Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 3774232" data-attributes="member: 18">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.</blockquote>

Verification