# Let's Forget the Forgotten Realms



## Morrus (Jan 22, 2012)

You know, to this day I have never bought anything _Forgotten Realms_ related. I know. Blasphemy. Unthinkable. I understand that it's WotC's prime-selling setting, and that thousands of people are personally invested in it and whether or not something called a "spell plague" should have taken place.... or something. But it has never interested me. To me it's the _American Idol_ (I make deliberate transatlantic allowances there - I really mean _X Factor_, never having seen the former) of settings: a bland kitchen sink with no coherent theme or flavour. I really don't get why anyone cares about it. I do recognise that the majority of D&D players _do_ care about it; some passionately so (like I care about _Doctor Who_, I guess - he's a friggin' Time Lord and Elminster wouldn't stand a chance: he laughs at your 3E _Time Stop_ exploit) but I do not share that passion. Or even a slight percentage of that interest.

I may run the biggest independent D&D site on the internet - I dare say the biggest tabletop RPG news site on the internet - and I may have been playing D&D since I was 11 years old. I'm thirty-bloody-seven now. Married. Grown up. And I've played D&D all that time. That's a good 26 years. But I still couldn't tell you the first thing about the _Forgotten Realms_; it just never interested me. Sure, I know there's a ninja drow called Drizzt and Gandalf is called Elminster and he's, like, über and stuff. And some wizards are red and there's an Arabian bit. That's about it, though. I don't really know what this spell plague malarky is about. I'm not sure I want to.

Did I mention I ran the biggest independent RPG news site in the world? Yet I haven't the faintest clue about the biggest mine of WotC's intellectual property. I bet you'd fire me now if you could.

My intro was _Dragonlance_. Then I researched back to _Greyhawk_. Now they had flavour. There was a theme there. Mordenkainen, Bigby, and Tenser fired my imagination in a way that no _Forgotten Realms_ character ever did. Who's the guy in Waterdeep or somewhere who appends his name with "the black"? 

And _Dragonlance_ - that fired up my teenage mind. I started with the novels. The _Chronicles_ and then the _Legends._ There was a coherent story, and the characters worked for me. OK, reading them back at age of 37 - they're not great literature. George RR Martin and Scott Lynch are much better. But they did -to me - have a magic that the plethora of D&D books since has lacked. I'm not even sure I can pinpoint it, except that I imagine that it worked because it originally limited itself to stories about a select group of characters. Then it blew it. It followed the _Forgotten Realms_ trajectory of introducing more and more and more until the original excitement became minor and mundane. But if I could jump in a TARDIS and cut _Dragonlance_ off after the end of the _Legends_, it would remain fairly perfect in my nostalgic mind (as long as I didn't have to re-read them as an adult). Y'know, before the epic story was trivialised by ever escalating events 3 weeks later, and Darth "Vader" Soth was Anakinized with a wimpy personality. Boba Fett was cool till the prequels came along, guys. Now he's nothing.

I hear that the _Forgotten Realms_ will be supported early in the 5E cycle. Again. Whoopy doo. Isn't it always? I was waiting for _Greyhawk_ or _Dragonlance_ I'm just getting FR again, which never interested me in the first place. Like I said, never bought a single FR branded gaming product, never will. I know little about it, and don't intend to. I admit I read _The Crystal Shard_ trilogy (good, OK, awful) and the _Menzoberranzan_ trilogy (good, awful, awful) and I may have gotten a chapter or so into a book about a cleric, but it never grabbed me.

If you like it, that's fine. I don't. Clearly most people do, otherwise it wouldn't be the primary setting over and over again. I accept that I'm atypical in this and that my lack of reverence for said commercial construct will give rise to ire and rage on the intranets. That's OK.

So, where are we? I don't like FR, and I recognise that DL only works in its initial storylines before it becomes FR-lite (though I'd argue that it's 25 years, and in that time a couple of potential customer generations who never read DL may get a thrill playing through it). So I'm left with _Greyhawk_.

_Greyhawk_ as the default setting? Bring back the Circle of Eight? Do you remember those maps? The names? They had something. They really did. I don't understand why Elminster has taken Mordenkainen's place. Does he have any core rule spells named after him? No. Is it Elminster's Disjunction? No, we have Bigby, Rory, Tenser, and crew. Maybe everyone knows too much about Elminster; didn't he star in a book where he was a girl once or something? I never read it. But he's far from mysterious. There's no room for your imagination there.

In my opinion, _Greyhawk_ should be the default setting in the new iteration of D&D. Especially if "retro' is the theme as it seems to be. It's sufficiently vague and undetailed enough to allow DMs to insert things without complication, while retaining an overall sense of coherent mtstery. Plus there should be an official adventure path, and that should be the _Dragonlance_ one (yes, an adventure path can exist in its own setting; that enhances it - EN Publishing knows this, and Hickman and Weiss knew it 25 years ago). Us veterans will buy it out of nostalgia. The kids will have never heard of either, so those lucky buggers will get to experience the mystery of _GReyhawk_ and the excitement of _Dragonlance_ for the first time. Kinda like if I could rewatch all of nu-Who fresh, I would. But I can't, and I'm envious of those who have that in their future. FR? Give it a friggin' rest. It's boring!


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 22, 2012)

Russ, you type remarkably well when you're intoxicated. Because you'd have to be drunk to want to kick this hornet's nest.


----------



## William Ronald (Jan 22, 2012)

Russ, one thing I learned long ago is that different things appeal to different people.  I have never really been into the Realms and I am more of a home brew setting sort of person myself, having played mostly in home brewed settings.  However, I think that the Realms have had some good parts to them even if some of the decisions made about it have puzzled me.

I do agree with RangerWickett, you may have kicked up a hornet's next.  As much as I have enjoyed parts of Greyhawk (I played some games in Greyhawk as well), it is hard to define what is Greyhawk. You can take people who like Gygax's initial release and find people who prefer Carl Sargent's After the Ashes.  So, i am not sure that there is a version of Greyhawk or the Realms that will please all its fans.


----------



## Lou (Jan 22, 2012)

Have to agree with you, it has to be Greyhawk. Let me put this another way. Without Greyhawk, you cannot unify D&D.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 22, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Russ, you type remarkably well when you're intoxicated. Because you'd have to be drunk to want to kick this hornet's nest.




Nothing wrong with a bit of debate - as long as people remember their manners! Perspective: it's just a D&D setting.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jan 22, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Russ, you type remarkably well when you're intoxicated. Because you'd have to be drunk to want to kick this hornet's nest.




This, mostly.

I wouldn't care about FR either, TBH, except for the Baldur's Gate series.  But thanks mostly to that series, I can't imagine D&D without FR.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 22, 2012)

I ran a FR 3E Campaign because those were the books my friends were reading at the time and I enjoyed some of the art and the style of the 3E books (they're gorgeous, the faux parchment is just too cool).

Really though I have no specific interest in it. I enjoyed Eberron more because it was weird, had lots of psionics, living golems, huge cities, etc. 

I'd love to see a ton of real thorough support for greyhawk since I really missed all that. I remember seeing the gazette for greyhawk. I think it was for the rpga stuff back then? I'm not entirely sure now. but that's all I recall in 3E really.

So yeah. I support this. Let's see Greyhawk done 5E style. Planescape too!


----------



## Starman (Jan 22, 2012)

As much as I love many of the classic settings, I really hope Wizards gives us some new settings for 5E. I want fresh, new ideas more than I want an update of the old stuff.


----------



## jbear (Jan 22, 2012)

I enjoy the Broken Realms. There is loads of interesting stuff going on in the 4e setting. I was not emotionally attached to it in anyway to be irked by the changes.

Drzzt, Elminster ... couldn't care less about either of them. The main guy in my campaign is Strahd Von Zarovich. Yeah, I pretty much do with the FR Setting what I like, which in this case was to have Ravenloft begin to seep into it.

The only reason I can think of that they would go with FR from the start would be, to some degree, offer their hand towards fans who felt themselves alienated by the catastrophic changes their much loved campaign world suffered. Kind of like saying: "Sorry, we're putting things back together again". An offer of goodwill in a way.

But I would enjoy a new setting, I must admit. Greyhawk? Sure why not. Dragonlance ... sure, that could be fun. Ravenloft ... yess please!! (But they aren't going to come out the gate with a setting like that) Something else, totally open. In the end I tend to make the world my own in any case, using the campaign world to spark my imagination.

I guess if they are successful in this endeavor and have the entire community clamoring for more products we may see many of these products.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 22, 2012)

My pedigree was reading Dragonlance, then reading Drizzt, then playing D&D, getting the boxed set of Forgotten Realms, and a boxed set for Dragonlance.

FR was too big. I enjoyed the drow novels, but only ever got interested in the rest of the setting due to the amazing production values of the 3e FRCS.

DL was nicely sized, but that might just have been a product of the fact that the DL novels I read traveled around more than the FR ones.

I have only the faintest impressions of Greyhawk, and that's just because I did research for a cartoon I pitched to WotC. In my mind, Eberron is more distinctive, because I've played in it. I've never read an Eberron novel, though.

