WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
Also I think new Ravenloft is better than the old one.

why-would-you-say-something-so-controversial-yet-so-brave.gif
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vaalingrade

Legend
I shall inform you this is not true. It’s very much Spelljammer, and is an ok product. It’s main flaw is that it’s short and does not go quite as into detail as it should. Basically it could have used another 30 pages or so.
It's like a pretty good issue of Dragon Magazine themed around Spelljammer.
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph
I get why you might want Eberron and Athas to be remote, but that shouldn't mean they are never accessible.
I feel like part of Eberron's appeal is how integrated everything is. In other settings, guidance frequently was along the lines of "cross-planar adventures should be higher tier than starting adventures" (obviously, except things like Planescape) but when they showed up it felt like an afterthought. On Eberron, manifest zones ensure players will be aware of planar shenanigans early on, and keep being aware of them. Adding other planes into the mix kind of messes that up.

For instance, in Eberron, researchers have tracked some of the souls of departed, and they went to Dolurrh; it's not exactly clear to them why or how and it's difficult to research. The foremost researchers on the phenomenology of death were in House Vol, and there aren't any left anymore. In Planescape, souls go to an afterlife for the most part based on the god they worshipped. There's a lot of in-universe lore about how and why it works that way. It fits in pretty well with Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, but it drastically reduces a part of Eberron's unknowability. It changes its cosmology if both Eberron and Planescape coexist.

Really, deep down, I don't want Wizards of the Coast to cross the streams because of a particularly obnoxious FR fan who sat at my Eberron table at a convention and really, really, really wanted to bring Elminster into Sharn.
 




Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I must admit, I appreciate your consistency in the notion that you'd rather see a setting dead and buried than have one note of it changed.
I can easily see how this sentiment would arise.

A DM takes a published setting and uses it, maybe changing things about it and almost certainly advancing/updating its lore to suit the story and results of that campaign. During or after this, WotC also updates the setting; only those updates don't agree with the homebrew updates and lore changes. So, when the DM goes to re-use that setting there's a conflict between what lore-wise players think they know and what the DM expects them to know (the original version) plus what he wants them to know (the in-game updates from previous campaigns).

And, homebrew updates aside, there's also a case to be made that a DM should only have to buy a setting once; and not be expected to re-purchase it each time it's to be used solely in order to stay abreast of the lore updates.

Lay the setting down, sort it out, get it right, release it, and then leave it alone and go on to making the next one. Put another way: release the setting as a single snapshot in time, with at least enough history given to explain how things got to the point of that snapshot, and stop there. Do NOT be tempted to "officially" update or revise it later.

Instead leave it to each individual DM/table/campaign to bring that snapshot to life and determine through play where things go from there.
 

Scribe

Legend
Lay the setting down, sort it out, get it right, release it, and then leave it alone and go on to making the next one. Put another way: release the setting as a single snapshot in time, with at least enough history given to explain how things got to the point of that snapshot, and stop there. Do NOT be tempted to "officially" update or revise it later.

Absolutely.
 

Do NOT be tempted to "officially" update or revise it later.

The “temptation” comes in the form of (“hardcore”) fans of particular settings calling for them to be updated (with consistent lore) only to then be upset when they do release it but it’s not as they imagined. For example, many people seem to want a comprehensive forgotten realms setting book for 5e, a setting that is not exactly wanting for available lore! Meanwhile, If wotc releases a new setting like radiant citadel or an mtg setting, people complain about it not being a classic setting.
 

Incenjucar

Legend
As a Planescape fan who has just... not dared to look directly at Faction War, I see good reason to leave settings as-is and to just update the rules and flesh out new details. Advancing the timeline is fine to do in novels, and to have as timeline supplements (going into the past or alternate timelines, as well!), but the core setting should be frozen as its base at the most interesting time to be in that setting.
 

As a Planescape fan who has just... not dared to look directly at Faction War, I see good reason to leave settings as-is and to just update the rules and flesh out new details. Advancing the timeline is fine to do in novels, and to have as timeline supplements (going into the past or alternate timelines, as well!), but the core setting should be frozen as its base at the most interesting time to be in that setting.
As a Planescape fan who came into the setting with Shemeska's Planescape Storyhour and the Planewalkers' fan-update for 3/3.5e (both of which are set post-FW), I've never seen much reason Planescape can't function just as well after the Faction War as it does before.

The Factions being "banned" from Sigil doesn't mean they're banned from Planescape entirely - they can still be quite relevant to the setting and the people who live in it.
 
