D&D General What are the "dead settings" of D&D?

[Lanefan]

Things that expand the rules mechanically for players and DMs.

Those to me are not the priority in a setting guide. I want the guide to tell me about the physical-cultural-historical aspects of the setting itself, i.e. do all that grunt work for me so I don't have to do it.

For example, Ravnica provides rules for factions and guilds. Ghosts of Saltmarsh provide guidelines for naval/sea encounters. Eberron provides new races and the Artificer class. What will a FRCS book give me apart from listing all the women that Elminster slept with?

You can rest assured that Elminster's scorecard wouldn't be in any FR book I ever wrote.

As for the rest of those examples, while all cool stuff they should IMO be collected in a rulebook, not scattered across setting guides; as any of those things - particularly the naval combat stuff - could and IMO should be seen as setting-agnostic.

Telling me setting info is its own reward will not cut it as an answer because that's what wikis are for.

Wikis, in my experience, are both useful and useless at the same time.

Useful in that in theory they have loads of information. Useless in that you've often no idea how accurate (or in this case, 'official') any of it is, unless you refer back to the given source.

Further, wikis are online; a drawback to old-schoolers like me who don't have a computer behind the screen (and my phone browser is hopeless ) nor really anywhere to put one.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Wikis, in my experience, are both useful and useless at the same time.

Very true. There are whole pages on Radishes in the Forgotten Realms wiki, but barely any information on many other more important topics.

 

[Aldarc]

Those to me are not the priority in a setting guide. I want the guide to tell me about the physical-cultural-historical aspects of the setting itself, i.e. do all that grunt work for me so I don't have to do it.

But you are not publishing the book. WotC is. So we need to look at the sort of materials that WotC likes including in 5e setting books. And surprise!, but no 5e setting book exists solely as an info dump about the setting without some additional perks.

As for the rest of those examples, while all cool stuff they should IMO be collected in a rulebook, not scattered across setting guides; as any of those things - particularly the naval combat stuff - could and IMO should be seen as setting-agnostic.

Except that is how WotC has been publishing a number of setting books for the past odd five years, so I don't see a FRCS book bucking this trend. So excluding setting info dump materials, what additional tools for 5e could a FRCS book provide?

 

[Hoffmand]

I would like a setting book to be all about the setting. But if they throw some archetypes in their custom built for a setting that can be adapted to other settings and a few spells it will probaly sell better. Throw in a few monsters, magic items, and a cool NPC write up and it is a must have book for everyone.

eceryone?

not me I ain’t buying that crap

okay, almost everyone.

 

[Voadam]

So excluding setting info dump materials, what additional tools for 5e could a FRCS book provide?

Chosen, Mythals, Spellfire, Thayvian circle magic, Wild Magic from the 1e to 2e transition, Spellplague, FR specific monsters, races, subraces, spells, magic items, and subclasses (the subclasses based on kits or specialty priests or prestige classes or paragon paths from prior FR editions).

 

[Parmandur]

Chosen, Mythals, Spellfire, Thayvian circle magic, Wild Magic from the 1e to 2e transition, Spellplague, FR specific monsters, races, subraces, spells, magic items, and subclasses (the subclasses based on kits or specialty priests or prestige classes or paragon paths from prior FR editions).

All of which pulls the near hat trick of being very specifically Realmsian, but also useable outside of the Realms.

 

[Blue Orange]

Having just joined the thread it is amusing to read all the earlier posts saying Ravenloft is dead. (The bats have left the bell tower, the victims have been bled...) Well, it's now UNdead...appropriately...

I'm guessing the multiplicity of settings in 2e (which I liked, I thought they were very creative) were seen as splitting the brand too much and they decided to narrow it down (too bad!).

Seems like they're mostly pushing FR now, from what I can see.

 

[TheSword]

I would put Birthright in the dead setting list.

Wasn't that popular first time around, no active groups in any sort of numbers.