People like whatever they've become emotionally attached to. Also, really well-done layout and art makes settings more vivid.


----------



## Mark Oliva (Jan 22, 2012)

Gee golly whillikers!  Excellent post!  I think the FR in their early generation were the greatest campaign setting that I've ever seen, a bit ahead of Greyhawk.  I was my setting for more than a decade.  However, it kept getting run through the TSR and then WotC and then WotC/Hasbro meat grinder.  In the end, all that was left was low grade hamburger.  I don't know whether you had to be intoxicated or not to kick this hornet's nest.  But it was a great kick.  Soccer players worldwide will be jealous, to say nothing of the Green Bay Packers!  In the FR, one's supposed to say, "Well met!"  Here it might be more appropriate to say, "Well said," or maybe even "Well kicked."  Regardless, a very good piece.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Jan 22, 2012)

Morrus...you really never played the Baldurs Gate PC games...I feel very sorry for you sir, that series is one of the greatest CRPG's in the existence of ever.

GO FOR THE EYES BOO!


----------



## zoggynog (Jan 22, 2012)

For a follow up thread that should have already exploded into hate from the FR faithful...I must add to those that agree.

I have been playing purely homebrew most of my life but something happened when I started up 4e.  I found the "Point of Light" setting interesting because it started to merge several previous settings into one.  Maybe not in great detail...but the thought was there.

I started to really get into the ideas of Ravenloft and Planescape and its ties to 4e core.

I hear they bastardized Planescape pretty bad (to fit the new lax alignment structure?) but the incorporation of Sigil into core 4e and the Domains of Dread in the Shadowfell hit a right note for me.

As far as I'm concerned, I DO think Greyhawk would make a great retro starting point.

*I purpose the following:*

5e core setting takes place as an alternate reality of what happens after 3e lore.

No spell plague occurs in FR.

No destruction of "The Wheel" from "Die Vecna Die" (that's how they explain it right?)  All Planes go back to how they were in 3e

Planescape guilds were not kicked out by Lady of Pain, Planescape stays very true to what it was when it came out.

Greyhawk is core setting, but perhaps the Feywild/Shadowfell is worked into Greyhawk?. Can this be done without screwing Greyhawk lore?  If not, perhaps incorporate the feel of those to places into "newly discovered" parts of the Greyhawk world? I'm spitballing here.  Feel free to squish this idea Greyhawkers...

Ravenloft's Barovia once existed in Greyhawk.  Account for its disappearance in Greyhawk lore...and perhaps expand on what was left behind.

Also, the Hollow World  setting takes place deep beneath Greyhawk.

Sigil/Planescape is supported early on, it acts as a "bridge to anywhere" that merges Dark Sun, Eberron, FR, Dragonlance, The domains of dread (Ravenloft), and any new WoTC/Homebrew setting.

Spelljammer ships are used to travel the Astral Plane and hop planets without teleporting through Sigil.

These settings are all on different worlds, but part of one reality.

In another reality exists the various settings/story lines played out in 4e.

Sigil can optionally (DM's call) even merge these two realities.  A character knows which reality they come from depending on if they can see the Spire of Outlands.

Thoughts


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jan 22, 2012)

Finally, something Morrus posted on this site that I agree with 100%.

Is this a trick? Am I being tricked? 

I am dubious... and afraid.


----------



## Electryc (Jan 22, 2012)

Don't post much but I felt compelled to on your subject matter.   I love Greyhawk, the map is awesome, the Geopolitical drama between the kingdoms with definite borders make a better case for US VS THEM.  The villains, who can trump Iuz, The Scarlet Brotherhood, or Iggwilv?  Playing Greyhawk made me feel like I'm the hero, not just a small piece in a huge puzzle like Forgotten Realms.  The only thing I dislike about Greyhawk is the deities.  

P.S. (please dont strike me down ol mighty Tharzidun!)


----------



## Asmor (Jan 22, 2012)

I feel the same way, and then some.

I dislike Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and even Dragonlance, because my initial impression of all three of them is that they're just generic swords and sorcery fantasy*.

You want to know my favorite settings? Eberron, Planescape, and Spelljammer, in that order. I also don't mind Dark Sun, although I kind of dislike the whole dystopian/post-apocalyptic genre, so that keeps it off my list of favorites.

I'd like D&D to actually go for a more distinctive identity. It's got some things there already. Despite being in the game for so long, psionics and monks have somehow maintained a feeling of being more D&D-distinct and less generic S&S. Warforged and Dragonborn are also great, iconic D&Disms.

*Granted, D&D may well have defined what it means to be this style of generic S&S, so I suppose in that sense they're not generic so much as prototypical. Also, I don't really know much about Dragonlance and recognize that it might not be as generic as the other two, but this is simply about my impressions of the three.


----------



## Blackwind (Jan 22, 2012)

I agree with Morrus, FWIW, but I believe the die has already been cast. After all, they've already hired some Chinese video game art studio for FR! I am really curious to see what that will look like... :/

I ran one campaign in the Realms, like others here, when the 3.0 Realms book came out. It was a great book! Probably the best-done setting book that TSR or WotC had ever made. And we had fun in that campaign, although it had absolutely nothing to do with the setting.

Dragonlance was my first D&D setting. When my friend A. introduced me to D&D back in 4th grade (age 9 or 10) he also introduced me to the original DL novels. After that, I went on to read pretty much every DL novel in print (1994, there were a lot by then) over the next year or so. But I could never play in DL. The official story always made it too hard for me to imagine playing in that setting. I have a similar resistance to playing a Dune game or a Middle Earth game or any other setting where there's already a strong storyline established.

Plus I like world-building, so I've always run homebrew for the most part. But I think Morrus is onto something when he suggests that Greyhawk would be the best default setting for 5E.

First of all, it's full of weird, old-school awesome! The place-names and character names are distinctively Gygaxian. The "name" wizards and their spells. The iconic adventure locations. The deities and their quirky mythologies. The very idiosyncratic cosmology. It all sets D&D apart from other fantasy games. 

In a sense, no other setting is as D&D as Greyhawk. And by supporting Greyhawk, WotC would be sending a message to long-time fans saying "yes, we really are getting back to the roots of what this game is about."

EDIT: I should add that I actually know very little about Greyhawk. I'm not some grognard, I'm 27. 

I also know that part of the reason a lot of fans are/were so dedicated to Paizo is because of their support of Greyhawk while they had Dragon and Dungeon. 

Finally, Greyhawk ties in really well with both Planescape and Spelljammer! In a way that FR doesn't, because FR has a different cosmology sort of.

As for Eberron: I think it's a really well done setting, but it's too far from the standard, pseudo-medieval milieu of D&D to be the flagship setting.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 22, 2012)

None of the generic fantasy settings really mean anything to me. They all contain some elements I like, and some elements I dislike, and most of those disliked elements seem to revolve around their uber wizards and the gods who are barely their peers - Drizzt being the exception but off in his own way. I'd like to see a generic fantasy setting that has a more varied distribution of prominent figures, where mighty wizards live in fear of equally mighty paladins, and where rogues are as likely to change the world as clerics are.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jan 22, 2012)

I know a fair bit about Dragonlance. How to write adventure paths for it, how to design around existing editions for it, how to write a short story and a novel for it. I've thought and thought and thought about it for many years, and at one point it was pretty much my day job; I knew the continuity of Dragonlance and all of its myriad threads well enough to trim bits off when we updated it, and tie up others when I was running my own campaign set in Krynn.

While I agree wholeheartedly that it grew well beyond its own borders somewhere in the middle, you can't deny that its fanbase has always wanted more than the Chronicles/Legends. Always. Yes, they go back to that period, those six novels (now nine, if you include the Lost Chronicles in the mix), that War of the Lance. But they wanted more, always more. And that's why TSR gave them more, and why we (as Sovereign Press) did the same.

There's a level of fandom that sees settings like the Realms and Krynn and Mystara as pretty much the same thing hashed over a hundred times, the same droll sword and sorcery. This is the same level that sums up Dragonlance as "annoying kender and Raistlin and are they having another Cataclysm again?" and the Realms as "Drizzt and Elminster and blah blah."

That level of fandom isn't the target for these settings. But I fear they're also the majority, the lowest common denominator. Big companies fear appealing to those fans who are die-hard Realms or Krynn or Mystara geeks, because where's the money in that? Really, they'd prefer to either launch something new and control all the IP without legacy issues, paying homage to older creators, or continuity-freak fans like myself. Or else they'd prefer to sprinkle bits and pieces of those settings in core supplements as IP shrapnel to flavor whatever thematic salad is on the plate.

I will say this: I would write more Dragonlance books, design more Dragonlance game material, play more Dragonlance games, any time. Working with that material was probably when I was the most confident as a designer. I honestly have no idea what WotC has in store for Krynn, and I doubt anyone who once worked on or wrote for it does, either. But if you're willing to look beyond the surface level of D&D fandom, I think you'll find an intense following for it, and that's true for all of D&D's IP.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 22, 2012)

Morrus,

As the guy who runs the Dragonlance Nexus, I found your comments very intriguing.  I wanted to add my thoughts from the POV of a DL fan.

