D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[Minigiant]

They very much do, at least insofar as they can measure this kind of thing (and they can better than us).

I don't agree

For example, I teach friends who want to be DMs a simple way to make their first setting: National archetypes

• The Empire
• The Kingdom
• The Rebellion
• The Republic
• The Theocracy
• The Other One

Stick them on a continent. Then devise the populations, religions, relations with each other, with monsters, etc

My point is if WOTC were to do this an perhaps made the Empire majority Dragonborn and the Republic Human and Goliath, and the Theocracy being fiendpact warlock devil worshippers, the plurality of the 2024 5e buying customer base would say that is cool.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't agree

For example, I teach friends who want to be DMs a simple way to make their first setting: National archetypes

• The Empire
• The Kingdom
• The Rebellion
• The Republic
• The Theocracy
• The Other One

Stick them on a continent. Then devise the populations, religions, relations with each other, with monsters, etc

My point is if WOTC were to do this an perhaps made the Empire majority Dragonborn and the Republic Human and Goliath, and the Theocracy being fiendpact warlock devil worshippers, the plurality of the 2024 5e buying customer base would say that is cool.

And I would tell them to start with small county-sized region, or maybe an island, and not worry about other counties or even a national government at the start - such things rarely affect the lives of ordinary people or 1st level characters.

What do you do when WotC give advice, and you don’t like it?

Seems to me that “pretend it doesn’t exist” is the usual answer, judging by how many comments on these forums ignore the advice in the current DMG.

 

[BenjaminPey]

I don't agree

For example, I teach friends who want to be DMs a simple way to make their first setting: National archetypes

• The Empire
• The Kingdom
• The Rebellion
• The Republic
• The Theocracy
• The Other One

Stick them on a continent. Then devise the populations, religions, relations with each other, with monsters, etc

My point is if WOTC were to do this an perhaps made the Empire majority Dragonborn and the Republic Human and Goliath, and the Theocracy being fiendpact warlock devil worshippers, the plurality of the 2024 5e buying customer base would say that is cool.

I couldn't agree less.
National archetypes are a tired way to build and present a setting. There are many, mny more ways, starting with some which don't rely on any kind of pseudo-encyclopedic knowledge. The radiant citadel and its, well, radiant way to present multiple micro-settings, to start with, is very much "in line" with what could be perceived as the "new" audience.

 

[TiQuinn]

It cannot be a nothing burger when no one is positing it as a problem.

Glad we agree there’s no problem here.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Glad we agree there’s no problem here.

Okay??

Was that seriously the entire reason you even replied to me?

I never even implied the existence of a problem. The OP asked what we would prefer if wotc made a setting that is built upon the themes and assumptions of 5e. That does not imply a problem.

 

[TiQuinn]

Okay??

Was that seriously the entire reason you even replied to me?

I never even implied the existence of a problem. The OP asked what we would prefer if wotc made a setting that is built upon the themes and assumptions of 5e. That does not imply a problem.

Dude, you quote-replied me first to tell me how different 5e is from 3e and 4e, completely ignoring the fact that 5e is no longer the current edition of the game. I’ve got nothing for you here.

 

[mamba]

They don't produce settings with the base material assumptions and social contracts of 2024 5e books and the mentality of its customer base.

they just released two FR books, while they do not meet your idea of what a setting should be like, I do not consider your take universal

All the species are present, some more frequently, some less so, but nowhere do the 5e rules say that they are all equally split and equally distributed everywhere.

As far as mentality of the customer base is concerned, I am far from convinced that there is a unified one

 

[Hex08]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Any number (literally) of things could make a theoretical new setting unique. The only constraint is "if it is in 5.5E, it is in this setting" -- just like Eberron did with 3.5. it doesn't mean the setting would be limited to that, or that it somehow had to use all the adventures and stuff that came before.

This a pretty long thread so this may have been brought up already but I don't think D&D 3.5's default setting, at least at publication, was Eberron. A quick glance at the list of deities in the Player's Handbook seems to indicate it was Greyhawk. Greyhawk didn't see much in the way of supporting material but the Forgotten Realms & Eberron saw a good amount of support but neither seem to be the default.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This a pretty long thread so this may have been brought up already but I don't think D&D 3.5's default setting, at least at publication, was Eberron. A quick glance at the list of deities in the Player's Handbook seems to indicate it was Greyhawk. Greyhawk didn't see much in the way of supporting material but the Forgotten Realms & Eberron saw a good amount of support but neither seem to be the default.

I never had the 3.5 rules but the default setting for 3.0 was Greyhawk. I assume they commissioned Eberron because Greyhawk was not popular.

 

[Reynard]

This a pretty long thread so this may have been brought up already but I don't think D&D 3.5's default setting, at least at publication, was Eberron. A quick glance at the list of deities in the Player's Handbook seems to indicate it was Greyhawk. Greyhawk didn't see much in the way of supporting material but the Forgotten Realms & Eberron saw a good amount of support but neither seem to be the default.

This thread is not about a default setting.