When is a campaign setting no longer relevant?

[kitsune9]

After a while, all settings become dated to some degree, whether in an RPG, on TV, or on the big screen. We've seen Star Trek go out of date technology-wise, yet the themes remain relevant. The latest reboot has shown that old settings can have new life.

What about campaign settings, though? Can they ever become irrelevant? Greyhawk and Blackmoor are the granddaddies of them all, yet do they still appeal to a modern audience? The Forgotten Realms became explored so much that those realms were no longer forgotten. Yet it has just undergone a major reboot to keep it fresh.

At some point, will the various settings no longer hold meaning for us? Would they be based so much in prior editions that they are a hard fit for the current edition? Are their themes no longer appealing?

At what point should a campaign setting be retired? Are some settings so eternal that they should never be retired? And what of their themes? Are those themes eternal, or are they dated?

Discuss!

I think if a setting appeals to someone, it hasn't run its course. Eventually all things do come to an end.

 

[Mallus]

Or are there things that are D&D-specific that you spotted in HP?

It's much more likely that the Potter universe is simply a similar kind of fantasy hodgepodge as D&D. I'd eat my pointed hat --not that I have one, mind you-- if J.K. ever ran a session of D&D.

 

[Storminator]

IMO, nevermind the relevance of Greyhawk, worry about the mythological resonance of the implied setting described by the PHBs. I think they're taking steps backward in this respect.

I have the exact opposite opinion. The Great Wheel always seemed completely contrived to me, whereas the 4e implied setting has the world created by titan and co-opted by gods. This seems much more mythological.

And 4e does a better job with fey than any previous edition. Those sorts of stories fit in much better and D&D is all about fitting in more kinds of stories at once.

PS

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D takes individual monsters of myth - Medusa, Pegasus, the minotaur, the hydra, the chimera, the sphinx - and turns them into races. Not quite sure why it does this, I would've thought in most cases one monster of a particular type would be enough for a campaign.

Personally I prefer individualised monsters as it makes them more interesting, and less of a known quantity to the PCs and world. Maybe that's too superhero-y.

 

[Voadam]

I don't know, I could see doing Twilight 2000 as a sort of alt history instead of as the dark and grim future possibility it was originally designed as. I could see playing a game of GURPS Y2K even though the time and apocalypse potentials have past.

I could see myself or new players using pretty much any setting for their gaming, be they currently offered and supported gaming settings, other or older rules based settings, or settings from various media. People use a variety of stuff they like for their games all the time, I don't see any reason for that to change. If people could adapt things like Middle Earth, Melnibone, and Battlestar Galactica to their AD&D home games I see no reason why Greyhawk could not be a fun setting for someone playing a high fantasy version of Vampire the Requiem, GURPS 4e, or a cybertechless 4e Shadowrun as their game system.

A setting is a setting and can be used for many games, its hard for me to conceive of them being "irrelevant".

 

[Bumbles]

I think if a setting appeals to someone, it hasn't run its course. Eventually all things do come to an end.

Something a bit contradictory there?

But I think it's important to recognize a distinction between lingering appeal and ongoing viability. I'll use the car analogy. There are folks who love classic cars, right? They spent lots of money on them. It's a big appeal to some folks.

This doesn't mean you could be as big as the Big 3 were when they were making those cars. You might be able to have a cushy little job, and make a fair revenue, but that's not quite the same.

I think the same has happened with D&D and RPGs in general. Some things may linger, some success may occur, but yesterday is done, we're looking at a new tomorrow.

 

[OchreJelly]

With PoL, it's the first time I felt like I could run a campaign on an implied setting, rather than an explicit one. I'm not sure what that says, but I have been surprised that I've been able to get away with it for about a year now!

All this talk about how things can become dated when written from an earlier time reminded me of a great article on predictions of the year 2000 written in 1900. It's both striking and humorous...

 

[Bumbles]

Oh my, how many are false, and how many are true. Some like 9 are spot on, while 21 and 22 make me laugh in how they're not quite accurate.

I'm a bit worried about number 16 though.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Prediction #28: There will be no wild animals except in menageries.

Working on it.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I have the exact opposite opinion. The Great Wheel always seemed completely contrived to me, whereas the 4e implied setting has the world created by titan and co-opted by gods. This seems much more mythological.

Not to mention the additions of an underworld of the dead, and a fairy world.