In Dragonlance fandom, we've talked quite a bit about the future of our beloved setting.  Should we continue on with the story?  Should it have a reboot?  If so, how should it be done?  Perhaps like they did with Star Trek, so as to get back to the heart of the setting without saying the past didn't exist.  

Dragonlance as an adventure path?  It seems like a natural fit.  After all, the original Chronicles series of adventures was one of the first adventure paths (before the phrase was even coined), and was perhaps the first one that span over a large series of modules.  It has been reprinted three different times, so you know it has appeal.  They weren't perfect and had some issues with railroading at the start, but they are classics.  And if we are getting back to basics, Dragonlance is a natural.

My fear in all of this is that Dragonlance may be seen as a one-trick pony with the War of the Lance.  I know that the setting has room for all sorts of stories.  However, I think a number of people will always hold the War of the Lance to be the main story of Dragonlance and have no need to go beyond.  If this is the only way we will see Dragonlance in print again, then I would be fine with the reprint, though I hope to see more.

Greyhawk may hold potential, but WotC needs to fully support it as a setting.  There needs to be a modernized core rulebook for it, and updates on the setting.  My fear is that the split Greyhawk fandom won't do well with a re-imagined Greyhawk.  However, I for one would love to see Greyhawk once again.

I understand the reasoning behind making the Realms so prominent in 5e.  It's the largest, most well-known of all the generic settings.  It holds a lot of popularity, so it's only natural to use it.

Unfortunately, the Realms suffers from some of the same problems that have affected Dragonlance.  Most notable is the Spellplague.  It is to the Realms what the Fifth Age was to Dragonlance - a time jump with a changed landscape and magic, a new game system, and a split fan base to go with it. I even wrote to Rich Baker about my concerns, but he assured me that having the D&D logo on it (which the Fifth Age didn't) would be what would make the Realms succeed.  About that...

Dragonlance at one point was the Fifth Age vs. the Fourth Age.  Now we see that with the Realms.  The answer in Dragonlance's case was to have the War of Souls, and to create the 3.5 rules for Dragonlance under Sovereign Press (now Margaret Weis Productions).  Yes, some schisms remain, but a lot of healing has happened.  DL moved on.  The Realms needs to as well.

While I'm not sure I wholly agree with your points, I think you have given fans a lot to think about.  

Just curious, what's your take on the Nentir Vale and Mystara in all of this?

EDIT:  Cam beat me to the punch!


----------



## gideonpepys (Jan 22, 2012)

Very strange coincidence, this: yesterday I was clearing out my spare room, and creating a shelf for all the old D&D stuff that I had in storage, when I came across the _World of Greyhawk_ boxed set.

Flushed with nostalgia I started rabbiting on to my fiance about how excited I was to get this box back in 1983, and then I opened up the maps and pointed out all the evocative place names.  And I wondered aloud why Wizards didn't stick with _Greyhawk _as their primary setting - which meant nothing to my fiance as she isn't a gamer.

Then I woke up this morning and read Morrus' almost verbatim account of my own D&D experience (except that I came to the game through Greyhawk, and got into _Dragonlance_ when it came out).  I feel exactly the same way as Morrus about this: _Forgotten Realms_ means little or nothing to me (except I recognise some of the names from the _Baldur's Gate _series).

Could this spring from the fact that I skipped 2nd edition completely?  (In those days I didn't have the money to spend replacing all my old books, so I carried on playing 1E before getting into other systems like _Warhammer FRPG_ and - perhaps alone along my peers - _Skyrealms of Jorune... _anyone?)

The precise problem with the setting, for me, is that it is too full. _Forgotten Realms_ is the setting that appeals to completists; the setting that appeals to folks who want blueprints of the SS Enterprise and know what grade Boba Fett got for his metalwork GCSE.  You couldn't turn a corner in Waterdeep without tripping over a paragraph of canon.  That's not what a setting should feel like, as far as I'm concerned.  (Unless it's _Ptolus_, but we all have our little skeletons, don't we?)

It also has, in Elminster, a principal character so dull, his official minitaure is smoking a pipe and pointing out places of interest.

And Drizzt?  I have the same reaction to his popularity as I have to the inexorable rise of the _Spice Girls, Harry Potter, Keira Knightly_ and other phenomenon I caught before they achieved global domination and erroniously predicted for an early grave: horror.  

Thing is, I _expect_ crappy pop acts to gain inexplicable fame and fortune.  But this hobby is supposed to be my sanctuary from populist tat.

Let me get this out of my system:

1) Drizzt is a stupid name.  A stupid stupid name. It sounds like the noise a fly makes when it falls into the toilet.

2) Dual wielding large weapons isn't cool. At least not any more.  Not now that it is a 'build' type, as opposed to something a specific individual might do once in a while.  Sword and dagger?  Okay - that makes sense.  Two bastard swords?  Not unless you've got forearms like Popeye.  And two scimitars?  Now you just look silly.  Like a juggler in pantaloons and a fez.

3) Drizzt is responsible for making drow a playable race.  That notion, along with the rehabilitation of minotaurs, is a pet peeve of mine.  They should stay in the monster manual and be playable by DM caveat only.  Honestly, there have been so many 'renegade drow' the Underdark must be empty.  I once heard about a new game in which every player turned up and revealed their own carbon-copy Drizzt antihero.  (A bit like the episode of _South Park_ when Butters shows up in _World of Warcraft_ with the same avatar as Cartman.)

Now, having got that out of the way, here is the one thing I'd like to suggest to wizards when it comes to settings:

Allow each setting to be unique.  Allow _Dark Sun_ to be free of dwarves and elves, and feature precious few of them in _Planescape_.  Encourage your designers to create new places for players to explore that don't have any dragonborn, or tieflings.  I really don't see that it is necessary for every setting to be the same or have the same flavour as the 'core' (whatever they decide that to be).  This was the design decision that limited the usefulness of the 4E settings.

But I'm glad they did in a way - because that led me to use compelling 3rd party environments (first _Arcana Evolved,_ _Ptolus_ and now _Zeitgeist_) which Wizards - with their 'all things to all people' ethos - fail to produce so spectacularly.

The by-word for naff at our gaming table is 'Wizard's fluff', which sounds like a sexual euphemism, but we all know what it means:  The kind of copy that some poor 'designer' has to bash out to fill a page on some aspect of a campaign world, or some corner-case paragon path, or some new race he has no investment in.

And the strangest corollary of this is that, instead of inventing, say, wilden, for one specific setting, all of a sudden, when they show up in a PHB, they are suddenly a feature of _every_ setting Wizards has produced - along with revenants, warforged, vryloka, shades, hamadryad, etc, all of which belong in specific setting (or in no setting at all in the case of wilden).


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 22, 2012)

I think Morrus' OP was a bit flippantly dismissive of the Realms as a setting (and, by extension, its hardcore fans), and the Realms isn't truly better or worse a "generic" setting than any other, including Greyhawk and Dragonlance . . . barring individual tastes of course.  Kind of an unnecessary FR bashing just to get to the thesis that Greyhawk should be the default setting, which I actually agree with.  A lot of us take our D&D settings quite seriously, as anyone who spends even a small amount of time on these boards already knows.

But, Morrus is right in the end, that Greyhawk should be the default setting of D&D Next.  Go back to what 3E tried with the setting in 2000 (my god, has it been over a decade!?!) but without the later setting dilution 3E went through after the 3.5 launch.  I wouldn't mind if WotC rebooted the setting back to "start" and maybe even redesigned parts of it (a la "New Trek") . . . but Greyhawk in the core books should be "Greyhawk Lite", just as it was at the beginning of 3E.  More detailed support could always come in the magazines.

Of course, we don't know what WotC is planning for the default setting of 5E, nothing announced yet truly suggests it will be FR.  FR is a popular setting due to the video games, novels, and yes, Drizzt, and deserves to receive full support, just not as the default setting.  If you don't like it, don't buy it!  But please, no more rebooting, despite the fact it's an FR tradition come edition change.  Keep the current post-Spellplague setting and keep moving forward.

I would love to see a small run of quality Dragonlance books for the next edition, but a full line would be too much.  Sorry, but Dragonlance really is a (almost) one-trick pony (although a great ride) . . . just like Star Wars, later Dragonlance products try too hard to recapture the magic rather than truly expand the setting beyond the Companions of the Lance.

Other settings have their fans, including myself, but I don't see print support as realistic for any of them.  But I would very much like to see support in the magazines for all of the classic settings.  Maybe even mini "Player's Handbooks" for each setting detailing specific races, classes, etc, etc . . .

