D&D 4E WotC's 4E Setting approach - was it a mistake?

[AllisterH]

It's an abomination.

In essence it abandons settings because the support isn't being provided in print, and it's not being provided via the e-zines in any worthwhile amount. That's going to harm those settings value as IP in the longterm IMO.

???

If you do 3/4 and out, you at least make sure people are more likely to pick up all the books of the settings...AND you keep the other settings in view.

If WOTC for example, was producing FR/Eberron stuff every month, would it make sense even to print Darksun?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think it is the best way, too much canon is off putting. Outside of organised play or a novel line I do not see why it matters what the canon is anyway.
Any groups campaign si going to go off canon at some point anyway expect in a group that is only participating in organised play.

Even in that case, I suspect organised play canon will at some poitn diverge from the novel line unless there is some very rigourous control. I don't know as i have never participated in organised play over a sufficiently long peroid.

 

[Nymrohd]

I don't know if they should be publishing more books. I played and bought FR heavily in the past and often I was wondering why the 3E and 3.5 books often got good reviews. I've seen many people rave about the Shining South for instance. Well surprise 30% is a reprint! The regional books of 3.5 FR were all reprint to a very large extent. Entire paragraphs, nay entire pages in some cases were just copy pasted from 2E books. I understand the point of reprinting material but not with that price tag and no acknowledgement thereof . . . rant end.

 

[giant.robot]

I'll echo the sentiment that the current model for published settings better follows my buying habits. I'm likely to buy a Campaign Setting and Player's Guide but far less likely to buy Cobblers of Baldur's Gate. Once you get out of the high level details of a CS book and into locale specifics you're getting into material tha simply is not useful at the gaming table. Such books are like a coloring book that comes from the store mostly filled in, each page only has a small portion left blank for you to color.

One of the best D&D books I've ever owned is the Dungeon Master's Design Kit. It's like D&D Madlibs. It let's you build dungeons and whole adventures by rolling dice and looking things up in tables. It doesn't cover any setting specific minutiae but instead strings a bunch of hooks together to build a surprisingly cohesive narrative. What I really want from new CS books is DMDK sections with setting specific entries in the tables. I'd settle for a list of 101 adventure hooks specific to the setting.

I have dozens of Forgotten Realms books and while they have proven to be filled with interesting fiction I've used very little of their contents in actual games. Part of this is the books don't have a nicely presented list of adventure hooks and the end of a chapter so it's up to you to take meticulous notes on various derails. I just don't have that kind of time. Second is back to the coloring book analogy, the Forgotten Realms setting just feels too colored in. It's not quite Dragonlance colored in (where you played a specific named character) but it was pretty close. I think this is why FR jumped ahead a century in 4E. There was too much published fiction to keep the setting straight with. Dark Sun saw this as well, the 4E setting doesn't bother sticking with the published canon of the Prism Pentad and I think is much better off for it.

Splatbooks are fine but I don't want or need an encyclopedia of the setting. I want adventure hooks in the flavor of the setting. I want material that helps me build campaigns that are unique to the setting, stuff made possible because I dropped $30 on the book. I think the 4E books have managed this for the mos part. You're given the Reader's Digest fluff and then some crunch unique to t setting. You can take any generic story, add on the setting's fluff, and voilà you've got a Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun adventure.

 

[vagabundo]

I think they could do with a bit more adventure/mod support, either digitally or in paperback.

 

[Zaran]

I think if they are going to have only one campaign book for each setting they need to be much bigger. They really shouldn't feel like Cliff Note versions of older settings. I think a GM shouldn't have to fish through older edition setting books because they remembered something and can't find it in the new one.

If anything, they should do more modules that are descriptive of the setting over the area they are set in. That way even if a GM doesn't use the setting they might still get the module for their own but the module really shines in the one it's set in. I did this with the Forgotten Realms adventures.

What I'd like to know is why was this changed in the first place. You can't tell me that they lost money on all the books they put out in prior editions.

 

[Danzauker]

I'd personally like to see more adventures devoted to a setting than generic supplements.

As other people said, I buy published stuff because I don't have the time to come up with adventures from scratch on my own. I feel a lot more comfortable in picking up a module, customize stuff, change the hooks, NPCs and place names, and not care about most of the maps, stat blocks and plot.

What I'd really like, would be an adventure path for published settings in DDI. I'd love a permanent feature which rotates adventures for DS, FR and Eberron, other than generic Nentir Vale and Chaos Scar.

Actually, with the next-to-be Ravenloft bringing the number of official settings to 4 (5 counting PoL), I would support having a THIRD "magazine" besides Dragon and Dungeon which focuses on adventures and stuff for other settings only.

Adventures are never enough.

 

[wedgeski]

I like it. There's a subtle psychological trick at work here which has tempted me into buying the settings books where I would probably not have if they were just the vanguard of a massive wave of supplementary material. I can see how it makes more sense for the long-term health of the game, as well.

I'm not sure how I'd feel if some hypothetical new setting, which didn't have years of system-agnostic fluff to fall back on, was treated the same way, though. I won't really know that until it happens.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I like it. There's a subtle psychological trick at work here which has tempted me into buying the settings books where I would probably not have if they were just the vanguard of a massive wave of supplementary material. I can see how it makes more sense for the long-term health of the game, as well.

I'm not sure how I'd feel if some hypothetical new setting, which didn't have years of system-agnostic fluff to fall back on, was treated the same way, though. I won't really know that until it happens.

I am hoping we get a setting like that soon. Brand new, and not Nentir Vale. It is nice, but it is not brand new.

 

[P1NBACK]

Speaking as someone who bought every single 3E Eberron book to come out, and someone who rarely buys 4E rulebooks (why? I have a D&D Insider account), but does buy the setting books...

I'd say I like the approach somewhat. I was kind of miffed by the Dark Sun player guide/campaign guide being put into one book. Honestly, I'd like to have seen a Campaign Guide, Player's Guide and Creature Catalog.

But, that's not the point.

My main point is, I'm fine with two or three books and out. But, I want more content, adventures, locales, NPCs, organizations, items, and other setting-specific stuff in D&D Insider.

They've done a pretty good job with Dark Sun. There's been a good deal of articles lately. But, I worry that that'll end. FR and Eberron haven't gotten a great deal of support that I suspected. Dark Sun may dwindle off after the "release honeymoon" is over.

The more settings released, the less resources they can devote to each in D&D Insider. It's a delicate balance.

So, in sum, I'm fine with 2 or 3 books for a setting (or, one larger book). But, give me more to fill in the gaps with D&DI.