What's the best way to adapt a setting to a new edition?

[Ruin Explorer]

Personally, I voted other, as I like "reboot" more than any of those options. I.e. the current "state of the setting" is abandoned, and the setting is "re-imagined", based on the same basic concepts, but in a more up-to-date way, much like Battlestar Galactica, the Marvel Ultimates, the nWoD reboots, and so on. This is by far the most likely to produce a new "popular" setting, I would suggest.

"Setting changing events" are a risky move, more risky than an outright reboot, I'd argue, because there's less, how to put this, less "sucked back in" effect. With a "setting changing event", you can often hear or read a potted version of the event, sigh in disgust, and ignore the changed setting. Particularly so if the setting has had many "setting changing events" before.

With a reboot, people who have already abandoned the setting for various reasons will be tempted to take another look, and even those who might not like the idea will almost certainly by the core-book, and if your ideas are strong, and your re-imagining captures the essence of the setting, even the grognards may well love it. In other forms of fiction, this hs proven effective with both strong and weak characters, settings, and shows.

I would include any setting-change that takes the world back or fowards more than about thirty to fifty years as a "reboot", because the entire world has an opportunity for change and re-imagining.

Ret'con'ing is second-best, I'd suggest, because at least you're virtually certain to retain your extant player-base.

Just leaving a setting alone is fine, but not exactly a way to drive sales.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm normally pro-retcon, but for the 4E transition, since there's a PSE (Praemal Shaking Event) detailed in one of the Ptolus modules anyway, we're just going to use that as a moment where everything changes. (Monte says everything changes because of it anyway, but leaves the details up to the DM.)

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Personally, I voted other, as I like "reboot" more than any of those options. I.e. the current "state of the setting" is abandoned, and the setting is "re-imagined", based on the same basic concepts, but in a more up-to-date way, much like Battlestar Galactica, the Marvel Ultimates, the nWoD reboots, and so on. This is by far the most likely to produce a new "popular" setting, I would suggest.

"Setting changing events" are a risky move, more risky than an outright reboot, I'd argue, because there's less, how to put this, less "sucked back in" effect. With a "setting changing event", you can often hear or read a potted version of the event, sigh in disgust, and ignore the changed setting. Particularly so if the setting has had many "setting changing events" before.

With a reboot, people who have already abandoned the setting for various reasons will be tempted to take another look, and even those who might not like the idea will almost certainly by the core-book, and if your ideas are strong, and your re-imagining captures the essence of the setting, even the grognards may well love it. In other forms of fiction, this hs proven effective with both strong and weak characters, settings, and shows.

I would include any setting-change that takes the world back or fowards more than about thirty to fifty years as a "reboot", because the entire world has an opportunity for change and re-imagining.

Ret'con'ing is second-best, I'd suggest, because at least you're virtually certain to retain your extant player-base.

Just leaving a setting alone is fine, but not exactly a way to drive sales.

Ooh, I voted 'world changing event', but I like this idea. Of course, I have nothing invested (campaign/game-wise) in any of the published settings.

 

[drothgery]

I voted for 'either could work', but I'm hoping for just a retcon in Eberron. My sense is that it's probably easiest to alternate between a retcon and a world changing event every other edition. Eberron's far too new to get stuck with a world-changing event, so it should just get a retcon (and we can shrink Khorvaire down to the size Kieth intend while we're at it).

 

[Li Shenron]

Completely ignore it.

A setting should be indipendent of the rules of the game, which should serve the setting and not the other way around. So if a new, better or different ruleset comes out, you can make a book about how to use the new ruleset to support the setting properly. But you should not make a book about how to tweak the setting to support/justify the new rules.

Or in other words, rules are a tool, but the setting is the game and hence the purpose.

 

[Arnwyn]

Scrap the setting and start a new one tied to the new edition.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I vote completley ignore it. If any "retcon" is necessary, it just needs a handwave, and nothing specific. People understand that there was a rule change. They don't need the rule change hammered into their setting, since they understood it took place because of things outside the setting.

I mean, if I can run a setting designed for 3E which features a complex Magocracy and constant divine intervention under the Iron Heroes ruleset, then a setting can withstand the 3E to 4E change without explanation.

 

[The Little Raven]

For example, why did WotC bother to change the FR cosmology in 3e? Just because?

Because shoehorning every single setting into the same, bland Great Wheel setup is stupid when you can expend a little effort and come up with a cosmology that fits your setting, ala the Great Tree.

After all, it was simply retarded that Dragonlance was forced into the Great Wheel cosmology, despite creatures from those various planes not existing in that setting (for example, why would the plane on which Gruumsh lives be a part of Dragonlance when there are no orcs?).

 

[The Little Raven]

Completely ignore it. The system shouldn't define the setting. Its common knowledge that Exalted's system was a tweaked version of the oWoD system (Storyteller System). In 2004 when WW launched the nWoD with a brand new system (Storytelling System), Exalted was not changed over and neither was 2E's version changed.

Actually, Exalted's system was a tweaked version of the Aeoniverse (Trinity, Aberrant, Adventure!) system, which was a derivative of the original 2nd edition Storyteller System. A small matter, but an important one, because the Trinity guys really deserve their due for the consistent target number mechanic and the effects it had on system balance.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I vote completley ignore it. If any "retcon" is necessary, it just needs a handwave, and nothing specific. People understand that there was a rule change. They don't need the rule change hammered into their setting, since they understood it took place because of things outside the setting.

Exactly. Listen to this man, folks.