Most importantly, regardless of what becomes the default setting and how much print/online support other settings get . . . WotC should not be afraid to introduce new material that doesn't fit into any existing setting.  Give us some DDI articles about new gods, organizations, cities, etc without worry about fitting them into the core, FR, or anything else.  There should be not "setting" limits on new material . . . mostly for DDI of course, in print would be different.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 22, 2012)

No matter what setting they do, it will be like _Forgotten Realms_. Even Paizo's Golarion is in many ways like _Forgotten Realms_ without the larger than life characters, which most _Forgotten Realms_ gamers never much used.

Settings like the _Forgotten Realms_ provide the largest tapestry for DMs and adventure writers to work with while keeping a cohesive world. You want to play a dwarf? Elf? Halfling? Gnome? You can do it. Want to play a scimitar wielding desert dervish? A plate clad knight? A robed, bearded, sarcastic, cranky wizard? A greataxe wielding half-orc barbarian? You can do it. Want to set an adventure in old jungle ruins? Abandoned pyramids in the desert? A feudal monarchy fighting against a treacherous king? An ancient vampire ruling over a land of mist? You can do it.

It is the saccharine, versatile nature of the _Forgotten Realms_ setting that makes it so attractive. And it is all blended with a reasonable amount of verisimilitude to make it all work. But WotC could rename it and start a different versatile, saccharine setting if you want. It would end up being similar. But I imagine from a profitability standpoint, they want to keep their literary properties going, mainly Driz'zt. I'm sure they still make money off the dark elf ranger that could not really exist and be as effective as he is with any set of D&D rules. 

I don't much care if they go Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc, etc. It will most likely end up being a world much like our own as far as cultures go with all the standard tropes of fantasy worked in as well to appeal to the largest number of gamers while still allowing them all to exist in the same world.


----------



## Wycen (Jan 22, 2012)

Morrus is a good guy.


----------



## btmcrae (Jan 22, 2012)

4E was a radical departure away form the game's roots.  Getting back closer to them would be a very good idea, and that is just with regard to how the game itself works.  As to campaign settings, the Forgotten Realms, which I am familiar with, has simply had a ton of material written for it, so much so that the only way they could think of doing anything with it last time around was to annihilate it and build it back up, hoping that everyone who liked the setting would very much enjoy their wanton destruction and re-imagining of it.  I am thinking that the response was not exactly what WotC had hoped for. 

Anyways, the bad taste of Forgotten Realms 4E is very much still lingering(it is almost as bad as people complaining about how there is no Greyhawk ), such that it might be just the right time to compliment it with an old, well-liked taste.   Now, I am a bit biased, seeing as Greyhawk is my favorite campaign setting of them all, but there are many things that Greyhawk has going for it.

One, it has not been done to death, meaning it is ripe for a variety of products, namely in-depth books on the campaign setting's regions.  For Forgotten Realms regional info, we're talking the third iteration of most of this stuff, and that would involve a ton of rehashed material.  If one went about it with half a brain, most of the Greyhawk stuff would be NEW, as it is would be based on what bits of extant information that there are, which really is not that much.  Even the regional Greyhawk source books that were published are chock full of gaping information holes, much of it very relevant to basic adventuring in those areas.  Iuz the Evil, The Marklands, and Ivid the Undying tried to cover too much, and ultimately did a half-arsed job on many of the areas they cover.  

Two, alongside the core setting and regional books, how about releasing some adventures *in support of those regions*?  Linked product support?  Stuff that is meant to go together *by design*?   While modules/adventures don't have the profit margin that big books do, you _*need*_ them.  Why?  Because you'll never hear somebody say "Remember that paragraph in that core rule book? That was AWESOME!"  What you will hear is "Remember that adventure where your wizard shapechanged into a giant and chucked that drow priestess, who was wrecking us with her spells, into that lava-filled crevasse?  That was AWESOME!!!"(gee, I wonder which adventure that could have happened in? ).  WotC needs to support the setting with lots of modules/adventures full of setting-specific awesomeness.  And no, that doesn't mean that everything takes place in the City of Greyhawk, or that Zagyg or some other iconic personality makes an appearance in every other adventure(Greyhawk isn't the Forgotten Realms).  It just means to make use of the background, and work a few things into the modules/adventures in a not so "In your _*FACE!!!*_" sort of way.

Three, ya know, it kind of is good to have those Greyhawk(and other)personality's names attached to their spells/magic items.   Rather than remove the names, it would be far better to add the caveat, "While this spell/item was originally created by X of the World of Greyhawk, a similar spell/item exists in most other campaign worlds where it is know by the name X."  That's a nod to ALL of your campaign settings in the Core books at least.  I know this is the "Greyhawk is the AWSOMEST" thread, but acknowledging ALL settings in the Core books, in even an off-handed way, would be  a heck of good idea!  This is a part of the game's HERITAGE- make use of it, not cast it out!   Whoever thought that something bland and featureless would be oh so much better than something vibrant _*that just so happens to also point to even more of your products*_ needs to have their head examined.  Next in line for examination would be the product manager who gave such an idea the thumb's up.

I am all for WotC doing well, but I would prefer that they make products that I actually want to buy, and that overall respects the history of the campaign setting and enriches it.  They'll probably just go with *Forgotten Realms: **The "We're Sorry We Screwed It Up Last Time" Edition *instead.  One can hope they are more open-minded than that though.

Then there is the whole anniversary thing, which is the perfect opportunity to inject some the the old and awesome into the new.  Seldom is that ever a bad idea.  This is a golden opportunity for WotC to tap into the total market, meaning also tap into the veterans out there that grew up on the game. They ought to know that we are no longer the kids screaming 'But I want an oompa loompa _*now*_, Daddy!", but that we are now the people who have the discretionary income to buy all the' oompa loompas that we want to, and when we want to!   And we are probably going to be more open to buying the oompas loompas that we know and love for our kids than the ones that we don't.  It's that whole "shared memories with your kids" thing.  it is kind nice to be able to relate with your kids about something you both know and love.

Yes, I know. As odd as it sounds, against societal odds, those first and second generations of gamers actually found a way to breed(they are a tenacious bunch; and also actually know what "tenacious" even means ), and there are many, many times the number of offspring now that there were gamers then, and those older gamer parents are very much open to the idea of letting their kids play fantasy RPGs, unlike the whole slew of foolishness that those early players had to deal with in the early 1980's.  Rather than newspaper headlines like "Mind Flayer Tells Kid to Butcher Schoolmates With Katana", we now have positive headlines like "Players Roll the Dice for Dungeons & Dragons Remake" ans uch in newspapers like Forbes and the NY Times no less.   The environment is about as friendly right now as it has ever been(not that the console/computer gaming industry hasn't helped out in that regard).

So, bring back Greyhawk.  It would be a good time to do so, for a variety of reasons.  I guess that is enough blathering for now.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 22, 2012)

Seeing a title like "Iuz the Evil" brings up the issue of how extremely dated some of the material feels. Obviously, existing fans of the settings will eat that up, but I don't get the impression that current up-and-coming fantasy enthusiasts are going to be impressed with references that sound like the common *parodies* of the game. Some may not feel playing in a game that sounds like it was inspired by Adventure Time (though it was the other way around) is something they can take seriously enough to get deeper into. And if that makes me sound pompous,  note that I happily opened my current campaign with _vampire mermaids_. But I was playing with people who were already interested in the game.


----------



## Oni (Jan 22, 2012)

Morrus, if you know so little about it as you say you do I'm not certain how you can render your verdict of it being a boring setting such as you have done.  Rather than form an opinion from second hand talk and a couple crummy novels, why not actually sit down with a setting book and inform yourself.  If you would rather Dragonlance or Greyhawk be the flagship setting for D&D based on what you personally see as their positive attributes that's absolutely reasonable, but to base that argument on attacking a setting you self-admittedly know little to nothing about seems a wrong-headed approach.  

From my own personal experience I can say there has never been a campaign setting book that made me desire to sit down and play more than the 3e FRCS.  And while there are people that might (at times) rightly say that it is overly generic or too much of a kitchen sink, I've never seen another campaign setting that instills such a sense of adventure.  Personally I don't believe there can be any recommendation higher for a potential D&D flagship setting than it be able to make people actually want to *play* the game.  So instead of being so dismissive of the Realms I would urge you to actually acquaint yourself with the 3e FRCS or the old grey box and experience what actually makes it great, firsthand.


----------



## jbear (Jan 22, 2012)

gideonpepys said:


> Allow each setting to be unique.  Allow _Dark Sun_ to be free of dwarves and elves




Err ... DarkSun without Dwarves? One thing that makes DarkSun unique is the Mul which is a breed between dwarves and humans. Its an integral feature of the setting. In fact it is one of the few things I can remember about one of the original Dark Sun novels I read as a kid: Endless Desert, Thri-kreens, abolition of magic, slaves, gladiators and Muls. 

I'm pretty sure elves are an integral part of the original setting as well though they are a kind of savage gypsy culture known to be very untrustworthy.

Is this what you are meaning perhaps? They should (not even originally when Dark Sun was first created) not have included elves and dwarves, even if their natures are radically different from the 'normal fantasy elf'? They should have just created another race entirely? Or are you mistakenly thinking that 4e rethought elves in Dark Sun, and pushed them into the setting because anything goes?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 22, 2012)

I never played in the Forgotten Realms -- and I never ran it, either.

