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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Wow, so basically its completely arbitrary?

I explained why I ranked things the way I did, now, twice. It's a ranking.

Do you have either:

A. Objective definitions of "significant," "active," "large," "small," or "cult?"

B. Current real-world information regarding the campaigns being played that you can use to "rebut" what I thought was a fun ranking?

If not, you kind of seem like a jerk spoiling for a fight?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I explained why I ranked things the way I did, now, twice. It's a ranking.

Do you have either:

A. Objective definitions of "significant," "active," "large," "small," or "cult?"

B. Current real-world information regarding the campaigns being played that you can use to "rebut" what I thought was a fun ranking?

Re: A, do you? If not, why use them? All it does is mislead. Especially with category A. Category A has an objective definition - 5E D&D settings currently in print by WotC. That is 100% of what A is. So calling it "significant active campaigning" is straight-up misleading. We have no idea.

Re: B, no, but you were the one who said I was wrong because all I had was anecdotes, whilst literally saying you were basing your list on anecdotes.

It'd be fine to say "Well its my list, so my anecdotes count, yours don't!". I'd have laughed, but you can't say "I don't use anecdotes" and literally then turn around and say your opinion on GH is due to your own anecdotal evidence!

If not, you kind of seem like a jerk spoiling for a fight?

PKB, mate You're the one who was initially rather rude and dismissive to what were merely suggestions. I wasn't saying CHANG UR LIST NOW FOOL, I was saying "I don't think that's quite right" and asking about the methodology (which I'd missed). But you treated it as the former.

And I think a genuine issue remains, which is that you have a clear double-standard by your own definitions with Ravenloft/Greyhawk in 5E. Both are actively played in 5E because there's an AP set there (and I suspect groups stay with those settings post-AP to some extent).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Re: A, do you? If not, why use them?

Because it's from the OP. I copied the format of the original post in this thread. I assumed it was obvious.

You really do like to argue? Okay. I'm not the person for it.

And no, no smiley emoticons. I think you were being hostile, and I don't care to engage with whatever issue it is that you have.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because it's from the OP. I copied the format of the original post in this thread. I assumed it was obvious.

I thought you came up with it, my apologies. That's why I was arguing with you specifically.

 

[Voadam]

All settings are dead to me. I home-brew only.

In the 80s-90s I used to buy a lot of setting boxes, modules and novels for inspiration but I don't do that anymore.

The only setting book I bought for 5e was Sword Coast. I've resisted all other temptations so far. I do buy generic 5e books like Xanathar's.

I would buy a Greyhawk (+Blackmoor) setting book if it there was enough meat around the bone and a nice map.

Lack of setting books and dead settings are a non-issue for me.

I'm the opposite but get to the same conclusion.

My 5e home-brew is a mashup of at least elements from a dozen settings (Golarion, Ptolus, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Eberron, Freeport, Hamunaptra, Spiros Blaak, Diamond Throne, Scarred Lands, Forgotten Realms, Nentir Vale, Warhammer, Melnibone, Airdhe, and others).

I've got the 5e Eberron setting book and the MtG PDFs and tons of material from other editions and non-D&D sources.

I find settings interesting and I am interested in getting more but I also have more than I will ever read so "Lack of setting books and dead settings are a non-issue for me."

 

[Parmandur]

Right? I mean, later Dragon is nowhere near as wild and wonderful as earlier Dragon (and this was very late, from my perspective), but it was fantastic to have content like this coming out EVERY MONTH. I mean it seems almost unimaginable now, right? And in a big glossy magazine you could lay around and read? Even digital stuff isn't remotely giving you that sort of content/month, not in a collected, well-edited, presentable format. I'm sure if one follows a few blogs and reads a few reddits, one can collect as much material, technically, and perhaps even of the same standard, but it's just not the same, to go around gathering up bits and bobs, as it was to receive a big honking magazine you could read on the soft or whatever.

I got so many good ideas from Dragon and Dungeon back in the day (and saw quite a few bad ones that made me go "Well now I know I definitely do not want to do that!", too!), and there was so much fantastic art. Which is the one thing D&D is bizarrely missing today - fantastic art. It's not like there isn't tons and tons of it out there. WotC themselves put out insane amounts of fantastic art via MtG, but D&D art for 5E just isn't great, as a whole, I think I've discussed this before, despite the odd good piece. Dragon had a lot of bad art, but it also had a lot of really good stuff, really inspiring stuff, too.

Go figure on the art: 5E is my favorite edition for art style, though I've enjoyed art from every edition on it's own terms. Whenever I get a new book, my 5 year old son flips through and drinks in all the art.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

You know, I thought that maybe it had been a part of an existing D&D setting, but couldn't remember which. All I could remember about it was that the signature red steel had magical and detrimental effects, and that it came with a CD.

Red Steel is a part of Mystara, a 2nd edition expansion.

One thing that strikes me is just how many settings there have been for D&D, official and third party. It drives home the line from the Oracle fanzine reprint that "Dungeons and Dragons is a machine for creating more Dungeons and Dragons."

 

[Parmandur]

One thing that strikes me is just how many settings there have been for D&D, official and third party. It drives home the line from the Oracle fanzine reprint that "Dungeons and Dragons is a machine for creating more Dungeons and Dragons."

I'm pretty sure the 5E basically says something like that...

 

[atanakar]

I'm the opposite but get to the same conclusion.

My 5e home-brew is a mashup of at least elements from a dozen settings (Golarion, Ptolus, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Eberron, Freeport, Hamunaptra, Spiros Blaak, Diamond Throne, Scarred Lands, Forgotten Realms, Nentir Vale, Warhammer, Melnibone, Airdhe, and others).

I've got the 5e Eberron setting book and the MtG PDFs and tons of material from other editions and non-D&D sources.

I find settings interesting and I am interested in getting more but I also have more than I will ever read so "Lack of setting books and dead settings are a non-issue for me."

LOL!

That is what I did in the 90s. A big mash up of FR, Mystara, Greyhawk, Al-Qadim and Spelljammer influences.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Ghostwalk is an oddity in that it doesn't need to be it's own "setting" and can be associated with any other setting as an add-on. You can also combine it with a Planes book like Open Grave or a Necromancy book or Shadowfell or a variety of other combinations. And it's a self-contained book - you can add it to an existing setting and it needs no other materials outside that book for support.

Given all those factors, I'd say it's still in the running as more than "dead" for 5e. I can see how it could fit well with the 5e model.