Updated Settings: Advance or Reimagine?

[kenmarable]

This is a tough one for me, and to some extent depends on each setting.

I think I'm much more in the "keeping it largely the same, just update the rules" camp for most settings. 4e Forgotten Realms didn't interest me at all. However, 4e Eberron is looking to fit what I thought was my ideal, but when considering the new campaign guide, I'm looking at all of the great 3.5 Eberron setting books they made and am wondering if the 4e book is worth it or not. (The setting book, not the Player's Guide. That one is great because of the new crunch.)

So I'm torn. On the one hand, I don't want them to massively change the settings. But on the other hand, when they don't massively change the setting, I see little point in buying the new book (only given my gaming budget is much tighter than it used to be). However, I may buy it anyway just to show support for Eberron because I love that setting, I just find it harder to justify those kinds of purchases recently - especially with so much great setting material still unexplored by me from 3.5.

It does change a bit when looking at the older 2e settings however. Now this is personal preference only but I'd love a Planescape that is perhaps advanced to some degree, but still true to canon. But with Dark Sun, I could give a rat's tooshie about canon and would love a dramatically reimagined setting that was truer to the spirit and mood of Dark Sun than to any of the existing canon. Same thing with Spelljammer (like that would ever happen anyway!). Forget everything that came before and make a great new setting from scratch that fits the overall theme and don't worry about setting history. As for any settings beyond that, they wouldn't interest me so I don't have any opinion.

Looking at the 2e settings, I think my opinion of "stay true" vs. "reimagine" is directly proportional to my knowledge of the existing canon, unfortunately. I know Planescape very well and would hate to see any of it jettisoned. However, for Dark Sun and Spelljammer, I just know the basics and the "feel" of the settings and am more interested in those. So it's just my personal biases.

But, for me, the stay true vs. advance a lot vs reimagine debate definitely has a different answer for every setting.

 

[JeffB]

Really depends on the setting, AFAIC

Certain ones ,like FR & DL which have strong ties outside the P&P game, I think benefit from the major overhaul/advance (EDIT- I say this from a gaming perspective-the dread canon baggage issue that crops up)

Others I think would benefit best from a re-set (Greyhawk, Mys..err..The Known World).

Others like Planescape, Dark Sun, and Ravenloft probably don't need much work- and Eberron didn't really either.

However, I think shoehorning everything into the 4E cosmology and "world system" is not a good idea (despite that fact with few exceptions I love 4E's re-imagining of said cosmology and "world system").

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

This is almost exactly what I was going to say. It depends on the setting. FR should advance; DS and Eberron should not (or at least not much).

 

[Derulbaskul]

The biggest lesson from FR is... DON'T MAKE A MAP THAT SUCKS!!! OR BLOWS CHUNKS!!!

I think a lot of the hate that remains is because the map is so profoundly and inexcusably bad.

I like the idea of going back to the beginning but including the 4E elements. I would have liked to have seen this for FR as well (although I like the new version... except for the map) and I think it was the right choice for Greyhawk. Dark Sun would work better, IMO, if it was reset to the first set. I'm not sure if Dragonlance can be revamped because it really is the one world where all the stories are told (and the gully dwarves and kender prove that someone was channelling George Lucas).

I don't think that dragonborn, eladrin etc... MUST be a part of any revised setting. Sometimes a setting should be about what is left out as much as what is kept in (like Midnight).

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm not sure if Dragonlance can be revamped because it really is the one world where all the stories are told (and the gully dwarves and kender prove that someone was channelling George Lucas).

I could write a dozen new Dragonlance novels and still not run out of ideas for stories that retain the Dragonlance themes and continuity. I categorically deny that the setting's worn out and needs to be rebooted, but if it must, I have a pretty good idea how, when, and where to do that. And it still wouldn't invalidate the backlist.

The problem, as always, is that Dragonlance fares better as a fiction line and not nearly as well as a game line. Or, rather, that most D&D players would rather play in another world instead of attempt to play in Dragonlance, even if they like to read the books.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[ki11erDM]

I think this depends more of if you generate more revenue from D&D book sales or fantasy novel sales with that world.
With FR it would be a very daring thing to throw out decades of novels and start over… with Greyhawk not so much.

With that said I want a reboot of Dragonlance… something that would be hugely daring… and thus unlikely.

 

[Desdichado]

Neither. Settings are the RPG products that, relatively speaking, are the least reliant on the rules. They're mostly fluff. Once I've read a setting book, adjusting it to a new edition means most of it is going to be redundant no matter which option you use.

I'd issue new settings, designed specifically for the new rules. And, for setting lovers, I'd release small(ish) perfect bound books that give rules updates to the setting, to bring them over into the new edition without having to rewrite the setting, either as an advanced one or as a re-imagined one. If that means Forgotten Realms doesn't really have a place for dragonborn, and they have to be worked in as unusually exotic foreigners of some kind, I'm OK with that.

Keep in mind, though, that I'm not really a setting lover. I don't attach myself to settings. I don't use settings, per se. I read them, and enjoy doing so for its own sake, and then I raid them for ideas and nuggets that I can use in my homebrew. So my preferences are probably a corner case, not a baseline anyone could build a business plan around.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

Agreed. I want no meta-plot. I want settings like HarnWorld. HarnWorld's timeline hasn't advanced since the day that it first saw print, despite being one of the most detailed fantasy settings ever.

The problem (as I see it) with many D&D settings is that, back in the day, TSR made the decision at some point in time that each new supplement or novel should actually change the setting (as opposed to potentially changing the setting) and this later evolved into the trap of meta-plot taking precendence over PCs when it came to shaping official settings.

The idea that a timeline must be moved forward (or, indeed, exist at all) in order for a publisher to detail a ficitional setting is balderdash. Likewise, so is the idea that all official products must be viewed as actual events in the setting, rather than as potential events that a consumer can employ as they se fit.

Give me a static setting with a load of supplements that are descriptive rather that prescriptive, and I'll be happy.

 

[Dragonhelm]

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.

I think that depends on what works best for the setting. In Greyhawk's case, it seems all the setting's woes came from advancing the timeline too much and making too many changes. Resetting the setting and preserving the feel may work better here.

I also think it depends on whether or not the setting has an ongoing novel line. If it does, then you don't want to upset your novel readers by making their books "invalid." You're better maintaining continuity here.

 

[an_idol_mind]

In Greyhawk's case, it seems all the setting's woes came from advancing the timeline too much and making too many changes.

I think that Greyhawk and other settings suffered not from an advancing timeline, but from poor products. While the 2nd edition area had a lot of gems to it, it also had a lot of garbage. In Greyhawk's case specifically, the powers that be practically made destroying the setting a priority.

A lot of the meta-plots introduced in various settings probably could have worked well with some better production values. I doubt the Time of Troubles would have gotten as much flak, for example, if the modules hadn't been so terrible. Similarly, some of the revelations of the Dark Sun novels might have been better received had the Prism Pentad not also totally killed off most of the cool parts of that setting.