But somewhere along the way, I got involved in writing an official D&D computer  game for BioWare's _Neverwinter Nights._ As a consequence of that contract, I had to immerse myself in the hefty lore of the Forgotten Realms in order to create something "official" for it that worked completely with the FR canon.

As it turned out, I ended up creating an "official dragon" for the _Forgotten Realms _that made its way into a 3.5 hardcover-- my one little contribution to the whole of it. (Which, on balance, was actually pretty damned cool.)  But more importantly than that, in doing my extensive background research on the FR for that NWN game, I came to appreciate the sheer diversity and _usefulness_ of a Kitchen-Sink setting like the _Realms_ from a commercial design and marketing perspective.

For a whole host of reasons from a game design perspective, a Kitchen-Sink  setting makes the most "commercial sense" if one has to design a commercial game world. Paizo did *exactly* the same thing with Golarion. And I understand completely why Paizo chose Golarion to be the way it is and have designed it in that fashion. As a shared commercial world -- it fits their needs brilliantly. * I get it*.

Altering the FR in the manner that 4E did was unwise and has not been successful for WotC. I was neither a fan of the FR, nor of 4E, but I GOT the reason why there were people who were attached to this setting and felt that it had been abused by the changes forced upon it. While that didn't kill any sacred cow that I had made a real emotional investment in -- I still understood that many gamers had. So I empathized with their injured feelings. * I get it.*

For some people, I can see how _Greyhawk_ is important to them. I played in it with 1st ed -- have run games set in it, too -- so I can see why that is important to some people and why they would like to see that restored as "the default setting". As between the FR and_ Greyhawk_, I'm not terribly drawn to one or the other -- but I understand why many fans are. I empathize with their attachment to _Greyhawk_. *I get it. *

As for_ DragonLance_ and Krynn, I loved it for a time and I became heavily  invested in it. (My Avatar is a one-of-a-kind hand-drawn sketch of Lord Soth by an artist at Marvel.) Still, I think that like  all things from our youth -- we can't revisit them in that fashion  again, no matter how much we wish we could. TSR went to the_ DraonLance_ well a  few times too many, and after WotC licensed it to Margaret Weiss and her  company in 2005, we had a chance to go there again for 3.5. Turns out, it  didn't set the gaming world on fire then -- and I don't see it happening in 5E  either.

*What I DO Believe In
*
I personally believe that if any setting is going to come along and have a huge impact on the gaming world, it will be something LIKE_ DragonLance_. And by "like it", I don't mean similar to Krynn in any real or connected sense of the term -- simply that it will be a setting created for the very purpose of being the location of an Adventure Path intended to be set within it. That Adventure Path should be cross-supported by decent novels which hits the right buttons in the marketplace at the time it is released.

And yes, inevitably, then they'll probably have to genericize the setting  after that AP story is over; it will be become bland and watered down and wrecked. But up to that point? It's all good!

That's how _DragonLance_ did when it "saved" TSR from its financial woes in the initial post-Gygax era. If WotC wants that lightning to strike again, seems to me that they need to give it a chance of doing so.

But in the meanwhile, there needs to be some sort of kitchen-sink setting that makes commercial sense. One of the biggest factors in it being able to MAKE commercial sense is if it is popular and engenders emotional attachment to the largest swath of players.

And yes, that means the _Forgotten Realms_ for 5E. So that makes sense to me. *I get it.*

The shame of it is, I have seen no evidence == *ZERO evidence* == that WotC is interested in telling an "official epic story" of any kind using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.  WotC is instead interested in letting gamers make up their own stories with their rules. Not a bad philosophy to be sure, but it isn't a mutually exclusive approach from the _DragonLance_ AP concept, either.  There is room and money for both.

That said, the fact that WotC has never attempted to do this with any serious product initiative in the past nearly 15 years suggests to me that I should not hold my breath.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 22, 2012)

*In Defense of the Realms, and Drizzt*

Folks trashing the Realms has become tired, beyond tired.  It's the edition wars shifted over to the campaign settings, and it's just as ridiculous.  So, you prefer Greyhawk (or Dragonlance, or Eberron, or whatever) over the Realms.  That's nice, and if you're civil about expressing it, I wouldn't mind discussing settings on the forums with you.  But when folks whip out the childish hyperbole of "Drizzt Sucks!" (or El, or the Spellplague, or whatever), I just turn off and stop caring about your opinions.

Morrus might have been a bit too flippant towards the Realms for my tastes in the OP, but my little reverse rant isn't aimed at him, but more towards some later posts that "agree" with the OP, and then take things predictably too far.

I like the Realms, and I'm not a huge fan of the Greyhawk setting.  But I won't trash it, because, well, I'm kinda a polite guy (and there is a lot to like in GH, even if the overall setting doesn't do it for me).  What do I like about the Realms?  It certainly is a "generic" setting that is very "full" with detail and has some pretty amazingly high powered NPCs.  As a gaming setting, the Realms has always appealed to me as a "generic" (hate the term, but can't think of a better one) setting that embodies everything D&D, and then adds new stuff that is easily portable to other "generic" campaigns, homebrew or published.  It's D&D+ to me!  Plus, some of the stories told in the realms in video games, novels, and comics have been EXCELLENT and are a valued part of my library that I return to again and again.

Finally, I'll part with a defense of Elminster and Drizzt.  First, El is most certainly insanely overpowered and, for a time, was overused in the rpg books and fiction.  But El fell prey to the "Klingon Effect" (IMO).  He was originally created as the Gandalf figure who was supposed to be in the background as a plot device to provide hooks for adventurers . . . but due to a combination of his popularity as a character and his author's enjoyment of writing him, he took center stage for a while in the 2nd Edition days.  But even then, it was easy-peasy to put El "back in his place" when running games, as most FR DMs did.  In 3E and 4E, despite the ongoing novel series about him, El was once again relegated to the background so the PCs were in the spotlight again.  Over a decade ago.

Drizzt is even easier to defend (and also is a "victim" of the Klingon Effect).  He is a great character!  If you don't care for Salvatore's writing style, and/or the character himself, that's fine.  But Drizzt is popular for a reason, and it isn't because his skin is jet black and he's a kewl dark elf.  It's because he's well written.  He is the constant loner whom no one understands (except perhaps his small circle of hard-won friends), which resonates with a lot of folks.  And, in regards to the name thing, D&D settings in general are riddled with "stupid" names, so folks mocking the extra zzz's are being willfully ignorant as it's pretty easy to pick any D&D setting and come up with a good list of "stupid" names.

Ultimately, folks mock the Drizzt character, and the Realms as a whole, because they are popular settings.  There is this sick element of American culture, or perhaps human nature, that loves to tear down what others enjoy.  It's not unique to gaming of course, but here we are on ENWorld.

If you don't care for it, that's fine.  Express it, even.  But please, try and cut back on the insults and hyperbole, it just makes you look mean-spirited.


----------



## jbear (Jan 22, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Russ, you type remarkably well when you're intoxicated. Because you'd have to be drunk to want to kick this hornet's nest.



Hehe, I think you're onto something. Anyone else find it a little odd that this thread is in the "News" Forum. Hehehehe, I do!


----------



## Mortellan (Jan 22, 2012)

Wow that was a totally unexpected yet timely post of support for Greyhawk. I'm 100% behind this suggestion. Talking about it here is fine, but we need to keep up the interest long term to get it done!


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 22, 2012)

Steel Wind, you make a very interesting point.. something LIKE DragonLance...

I know it won't happen, due to the nature of RPG fantasy publishing, but it would be rather interesting if there was a setting-search-via-novels. Some method to learn what STORIES really grab player interest, but bound more or less by D&D rules. This happens often enough with other RPGs, in a way - so many new RPGs pop up based on novels, films, video games, and war games. D&D itself was inspired by novels and movies and so forth, but is still feeding off of those inspirations and incorporating precious few new ones. Indeed, the only contemporary story inspiration I know of in 4E is the hint of a monk subclass in the new Elemental Chaos book based somewhat on Avatar: The Last Airbender.

I just hope that, if they ever do make a new story for D&D, the spotlight isn't mostly on wizards again.


----------



## Dog Moon (Jan 22, 2012)

I think WotC should use Golarion as the default setting.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 22, 2012)

Since I grew up with D&D and AD&D, I mostly started out with Greyhawk and the Known World. My first exposure to FR was in the early AD&D computer games from SSI - aka the Gold Box games.

I think it's a pretty decent setting. Yes, it's a kitchen sink thing, but at the same time, it has the benefit of being well developed by the guy who actually made the setting (Ed Greenwood) which gives it a certain depth.

The trouble with Greyhawk is that outside of the folio and a dozen or so modules, you don't really have much actually from EGG. It's left to others to fill in as they saw fit - some did a good job, most didn't.