Last edited:

Micah Sweet

Legend
The “temptation” comes in the form of (“hardcore”) fans of particular settings calling for them to be updated (with consistent lore) only to then be upset when they do release it but it’s not as they imagined. For example, many people seem to want a comprehensive forgotten realms setting book for 5e, a setting that is not exactly wanting for available lore! Meanwhile, If wotc releases a new setting like radiant citadel or an mtg setting, people complain about it not being a classic setting.
If you're not going to update with consistent lore, I personally would prefer either a straight mechanical update or no update at all.
 

As a Planescape fan who has just... not dared to look directly at Faction War, I see good reason to leave settings as-is and to just update the rules and flesh out new details. Advancing the timeline is fine to do in novels, and to have as timeline supplements (going into the past or alternate timelines, as well!), but the core setting should be frozen as its base at the most interesting time to be in that setting.
With words like that, you should prepare to face an all out assault by the Greyhawk Wars fandom!
 

Incenjucar

Legend
As a Planescape fan who came into the setting with Shemeska's Planescape Storyhour and the Planewalkers' fan-update for 3/3.5e (both of which are set post-FW), I've never seen much reason Planescape can't function just as well after the Faction War as it does before.

The Factions being "banned" from Sigil doesn't mean they're banned from Planescape entirely - they can still be quite relevant to the setting and the people who live in it.
Unless they're planning to hire the Shem-ster, though... I don't doubt that it can be done well, and I'm all for supplemental timeline advancement being made available, but I think keeping the original timeline as the campaign core with a possible history is ideal. Same goes for FR and the various magic catastrophes, Dark Sun and the freeing of Tyr, etc.
 


If you're not going to update with consistent lore, I personally would prefer either a straight mechanical update or no update at all.

I'd prefer they just work on new stuff too, but every time they put out something new there are people who are upset that they aren't remaking a classic setting. Like, I'm not even sure they would've been interested in doing spelljammer except for the constant "spelljammer confirmed" jokes.

"Visionary" leadership as requested by the OP would not be to cater to the long term fans, but rather to ignore them and purposely do something new and creative. I thought this post from a few years back got a lot right on that front

But I also think it needs to be acknowledged that there is a segment of the D&D fanbase that is relentlessly and exclusively nostalgia-driven. If you go on the forums, you can find long, breathless threads discussing the possibility that Spelljammer, which hasn't been in print for 25 years and was of marginal popularity at the time, is coming back for 5e (I mean, really. . . . Spelljammer?) They want D&D to be exactly the way it was when they first started playing, or the way it was in some particularized era.

All of which leaves D&D in a very strange place visa ve the tabletop role-playing hobby as a whole. On the one hand, you have this explosion of games and game companies with very clear and strong creative agendas. This includes not just the "indie" scene, but also a dozen or so "mid-major" publishers--Chaosium, Modiphius, Pelgrane, Free League, Monte Cook Games, etc.--that are in my view producing products every bit as innovative as what is coming out of the indie space. Even Paizo, say what you will about them, took a big swing with Pathfnder 2e creatively. And then you have D&D, as popular as it has ever been but adrift creatively, and maybe more to the point not appearing to be trying creatively.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I'd prefer they just work on new stuff too, but every time they put out something new there are people who are upset that they aren't remaking a classic setting. Like, I'm not even sure they would've been interested in doing spelljammer except for the constant "spelljammer confirmed" jokes.

"Visionary" leadership as requested by the OP would not be to cater to the long term fans, but rather to ignore them and purposely do something new and creative. I thought this post from a few years back got a lot right on that front
Quite frankly, after Ravenloft I have no desire for WotC to re-make classic settings. I would in fact prefer that they don't.
 

Quite frankly, after Ravenloft I have no desire for WotC to re-make classic settings. I would in fact prefer that they don't.
I think the common view (which i confess to sharing) is 'I want WotC to re-make those classic settings that I personally like in a way which i personally approve of, while also creating new settings that also cater to my personal tastes'.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I think the common view (which i confess to sharing) is 'I want WotC to re-make those classic settings that I personally like in a way which i personally approve of, while also creating new settings that also cater to my personal tastes'.
I suppose that's true, but I truly no longer want WotC to re-make classic settings anymore. I'm glad Dragonlance turned out to be more or less ok, but Ravenloft burned me on WotC. I would ask them to open settings up to DMsGuild, and that's it.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
Although there's no way to make everyone happy, opening up everything on DMs Guild and focusing on new settings instead would mean that, in theory, every setting could get serviced while retaining WotC's connection to the different trademarks.

I would probably pick up a 5E Manual of the Planes, but I would prefer an Eldraine setting to a Planescape re-release, for instance. (And Planescape fans may well be the most opinionated fans of an older setting. I have a hard time seeing WotC being able to make more than a large plurality of them happy.)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top