That's all nice in theory, but there's a big problem: those names sell. That's why we keep seeing sequels, prequels, reboots, and rehashes (plus star vehicles for the likes of Pitt, Cruise, Tarantino, Spielberg...) That's why Disney just bought Lucasfilm, why we're getting a new trilogy of "Star Wars" films, and why we'll all go trooping off to see them in the cinema, even after the epic disappointment that was the prequel trilogy.
Yes, and it saddens me because it points not only to the creative limitations of the entertainment industry, but the simple fact that the people want the same old stuff rather than new and fresh ideas (or at least they want more of the same old, and are very conservative about the new). The good thing is that eventually the new does come out - there's always a breakthrough, a new vision.
I'm as excited to see Star Wars 7-9 as anyone else, and I think there's a precedent for "continuing the story." What I find artistically deplorable is more along the lines of the recent Star Trek movies
, which lacked both originality and the "special spark" that the original cast had in spades and the Next Generation had at least a flavoring of. As far as I'm concerned, William Shatner
is James Tiberius Kirk. Ricardo Montalban
is Khan. Benedict Cumberbatch was actually a pretty good villain, but he wasn't Khan (to me).
Now I understand that
Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't primarily marketed to 40-year old mild trekkies like myself, but a Gen Texters for who
Wrath of Khan would seem outdated and boring, but why steal ideas from it? Why not come up with something new? And, for that matter, why not create a whole new cast of characters - please both old and new fans alike by starting a fresh vision, a few decades after the
Next Generation, and have Picard show up and break a bottle of champagne on Enterprise F or G or whatever comes after the
Next Generation? Why always recycle the old?
Now Bond is a different matter. Rebooting Bond makes sense rather than trying to go with the adventures of agent 008. Each actor creates their own unique, culturally relevant version. I like the fact that Daniel Craig's Bond is very diferrent from Connery's or Moore's. "Bond" is the archetype, just like "Star Trek" or "the Enterprise" - so there can be new versions, new takes. But James Tiberius Kirk? There can only be one, and that's William Shatner.
When it comes to settings, WotC could try out a new setting, and they might manage to catch lightning in a bottle and hit on something that becomes as big as the Forgotten Realms. But, much more likely, they'd get something as big as Spelljammer, or Birthright, or... something that does well enough for a while, but isn't really a huge seller long-term.
Or, they can put out a new version of FR, and be guaranteed big sales. Probably not as big as last time, and it probably won't be as well received as last time (well, okay... the time before last), but probably better than "the next Birthright" would do.
And given that it costs the same to do the one as to do the other, they choose the safe option.
(And, of course, that's why 4e was "Dungeons & Dragons", and not just some new fantasy RPG, and why 5e is going to be "Dungeons & Dragons". And 3e, for that matter.)
Yes, I agree with you. But that doesn't mean I have to like it!
It might be a risk/reward thing. Going with the Forgotten Realms is (relatively) safe. With the ornery gamer populace they're going to piss
someone off, but at least they're going to sell X-amount of campaign setting books.
All that said, since my original post, and from reading the various viewpoints of others, I think WotC should take this approach:
1) Have no specific default setting in the core rulebooks, but draw from different settings. In other words, the default setting should be the Platonic "D&D World" that is the archetype for all other settings. They can still cite specifics from different settings--and foster the spirit of inclusivity that they're seemingly going for with 5e--which would add flavor, but I also like the idea of keeping it open. In other words, instead of offering only a list of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms gods, why not have a section in the
Dungeon Master's Guide on how to build your own pantheon, and then give examples from different world mythologies and fantasy settings? Sort of like a mini
Deities & Demigods?
2) Reboot the Forgotten Realms in a more classic Greenwoodian way. Of the classic D&D settings, FR seems the most popular and the most palatable to the widest number of people (With apologies to Greyhawk, which is good but marred by silly in-joke names like "The Grand Duchy of Geoff" and other Gygaxian anachronisms which are nostalgically pleasing to those over 35 or so, but maybe a bit off-putting to those who don't remember Tears for Fears or
Close Encounters of the Third Kind). Anyhow, the key is to do it big, do it well. Look at the grey box and 3E hardcover and try to take a step up from those.
3) Follow up with one-offs of other classic settings - really nice box sets or hardcovers, or ideally both: A hardcover campaign setting and a box set mega-adventure to show "how its done" in said world. While you're at it, throw in that
Nentir Vale Gazetteer or, better yet, a Nerath book.
4) Have some kind of column in Dragon like "World of the Month" that features the campaign world of different submissions. Perhaps at the end of each year, there's a compilation product, and maybe the world voted by readers as the favorite is awarded its own book.
I think the key point that I'm not willing to let go of is that while I'm not at all opposed to seeing glossy 5e treatments of classic settings, I really hope that WotC doesn't stop there. Both as a "setting junky" and as someone interested in creativity and imagination, I like to see fresh ideas - not just nostalgic reboots, again and again and again....