Beyond that, I think EGG got a bit too creative with the names of places (outside of Greyhawk). In the FR, Greenwood sort of took a page out of Conan - the places and cultures sort of sound like real world names, so you are always familiar with them.

Still, I do have to say that the first Drizzt novel is one of the few books I simply could not finish (all the others were novels by Steve Perry).  Never tried an Eliminster book. But in either case, you can easily avoid them.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 22, 2012)

Russ, you were doing so well until you mentioned how great Dragonlance was. After that, I knew this was an elaborate troll.


----------



## Brix (Jan 22, 2012)

What are you trying to say?
I'm a FR dieheart, but I have no problem with GH being the initial core setting. As long as these references are kept low (much like in the Pathfinder RPG book).
I have no problem that other settings get their support.
If you don't like FR, that's fine. What's the point in bashing a setting, that other people hold dear?


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 22, 2012)

My introduction into RPGs was not D&D, it was the Dutch version of Das Swartze Auges (Oog Des Meesters), eventually we moved on to the Dutch version of the D&D Red Box, and from there to the English version of AD&D 2E. As far as I remember as a player we had very little official setting, if we had I never knew (or remember). When I started DMing I used my own setting with self made maps, I had the time for it and not the cash to invest in setting books (RPG material was rare and expensive at the time in the Netherlands).

My first real introduction to Dragonlance was the Champions of Krynn computer game, I never played/DMed the epic AP, I did read a few of the satellite novels. For me Dragonlance was always about Draconians and (evil) knights on Dragons, the Epic AP actually spoiled the setting a bit for me, the AP adventures I got my hands on didn't inspire me at all. I do think if a company like Paizo ever got it's mits on it, they could do a very inspiring AP path. I always wanted to use Draconians, but I don't think I ever did...

I did read a lot more FR novels, played some Eye of the Beholder and some of the later computer games. Sure Drizzt and Elminster were pretty powerful characters, but Drizzt was stuck in a hole in the ground in the FR equivalent of Alaska, and Elminster didn't go round saving every village and farmer. FR gave a lot more freedom as a setting then DL, but I still didn't use it as a setting until I got less time on my hands and a detailed ready to use setting became an asset. That was in the year(s) leading up to 3E and we started playing 3E before it was out (thanks to the 3E rumors on this site), I used Northern Journey as a basis and the extensive library of FR pdfs to make it a more sandbox campaign. I can spin a tale as good as the next DM, but creating a deep/large consistent background on the fly is difficult, FR as a generic setting helps a lot. Not to mention that settings like Al-Quadim, Maztica, and Kara-Tur intrigued me.

I never really got into GreyHawk because by the time that I did have money to spend on campaign settings, GH was on it's way out (and not readily available) and it's presentation never really got me motivated. I did like some of it's large maps and the idea of an demon kingdom...

I never did get into the 'big' changes 3E and 4E made to FR, I usually stuck to the 2E setting. I did buy the 3E setting books loyally and they are some of the most attractive setting books at the time. As I've mentioned before I never really liked the presentation of the 4E books the FR books weren't an exception.

I eventually did buy as much (2E) FR, DL and GH stuff as I could get my hands on without paying through the nose. But I think my favorite settings (I never got to play/DM in) are Planescape and Spelljammer. Birthright also got a special place in my heart due to the rules they introduced for running a realm (and the blood abilities associated).

I haven't touched a Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Battletech or Shadowrun novel in many, many years. While I enjoyed reading them at the time, they are the fantasy/scifi equivalent of sappy dime store romance novels, there are many good fantasy/scifi novels out there that don't try to fit into a RPG setting.

I think that Paizo is currently the best generic fantasy setting and their APs make for some very good specific campaign settings. But their not yet at the level of 'Volo's Guide to the North' (etc.) books were all kinds of interesting sites and inns are detailed, what is more important then an inn or an interesting site the party travels through...

If WotC does revive old settings for 5E, it would be wise to make the setting more era neutral, so players/DMs can actually choose when to play.


----------



## talien (Jan 22, 2012)

Given the reprinting of the AD&D books, the "unify all gamers" spirit for 5E, and the generally conciliatory tone taken by the designers lately, I'm going to make a prediction:

We will start seeing all-inclusive collector's editions of each of these settings.  Might be a boxed set, might be a huge tome, but I think it's coming.  Now whether or not these new mega-inclusive products satisfy fans is another thing entirely.  I'm waiting for the 600-page Greyhawk tome myself.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 22, 2012)

For me, the biggest problem I have with going back to Greyhawk is the following.

I want the original creators involved with the setting, in some way.  

Ed Greenwood is still alive, still active, and writes for the setting.  Even with corporate mandated changes, both he and R.A. Salvatore have worked with them and done a good job with their contributions and other items.

Gary Gygax is dead.  And since his ouster from TSR back in 1986, Greyhawk has suffered from too many reboots/changes.  From the really bad continuation of the "Greyhawk adventures" line, to numerous political changes, to changes because of the 3e ruleset, etc, Greyhawk has had so many changes that have fractured the fan base.

I wouldn't mind, and would actively encourage, Wizards to reprint the classic setting boxed set from 1983, as well as some classic modules, at least from a literary perspective--but I can't see really continuing the setting ad infinitum.   Somehow, I like the perspective of not continuing a series after its creator has died.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 22, 2012)

Jiggawatts said:


> Morrus...you really never played the Baldurs Gate PC games...I feel very sorry for you sir, that series is one of the greatest CRPG's in the existence of ever.
> 
> GO FOR THE EYES BOO!




Oops.  I totally forgot them.  I have to revise my statement: I _have_, in fact, bought a FR branded product.  I didn't think about the video games!


----------



## Morrus (Jan 22, 2012)

Sammael said:


> Russ, you were doing so well until you mentioned how great Dragonlance was. After that, I knew this was an elaborate troll.




I think we all have a soft spot for our intro products; DL happened to be mine.  But, like I said, I don't think it would make a good default setting.


----------



## Ashilyn (Jan 22, 2012)

Honestly, I've never been able to get into FR myself. The Baldur's Gate games were fantastic, but I don't think the setting was the strength of those games - it was the writing and the gameplay. The setting was a decent backbone, but I'm reasonably sure they could have transplanted that story elsewhere and it would have been just as fantastic.

A few books caught my attention, but I think I only have ones till, the rest were handed off to friends. I dunno, nothing about FR ever really spoke to me. The sometimes rotating door of gods, the largely cookie cutter regions and factions, and overblown "Hero" characters like Drizzt and Elminster took away some of the mystery and majesticness of the setting - why is my band of heroes doing any of this when one of them could probably stumble across it and solve it without much issue? I mean, I know realistically that's not always possible, but as a player (and a GM) having those sorts of intensely, heavily touted heroic characters can really take away from things sometimes. You can say "Oh, well, they're off doing blah blah, they're not a factor", but in my experiance, people still think and worry about it - it ruins part of the illusion of being a hero, of being special.

If I had to pick a new "default"/flagship campaign setting? Greyhawk is probably the best one for the design goals of 5E - it's a loosely defined base that most every edition of players (except maybe people who started with 4E) are familiar with, with the ability to add or take away whatever you want while still having an interesting, solid base.

But that wouldn't be my personal choice.



Blackwind said:


> As for Eberron: I think it's a really well done setting, but it's too far from the standard, pseudo-medieval milieu of D&D to be the flagship setting.




Eberron would be my choice. It may not be the most unifying location, but it is the most overtly dynamic setting, with plenty of various options that can be dropped in and out of a campaign as desired. And the fact that it's not strictly swords and sorcery, while still having more than it's share of just that, makes it something than can theoretically appeal to a large number of people, not to mention that it fits well with the idea of "familiar change" that seems to be prevalent in talk of 5E. It's also insanely easy to run any number of campaign styles in Eberron, and I think that would fit with the theme really well too.

Plus, damnit, Eberron was the most dynamic, interesting, flavourful setting since Dark Sun. I never liked the things 4E did with it, and I want it to live again in all it's glory.

EDIT: I will say that, unlike most of the rest of this thread and FR supporters in general, I actually liked what 4E did with FR. It was a radical shift, but it finally gave the setting something I felt was very unique and flavourful and fun to tinker with - it reminded me, in that sense, of Eberron's dragonmarks, or anything about Dark Sun. Granted, Dark Sun is a much, much more niche setting and could never be a true flagship product, but I think it has more going for it than most of the ones that could be.

So, why still support Greyhawk as a flagship setting? Because it's literally the opposite. It still has flavour and interesting bits and fleshed out, cool lore to it, but at the same time so much is so loosely defined and open that the possibilities are endless, more so than any other of D&D's "traditional" settings - and that's pretty damn cool, if you ask me.

That said, I also want a proper Planescape in 5E. Not this "Sigil is stuffed away in a book about the Planes" crap. Sigil deserves it's own freaking book. If Sharn could get one in 3E, I think Sigil could easily get one at some point in 5E.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jan 22, 2012)

Brix said:


> If you don't like FR, that's fine. What's the point in bashing a setting, that other people hold dear?




