D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Lanefan]

My positive response is to the following idea.

Campaign settings need to be able to be extremely different from each other.

The DM needs to not only ADD desirable content but to completely ERASE undesirable content.

Not all options are applicable to every setting.

Or every game, and this goes back to time immemorial in terms for both rules and settings.

In 1e, look at how many nascent DMs took one look at weapon-vs.-armour-type and threw it out on the spot. How many of 'em threw out the great wheel and replaced it with something else. How many of 'em never gave experience for treasure. How many of 'em made up their own game worlds (including pantheons) from scratch.

Not all options are applicable to every game - I think we can all agree on that. But it's down to each DM to make of the game what he or she will, and sometimes that involves a lot of effort.

Lan-"and sometimes that lot of effort has to be done twice: once to suit the DM, then again when the players don't like it"-efan

 

[Sadras]

Campaign settings need to be able to be extremely different from each other.

The DM needs to not only ADD desirable content but to completely ERASE undesirable content.

Not all options are applicable to every setting.

Campaign settings can be extremely different from each other.
And yes agree with all the rest you said, but I just don't believe we should be entitled to all their intellectual property just so we may create our homebrew handbook (despite how much I would like this personally).

 

[Aldarc]

It's been sussed out in numerous threads on ENWorld and admitted to as much by Mearls and Co, backed by research data done by WOTC before they bought TSR and attested to by the woman that ran that data (who now is at Paizo and Pathfinder). I'm not saying anything new. Not sure what's slippery about that, or what white knighting is.

And I see that WotC died as a company after publishing Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ghostwalk, and Eberron in 3E. Then they completely died again whenever they published Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, and some Nentir Vale supplements in 4E. Oh, and remember the time that 5E's continued existence was threatened by the publication of Ravenloft? The idea that 5E publishing settings would sink the D&D's ship once and for all is a slippery slope argument written in gross hyperbole. A lot of the problems that you allude to here in this post were not the publication of the settings themselves, Kahless, but of other issues surrounding either the business practices, licensing (e.g., 3e OGL), or edition-warring of WotC and TSR.

 

[Lanefan]

And I see that WotC died as a company after publishing Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ghostwalk, and Eberron in 3E. Then they completely died again whenever they published Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, and some Nentir Vale supplements in 4E. Oh, and remember the time that 5E's continued existence was threatened by the publication of Ravenloft? The idea that 5E publishing settings would sink the D&D's ship once and for all is a slippery slope argument written in gross hyperbole. A lot of the problems that you allude to here in this post were not the publication of the settings themselves, Kahless, but of other issues surrounding either the business practices, licensing (e.g., 3e OGL), or edition-warring of WotC and TSR.

Before this goes too far:

Those examples are all of setting books published in addition to (or on top of) an existing PH-DMG-MM trio. What was being proposed here was a complete rewrite of the PH for each setting...the setting book would replace the PH outright for games in that setting, rather than be an add-on to a neutral base PH. Thus, while (I assume) the DMG and MM would remain neutral and constant there'd ultimately be 3 or 5 or 8 PH's, one per setting and a no-setting version for homebrewers.

And this would be divisive...instead of edition wars there'd be setting wars. No thanks.

Lanefan

 

[Aldarc]

Before this goes too far:

Those examples are all of setting books published in addition to (or on top of) an existing PH-DMG-MM trio. What was being proposed here was a complete rewrite of the PH for each setting...the setting book would replace the PH outright for games in that setting, rather than be an add-on to a neutral base PH. Thus, while (I assume) the DMG and MM would remain neutral and constant there'd ultimately be 3 or 5 or 8 PH's, one per setting and a no-setting version for homebrewers.

And this would be divisive...instead of edition wars there'd be setting wars. No thanks.

Lanefan

My misunderstanding then. That is indeed way too complicated and unreasonable as a business option for WotC, much less any tabletop RPG company.

 

[Maxperson]

Players: Does the Great Wheel still exist?

DM: Yes. That doesn't require multiple gods at all.

Does the Astral Plane still exist?

DM: Yes. Why would you ask that just because I only have one god in my setting. What does that have to do with what I said?

How does the Astral Projection spell work?

DM: Yep. Didn't change it.

Do Drow still worship Lolth?

DM: Sure!

How do Angels and Eladrin work?

DM: Just like before. I'm sure you're bright enough to figure out that it's one god, not gods when you read about them.

Is an Aasimar race possible? Commune spell? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

DM: (Becoming annoyed at questions that don't need to be asked) Why wouldn't they be?

The 5e Players Handbook hardwires into an extremely specific cosmological setting. It hardwires into the 5e version of Forgotten Realms.

Considering quite literally nothing you mentioned had to be changed or was a no, it's not hard wired anywhere. Give yourself and your players some credit. You can easily figure out that if there is one god in the setting, any references to "gods" is reduced down to one.

 

[Maxperson]

Issue 2) worse RoI as each one has a limited target audience but full cost

Further, the vast majority of the rules will be the same from setting to setting, so he's asking people to pay multiple times for 90%-95% of the same stuff. It's best to just put the few rules changes in the setting itself and keep the PHB MonoD&Distic.

 

[Aldarc]

Can we just go back to hating on the Realms please?

 

[pemerton]

That is indeed way too complicated and unreasonable as a business option for WotC, much less any tabletop RPG company.

This is fairly close to how Margaret Weis Productions did Marvel Heroic RP.

 

[Shasarak]

My misunderstanding then. That is indeed way too complicated and unreasonable as a business option for WotC, much less any tabletop RPG company.

Is that not exactly what Fantasy Flight Games has done with their Star Wars books?