They have until this day an active website birthright.net and there have been conversions for every edition. At one point last year there were 1,800 users on the website so I would say you are talking out of your fundament here.

Birthright was awesome. You just needed the right group to play in it to its full extent.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I am afraid that I must regretfully disagree. IMO settings that are no longer actively supported and published by the owner are dead. They are worse off than editions no longer supported and published by WotC because there is no OGL/access point for them. What substitutes for these settings on DMsGuild is more placation than anything else, to wit, Greyhawk isn't even included (nor do I see it ever being included). The idea that Greyhawk is in "limbo" or "frozen," for example, is a distortion of reality, a wishful and wistful thought long sipped at because it forestalls the bitter taste of reality.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Meaning, which settings--published by TSR, WotC, or even third party specifically for D&D (e.g. Judge's Guild's Wilderlands of High Fantasy) that are essentially "dead," meaning with no active or ongoing campaigns anywhere? At least beyond the occasional one-off ("Hey, remember Ghostwalk? Let's play that tonight!"). Purely speculative, of course. Or to rephase: which settings would you guess have no active campaigns? Or at least, almost none?

We can use this Wikipedia page as a starting point, but feel free to discuss third parties. My guess would be to put them into the following categories:

• A - Significant active campaigning: Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Exandria, Ravnica
• B - Large cult following: Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Planescape, Ravenloft, Nentir Vale, Mystara
• C - Small cult following: Blackmoor, Spelljammer, Birthright, Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, maybe Council of Wyrms
• D - Little or no active following ("Dead settings"): Pellinore, Jakandor, Ghostwalk, Dragon Fist, Mahasarpa, Rokugan, maybe Council of Wyrms

I think you could shift some of B and C back and forth, depending upon how "large" and "small" are defined.

Notes on each group:

A: Obviously the FR belongs, as it is the default for most story arcs and the overall best-known and covered D&D setting that spans almost every era, especially if we count Ed Greenwood's first published Dragon article in 1979 (issue #30). Eberron was just re-published, Ravnica is still fresh, and Exandria is the new kid on the block and supported by the Critical Role behemoth.

B: Here's where it starts getting tricky. Greyhawk is a no-brainer: for most old-timers (grognards and quasi-grognards) it is "the" classic D&D setting. I'm guessing that Dark Sun, Planescape, and Ravenloft have enough of a following to qualify, probably Dragonlance too. I am less certain about Nentir Vale and Mystara, but think they belong here more than in C, but could probably be be convinced otherwise.

C: Again, tricky - depending upon where you draw the line between "large" and "small." Blackmoor probably has a very small player base, but both as the first D&D setting and because there's probably a small group of dedicated fans out there, it belongs here rather than as "dead." Spelljammer and Birthright weren't as impactful or as popular as Dark Sun and Planescape among the Golden Age of settings that was 2E, but both have a solid group of fans - at least Spelljammer. I'm not sure how many people are actually still playing Birthright, but it is at least enough in the public consciousness of old-timers that I think it earns its place. Similarly with Al-Qadim. Not so sure about Kara-Tur, but it earns inclusion as being part of the expanded Realms of 3E and later. I never owned or played Council of Wyrms and it doesn't seem like anyone talks about playing it, but it does get mentioned.

D: Pellinore? Exactly. But it existed. Jakandor and Dragon Fist were probably the least known and supported of the 2E settings. Rokugan is likely dead as a D&D setting, but I think it has a solid fan base for Legend of the Five Rings. Ghostwalk was a concept piece, the type of setting that people played once and were done; I highly doubt anyone is actively playing it, except as the occasional lark. Finally, Mahasarpa. I'm not sure it even qualifies as it was only published as a web enhancement, but I'm guessing no one is actively playing in it, except for perhaps James Wyatt and his group (no offense if you're reading this, James).

What do you think?

p.s. This is not meant as an attack on any of these settings! Popularity does not necessarily equate with quality. Just look at, well, music.

what on earth is dragon fist?