Battlespace preparation.  For an edition that intends to unify gamers, the Forgotten Realms are poison.

Morrus, I think your tack is prudent.  But I don't have to like it.


----------



## Warunsun (Jan 22, 2012)

There is no doubt in my mind that Forgotten Realms will remain the  default setting for fifth edition. I think it has more to do with the  many contracts for the new Neverwinter Nights MMO video game than any  other reason. All campaign promotions in the last year have been leading  up to this video game that was delayed due to the production company  being bought out by foreign interests.

However, there is also no doubt in my mind that if WotC really wanted to  cash in on nostalgia feel they are trying to generate that releasing a  Greyhawk setting book or boxed set would be a very smart move for them.  Just like releasing the limited edition AD&D book set also brings  this nostalgia feel up in a major way. This April is going to be only  the second time that WotC directly published AD&D materials; the  other being when they did the TSR Silver Anniversary Collector's Edition  Boxed Set in 1999. Nothing says old school and nostalgia better than  the World of Greyhawk or perhaps Blackmoor. I don't think Greyhawk would  need to be the core world as it was in First and Third editions but  just having some support would go a long way.

All of the settings have their strong points and weak points. I like  Forgotten Realms but honestly I own it all several times over. I don't  even own everything for the realms but I have entirely too much AD&D  1E, 2E, and D&D 3E, v3.5, and 4E material already for the Forgotten  Realms on my shelf.  Undermountain is the defacto super dungeon of  Forgotten Realms. I personally have two Undermountain boxed sets and  three adventure modules (from Second Edition), a v3.5 super adventure  hardcover (covering the same), and there is a 4E 96-page hardcover book  on the way this year. However, I don't understand the description  because the Elder Elemental Eye cult is from the World of Greyhawk and  not the Forgotten Realms at all. Regardless, let us say that the  Forgotten Realms is well covered. If one of the goals of 5E is to be  able to use materials from all the editions then we should be able to  use these old source-books without needing to repurchase them or  re-purpose them with Greyhawk cultists. Very strange descriptions of  that 96 page product.

They would be smarter to come up with something new I think. The Nentir  Vale for 4E was a good idea that was never fully realized. Something  fresh and new would be great as long as it didn't suck. They generally  keep all of these settings pretty generic feeling so it would be pretty  hard for them to screw it up. Eberron, for example, was a really nice  change for D&D v3.5.


----------



## Matt James (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm a Forgotten Realms fanboi, though I like many things about the varied settings. I'll support whatever is supported. It's D&D.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jan 22, 2012)

I started with Dark Sun and Ravenloft. FR came only much later after reading some Salvatore novels and hearing about Karatur. Never was much interested in GH...


----------



## Brix (Jan 22, 2012)

The FR fan site no.1, candlekeep, that hasn't been very active since the advent of 4E-FR bursts with activity now. The same is true for the FR mailing list. I'm not sure if the old-school-FR-fans would by another complete ruleset. But they will buy the FR-fluff-books. So the FR-fans add to the new edition.


----------



## Osgood (Jan 22, 2012)

I couldn't agree more about the Forgettable Realms.  I'm an Eberron man myself, but for 5E to live up to the lofty goal of supporting all play styles, I think there should be NO default setting.  Don't build in the preconceived notions of a setting, that then need to get altered if someone wants to run something a little different.

I say the next DMG should have a chapter on campaign settings, and each of the major settings (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, the Realms, and maybe Plansecape or Spelljammer) with a 4 page summary of the setting.  Just enough to get someone going with the unique flavor (even if it is FR vanilla) of the setting.

Rule elements tied to settings, such as deities may seem problematic, but until 3E we never god a list of gods in the core game.  They could have god archetypes (with a list of setting specific examples), or use a pantheon everyone knows like the Greek gods as an example.  

Just a thought.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 22, 2012)

The best folks to write Greyhawk today work for (or own) Paizo - Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds and Lisa Stevens.  (And there's always FGG's Greg Vaughan.)


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 22, 2012)

ok, my 2 cents. The old FR Gray box was the first setting i ever bought, and i loved it to death. So we gamed in the FR for many years. I had the GH boxed set too but never played there, but i MASSIVELY enjoyed Gary's Gord books, and to this day I still like them. I loved the DL novels very much, up through Legends, but i never played in that setting either. Don't think i would want to. 

I don't mind the FR being the core setting in 5e, but i don't really care what they use, so long as it is pseudo-medieval. GH would have been even better because i know so little about it. 

One thing they could do, MAYBE, with the FR, is to transport us back 1000 or 2000 or 5000 years, and give us the state of the world at that time, and then fans of the setting will know what the Realms will evolve into. Just a thought.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 22, 2012)

I like the Realms, pre- and post-spellplague. I like the characters (well a bunch of 'em anyway) but I like they shake things up because I felt it got bloated. That means some favorite characters go to the wayside and I'm okay with that. I don't need to visit Azoun for a royal charter with every character in every edition set in the Realms. If I want to, I can run every campaign that way because lord knows there's enough stuff to do so and conversion is pretty easy.

I'm not a big Greyhawk guy, but I appreciate it. I've never really played in it so all my experience is as an observer. 

I love Dark Sun, Spelljammer, etc. One of teh reasons I so love 2E is because of the settings. I really do like them all. 

Well, except Dragonlance though, DL is for ninnies.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 22, 2012)

On reflection, given that this is an opinion piece rather than actual news or a review, I'll slip it into the 5E forum.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jan 22, 2012)

I wish for a setting that can be summed up in this word:

Classic

That is if Ravenloft is gothic, Dragonlance is epic and Eberron is pulp. I'm sure some people think Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are classic but I'm not sure I agree. Greyhawk is quirky with all the silly names and crashed space ships. Forgotten Realms was always full of hot air, to me. The setting and it's characters were always toted by the writers as the greatest stuff ever. I find it hard to love arrogance. Elminster and Drizzt, while cool, were accompanied by a PR-people following them around and trying to one up everything and anything. If someone said that Superman could outrun a bullet FR would  say "That's nothing! Elminster can outrun two bullets!"


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 22, 2012)

I shared Morrus' view of FR for a long time (well, except about Dragonlance, which I always thought was ruined by the original adventure modules) and am a huge Greyhawk fan.  That changed when I picked up the 3E FRCS -- as a result of playing the BG series games -- and subsequently got a copy of the original Grey Box. Ironically I'd played the original SSI Gold Box computer games, but I'd never made the connection between those games and a published campaign setting at the time.

I found that if I ignored the named characters (Mary Sues et al), the Realms-shattering events, and the novel-based evolution of canon, FR is a great place to run a wide variety of campaigns.  There's such a huge depth of history and lore to draw from that it's easy to find a spot to fit campaign needs with a relative minimum of adaptation.  I ran a multi-year successful campaign in my version of the Realms, which I'd effectively Greyhawk-ized by ignoring future canon, novels, RSEs, and big-name characters.

Greyhawk still is D&D's core in my heart, but as a result of my experience I'm a fan of FR as well.  I think it will work great for 5E if WotC can avoid the historical bad tendencies (those three items I mention above).  Ideally, I'd like to see them do a reset to the Grey Box era, then not mess with the timeline further.  A campaign setting should expand outward, fleshing out other areas, but not forward -- gaming groups set the "future history" of a campaign setting.

I'll certainly echo a call for a return to Greyhawk in 5E -- but only if they put Erik Mona in charge, because I think of anyone I can name he gets it the best.

(On the FR novels ... I've read quite a few, and sadly most are crap, but unfortunately that also goes for the majority of D&D "gaming fiction".  In reviewing that stuff you almost have to treat gaming fiction as a separate genre of F&SF in order to recalibrate your standards downward.)


----------



## Rechan (Jan 22, 2012)

While I was introduced to fantasy novels via _The Crystal Shard_ and read most of the FR novel lines, I never had much of an attachment to any setting. I enjoy Eberron a lot, but I'm far too in love with kitbashing elements from here and there, homebrewing things, etc. 

Personally I think all the old settings are old-hat and played out.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 22, 2012)

After thinking about my prior post, I'd add:

In my view the proper way ahead is not "Let's Forget the Forgotten Realms", but "Let's Reset the Forgotten Realms."

Much as there is interest in new ideas and setting, if you want to bring old players back, you're going to have to start with something they recognize, which means going back to AD&D era settings.  Greyhawk and FR have the pull to do this; Dragonlance and Mystara might; Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Birthright, and Spelljammer are all to niche to pull it off; and Eberron and the Nentir Vale are too recent to rope in the grognards.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 22, 2012)

Please no. I love GH but WOTC ( and Paizo running the magaziness) never had the plot to begin with.  The GH products in the late 2e and 3e era did little morethan pay lip service to the setting and amounted to FR lite. The only GH I  would like to see is possibly  Mearls' pre wars setting. Otherwise let GH rest in peace.


----------



## Pour (Jan 22, 2012)

Unification, in my opinion, requires something new and of excellent quality, something all of us can jump on board at the same time, be those neophytes experiencing the birth of a new, shared, experience, saying, "Yes! This is the kind of setting I could do something with..." and "Look what I did here." or "That's a great idea." 

