|
Post by Fiona on Jan 26, 2014 11:21:26 GMT -8
A big draw for me with D&D has always been the worlds themselves. Like a lot of 2nd Ed beginners, the Realms and Krynn were two big worlds I came into the hobby through, and I've followed them even while my life took away from table top (I missed 3E completely thanks to several cross country moves and other real world complications that like to drive a wedge into one's hobbies). That said, I returned to table top at the tail end of 4E just in for Dark Sun to have been resurrected, and I enjoyed the sourcebook very much. I'm curious as to the fates of some of these properties in regards to 5E. And so I'd like to ask to those of you better informed, can you give me any word you may have caught in regards to any of the potential future settings? I'm sure the Realms will be there, we've all heard about the Sundering (aka: We f'ed this up just like Krynn back during the Saga Rules crap now we gotta fix it), but what about Eberron? Greyhawk? Dark Sun? Hell, what's up with Mystara these days? Thanks in advance to anyone who chimes in.
|
|
argoyle
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 53
|
Post by argoyle on Jan 26, 2014 11:52:54 GMT -8
They've stated that they want to support all the popular settings, and have included Kender and other setting specific races in the test packets. Does appear that Forgotten Realms will be getting the majority of the focus at launch, but Weis and Hickman have proposed a new Dragonlance series and supported building campaign material.
Not sure about Mystara, but they have re-released Mystara source material via their classics page.
|
|
|
Post by Fiona on Jan 26, 2014 12:20:38 GMT -8
Oh my god I would so love to see Weis and Hickman return to Dragonlance. I know it's popular to hate on that series now, but Krynn has always been dear to me, and I'm always happy to see the core writers at work on anything related to it.
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Jan 26, 2014 13:19:27 GMT -8
I don't know about the future settings, but think Greyhawk should have been at the top of their list. I mean it's the original setting and D&D is 40 now. Bring it back.
|
|
|
Post by Fiona on Jan 26, 2014 14:57:46 GMT -8
I actually have never played a game in Greyhawk. But lately I've been fascinated with these old settings. I learned about the Red Steel in the Savage Coast of Mystara and was absolutely fascinated. Seems like so much wasted potential to see these old, rich settings just be brushed aside to make way for the next new thing.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 26, 2014 21:12:32 GMT -8
No inside knowledge here, and I can't provide specifics as to why I think this, but I suspect that their plan with 5e is very much like that of 2e. I think they're going to concentrate more on settings than they have the last few editions.
|
|
|
Post by Fiona on Jan 26, 2014 21:59:22 GMT -8
I am hopeful that your suspicions are proven correct, ayslyn
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Jan 27, 2014 5:17:46 GMT -8
5th edition FR gets a revamp with Dragons coming heavily into play. The Cult of the Dragon has refocused to bringing Tiamat into the world. The Tyranny of Dragons: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dnd/tyrannyofdragonsAlso yea... I found Greyhawk too bland for my tastes. Never run it or played it but I have read some material of it.
|
|
|
Post by Fiona on Jan 27, 2014 9:08:46 GMT -8
A setting is only as bland as the GM makes it at the table. Greyhawk and classic style fantasy are awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 28, 2014 7:31:17 GMT -8
A setting is only as bland as the GM makes it at the table. Greyhawk and classic style fantasy are awesome. The beauty of GreyHawk was that it was just 'a setting': the fluff, style/theme and events of any greyHawk campaign were exactly that 'up to the GM' . . . this was it's great strength (especially those of us who ignore the GreyHawk Wars outcome as prescribed 'canon'. GreyHawk Wars was a half hearted attempt to make GreyHawk more like the Forgotten Realms by having an 'authorised' metaplot to drive the setting forward . . . GreyHawk diehards tend reject it 'as written' because it was so counter intuitive to what Greyhawk was supposed to be (ie: YOUR GreyHawk unique and distinct from anyone else). I'm using the GreyHawk Wars campaign conflict rules (painstackingly recontructed from pdfs . . . try cutting out 100+ individual double sided chits :/ ) but the outcome will depend on what the PC's do and how the GreyHawk Wars 'game' plays out (the 'canon' outcome? I didn't even bother to print that booklet). If WoTC decide to resurrect GreyHawk for D&DNext I hope they do a total reboot and turn the clock back to 576CY . . . Hommlet is still a Village, Iuz is rebuilding his Kingdom, Ivid the Mad still sits upon the malachite Throne and Lendore is still an Isle of mysteries (not some strange freaky Elven fairy land without rhyme or reason other than the responsible designer having a fetish for the Grey Havens from LoTR) Aaron BTW GreyHawk itself should be given a decent city map, one to rival WaterDeep from FR - not the rather sparse offering produced in the 90's (one of the largest cities in the Flanaess imagined as something slightly bigger than a walled town . . . )
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Jan 28, 2014 19:57:08 GMT -8
I think they should learn from the MTG folks. Instead of putting out a 5.5 in a couple of years, do a setting "cycle" where each setting has its own sort of rules attached to them. For 1 cycle(i'd rather it be 2 years, most likely be 1) have all the books focused on one setting, then switch the next after finishing up an Adventure Path.
You satisfy the rulesy people by adding some new stuff, but then you prevent things like power creep because you can make sure all the "Dark Sun" classes are better set up without having to think of the stuff that came before. Each world would have its own sets of feats, and maybe you say "no Greyhawk feats in Dark Sun" and now you don't have feat glut where you end up with 20,000 feats to sort through by year 4.
The people that love fluff are going to buy all the setting books and all the extra knick knacks so they can re-learn a new world. It would be much easier for the company to work on and put out the books as time goes by because you're basically writing the same types of books, just a different setting. Instead of one massive "Deities and Demi Gods" book encompassing every god they can think of, they do a new one for each setting. Same goes for the Planes. I'd buy every single one of those for the fluff alone, and I would not be pissed because that doesn't say "cash grab" to me, that says "fully realized settings" where each setting gets its own dedicated source books.
It would be much easier from a creative point to hire on "celebrity" writers and artists. Marvel doesn't hire artists for 5 years to do one comic book generally. Instead you could hire guest writers and artists to just one "cycle" and then that cycle will have an all new flavor, instead of all the artwork looking the same for 5+ years.
|
|