? Advance the timeline with events accounting for changes, or reimagine it to conform to new rules while trying to maintain the general shape of what came before?

Reading my post I'm not sure, I'm being entirely clear but hopefully the general idea will get across.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I think I would prefer it if settings didn't advance, mostly because I hear people talk fondly about old versions and think they might have been on to something.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Rather than killing off NPC's, change their level to make them less overshadowing, that sort of thing.

I think that's missing the point.

Elminster isn't a problem because of his high levels. (He wasn't nearly optimized in 3e either. Lower-level parties could beat him easily, if it wasn't for the ridiculously-over-the-top Elminster's Evasion.) He's a problem (along with several other high-power NPCs) because of the way they're portrayed in novels, being nearly omniscient and far more powerful than rules-based characters are; there's no good reason why he isn't solving your problem.

Amazingly enough, WoW did at least one thing better than FR; not only did they give the high power heroes realistic flaws, they also let you know what they're doing! And made them an active part of the setting. Why can't Varian help you? He's leading the fight against the Lich King, that's why! He'll appreciate any efforts you make towards weakening the Lich King, as that helps his goal, but he isn't going to help you directly. And you don't need to come up with an excuse as to what he's doing.

(Not that WoW is perfect in that regard. Dang red dragons!)

So in short, which is a better way of handling a setting when editions change?

Depends on the setting. How much change does the setting need? A setting like Dark Sun (bring back those dead sorcerer kings) or Forgotten Realms needs a lot more change than a setting like Eberron.

 

[Harlekin]

Reimagine: Capture what is great about the setting without being bogged down by all the detail that has accumulated. Also provide a new perspective on the setting.

This gives all fans the best of all worlds: fans of the old version can use material from older editions, fans of the new version have something shiny and packrats get new material for their gaming dollar rather than a reprint of information they already purchased for previous editions.

 

[Bumbles]

Everything must remain the same while continually evolving.

And nobody will be happy anyway.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I'll repeat my opinion that some settings--namely, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance--can't be reimagined for business reasons. The big backlist novels give the impression of being a golden goose, and too many of them depend on continuity to the point that re-envisioning one of those settings would risk wringing said goose's neck.

OTOH, WotC has been seriously trimming both the new novels and backlist over the past year, so maybe this isn't as much of a concern as I would think.

 

[The Little Raven]

Personally, I prefer re-imaginings, so long as the people involved understand what actually made the property awesome in the first place (the Batman Begins series), or know how to take a flawed original execution and respin it to be totally awesome (Battlestar Galactica).

However, I do understand the needs of multimedia fans for continuity and products that rely on that continuity (like all the FR novels), so I'd say that it's something that needs to be carefully examined for each individual setting. For example, until they elected to reprint the Dark Sun novels, I'd have absolutely been of the mind that a re-imagining would be the only way to go because there weren't other DS products in print. Now, I think they need to think about keeping connections to those novels... but I still think re-imagining is the way to go with that setting.

(Not that WoW is perfect in that regard. Dang red dragons!)

In defense of the Red Dragonflight, they are singlehandedly defending Wyrmrest Temple from the Blue Dragonflight and any other threats (the other Dragonflights have ambassadors there, but no actual troops) and trying to reclaim the Ruby Dragonshrine from the Scourge (who is raising their own dead against them), and whatever they're doing at Grim Batol. They are stretching themselves perilously thin.

 

[Shemeska]

The thread about a 4e Greyhawk got me to thinking about which is more important to preserve, the continuity and canon or the feel of a setting.

It made me wonder if the 4E Forgotten Realms might not have been better accepted if they had taken a different approach. They advanced the timeline so far as to relieve the burden of canon and yet still maintain it, while simultaneously making sweeping changes through huge world changing events to remold the setting to account for the idiosyncrasies of the new rules set. What if, instead, they had chosen to reimagine the setting to fit 4E, simply throwing out the canon that isn't to be specifically reincorporated and attempting to recreate the feel of the previous iterations, in essence attempt boil it down to what makes the Forgotten Realm, the Forgotten Realms. So say, instead of creating a world shaking event to include dragonborn, just treat it as a fresh start and write them in as through it were a new campaign setting without it having to go through some traumatic happening. Rather than killing off NPC's, change their level to make them less overshadowing, that sort of thing.

So in short, which is a better way of handling a setting when editions change?

I think they should have made a new setting that was tailored to the idiosyncracies of the 4e rules and their flavor assumptions and restrictions rather than taking a prior setting like FR and changing it to the point of effectively having a new setting. The former would have been cool (and even if I didn't play it, I'd have enjoyed reading it), the latter just angered a lot of people who liked FR.

But between the two options you asked about, it really depends on the scope of the rule changes and any default flavor assumptions a new edition of the game pushes on settings. With 4e there are such a slew of changes to the rules and its base assumptions that the more organic 1e->2e->3e evolution isn't really possible if you want to assume that everything 4e core -must- be a part of a 4e FR, which clearly the design team was going for.

A reboot would have been less damaging to the setting. It still would have fractured the fanbase, but likely much less than the current situation.

 

[SKyOdin]

I vastly would prefer a reimagining of a setting than a timeline advancement of any kind. A campaign setting is defined by various overarching plot threads, themes, and organizations. As long as you hold onto those defining traits, you can freely tweak the details without impacting the feel of a setting. On the other hand, advancing the setting in order to maintain continuity poses a great risk of changing the central aspect of a setting for the sake of the less important details.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I think it should depend on the setting. Dark Sun, Greyhawk, and Eberron strike me as settings that don't need to be continually advancing. On the other hand, a large part of the appeal of the Forgotten Realms is the ever-changing world.

I think WotC had a decent balance in 3rd edition when they had Greyhawk (a bare bones sketch of a world with no advancing plot), Eberron (a much more detailed world but with a static timeline), and the Realms (a detailed setting with a continually advancing timeline, although the frequency of Realms-shaking events got a bit much at the end). A selection like that allows gamers to pick and choose what they want in a world. I don't see any reason why the game should conform entirely to one play style over another.