Utilizing any past setting simply sets us against each other, muddies golden memories, sparks lore and preference debates, and a dozen other unwanted symptoms. It's like the tradition and history of the game are at the same time D&D's most cherished asset and its terminal illness. 

We need the 'New Classics', which can be_ like_ the old settings in some regards (mainly in the way they excite our imaginations), but rehashing, reinventing, and revisiting just leaves me cold and a lot of people in varying states of dissatisfaction.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 22, 2012)

Robin: "Golly, no proper 5e news, Bats!"

Batman: "What should we do, faithful sidekick?"

Robin: "I know! Setting elitism!" 

Batman: "To the Batcave!"

Dadadadadadada Batman! Batman! Batman! Batman! *sound of keystrokes
*


----------



## Izumi (Jan 22, 2012)

I recently walked up to the great Mage's Tower in Shadowdale and read a sign that said "The ground is cracked and paved with designers who could not behave." The other one said something about "off writing novels" or such.

In any case, how about a trip to Blackmoor?


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 22, 2012)

DaveMage said:


> The best folks to write Greyhawk today work for (or own) Paizo - Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds and Lisa Stevens.  (And there's always FGG's Greg Vaughan.)




This is why I think that if Greyhawk were to be utilized it would have to be rebooted. There is virtually no way to out-Greyhawk guys like Mona unless you give up on trying to beat him at the old game. 

I am not quite so foolish as to say there is no possible way that Mona and Co. could be gotten to work on a new Greyhawk, but the odds are _extremely_ long on that one. They already have their own highly succesful setting, one that I think evokes a feeling much closer to that of Greyhawk than the Forgotten Realms, even if it is in some ways structurally more similar to the latter.

Personally, I am an Eberron guy myself (and increasingly a Golarion guy too). But I can live with it not being a focus in the new edition. I have all of the books from the original v3.5 setting which is all I really need to keep going (and as long as Keith Baker is around the setting can never really die; I guess I do appreciate the comment about the connection between Greyhawk and Gygax). 

Unfortunately, I do not think there is really anywhere to go for the Nentir Vale. It is a setting that was really tied to the conceits of 4E, and one that I think the potential of which may have been destroyed by designing its world map to work for a board game. 

So I think it will come down to Forgotten Realms. Perhaps we were fooling ourselves to ever think it was not going to be the "winner" . Hell, after many years of hoping that Dungeons & Dragons Online would be expanded to include other locations, such as Sharn, we have now been treated to the revelation that the DDO expansion is going to be set in the Forgotten Realms! If that does not tell you something, I do not know what will. 

I am not going to rule out the possibility that Greyhawk, rebooted or not, could be the basis for 5E. But I suspect the question in the minds of the folks of WotC is more likely to be " How are we going to present the Forgotten Realms? " rather than " Which setting are we going to favour? "


----------



## jelmore (Jan 22, 2012)

I remember in the days of 1st edition D&D reading Ed Greenwood's articles in _Dragon Magazine_ that described interesting bits of lore, unique or mysterious artifacts, and creative new spells. Every time a new issue came out, I looked for his name.

Part of the mystique was that they came from a place called "The Forgotten Realms." The name evoked an image of a faraway place, lost in to the ages.

When the grey box came out, I bought it, as did everyone I knew. I bought some of the early Forgotten Realms novels. But as time went by, the more that we found out about the Forgotten Realms the more my interest waned. I never bought any of the 3rd or 4th edition FR sourcebooks. The Abolethic Sovereignty trilogy are the first FR novels I've bought since the Avatar trilogy. (I've somehow managed to miss reading anything with Drizzt Do'Urden in it, so I confess that I don't see the attraction...)

I don't have anything against the Forgotten Realms as a setting. I loved the FR video games (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale), and I've played in D&D Game Days and Encounters sessions set in the Realms. I just feel like that world is overdeveloped; there is so much backstory, and so many world-spanning/world-shaking events have gone on, that I don't see any interesting stories that I want to tell at my table.

I loved Eberron in 3.5, and I wish that it had gotten more attention in 4th edition. I really enjoy the articles and adventures from the Nentir Vale; it recaptures that feeling that I got from the early FR articles.

I don't know that I want any of the major campaign settings to be _the_ D&D setting for the new edition. I hope they do what they did with 4th edition and keep a "light" campaign setting like the Nentir Vale as the examples used in the core rulebooks.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 22, 2012)

JeffB said:


> Please no. I love GH but WOTC ( and Paizo running the magaziness) never had the plot to begin with.



Huh. There is a one-true-plot? All along I've missed it.

All these decades of playing in it and . . . I feel like such a rube to have never caught *the* plot. 

I did catch this though:
The Savant-Sage and Pluffet Smedger the Elder are part of the past. The WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting is yours now, to do with as you wish. You can mold new states from old, or inflame ancient rivalries into open warfare, as you tailor the world to suit the needs of your players. The time has come for new legends to be created, new battles to be fought, new songs to be sung. It is your world—welcome to it!​Written by Steve Winter, editor and Allen Hammack, product planning manager in the '83 Glossography


----------



## JeffB (Jan 22, 2012)

Eric Anondson said:


> Huh. There is a one-true-plot? All along I've missed it.




Figure of Speech, much?


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 22, 2012)

Oerth as the default campaign world once again? Yes, please. In fact I would take a three-tiered approach.

As was done with 3e, the proper names for the World of Greyhawk should flavor spells, deities, and the like. The World of Greyhawk begins as the "assumed" default setting.

Then I would release the World Builder’s Guide. This book would not only encourage DMs to build their own settings, but allow them to do so in a manner that is consistent and structured. The creation of new races, classes, spells, magic systems, and pantheons would be presented in a way that could be used to flesh out an undersea world, desert realm, spiraling Necropolis, or whatever the DM can dream up.

The World of Greyhawk would be fleshed out, throughout the WBG, to provide examples. Other campaign settings would follow, using the WBG format.

After that, a proper fluff-heavy Greyhawk Gazetteer would follow; detailing locales, NPCs, and the rich history of Oerth.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 22, 2012)

JeffB said:


> Figure of Speech, much?



For what? For "all post-Gygax Greyhawk was a false-bad-wrong-Greyhawk"? Yeah, I think my quote from the '83 Glossography fits fine.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 22, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> Oerth as the default campaign world once again? Yes, please. In fact I would take a three-tiered approach.
> 
> . . .



I'd endorse that plan.


----------



## IcarusATB (Jan 22, 2012)

Drizzt - I feel the same way about drow.  Stop the madness, people!


----------



## Aramax (Jan 22, 2012)

Ok Ive got no dogs in this race,I will not buy any supported worlds in 5,so my opinion on this matters very little.This being the internet and all I might as well put my 2 cents in.

I dont want ANY default setting.I want the rules as setting nuetral
as possible as I have my own very developed world and dont use any of the published stuff.

Having said that,I think FR is the 800 lb monkey in the room.Its the setting that caught on the most w/ the players,prob because of the thin vaneer it paints over real world history.Greyhawk to me was always a little amature hour for me.It came from very early in the hobby and it showed.
I hate Dragonlance as much as you do FR.

5th is about inclusion of the greatest number of gamers,so Im afraid your not going to get your way on this mighty Guv_Ill make a prediction-we'll see FR long befor Greyhawk and niether will be in the phb


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 22, 2012)

Those arguing for a setting free rules set .... you do know that pretty much limits the hobby to existing players and a slow death, right? The story is what makes the experience, and new DMs and players need a story.

As for the OP, if you've never actually read or played in a setting, I have no idea how you can judge it. I've played or DMd the FR since forever, and not once has Drizzt or Elminster shown up. There is no reason why they should, if you don't want them to. I've never understood the argument that "there are powerful good people on the planet, why should the characters even exist" argument against the FR. Heck, if there were no powerful good characters, wouldn't all the powerful bad guys just take over the world, while the PCs were growing up?

The FR has all kinds of kewl names, and regions to use. I don't get that argument either.

As a matter of fact, I really don't get the argument against any setting....they can all be what the humans playing the game want them to be.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 22, 2012)

I prefer Greyhawk to FR but I would prefer an entirely new setting to be the default, and I'd also rather not see it permeate the rule books. There are advantages of having an entirely new setting.

Old and new D&D players alike are all on an equal footing. A new setting is equally unfamiliar to everyone. There are far fewer preconceptions.

Veteran GH, FR or whatever fans don't have to worry about reboots or anything else coming along that diminishes their idea and the fans' shared idea of their favourite setting.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 22, 2012)

Zaukrie said:


> Those arguing for a setting free rules set .... you do know that pretty much limits the hobby to existing players and a slow death, right? The story is what makes the experience, and new DMs and players need a story.




WotC can easily release starter modules, free or otherwise. Don't get me wrong, though: I'm sure there will be support for a setting built into rule books right from the outset.

But I don't buy the argument that the alternative limits the game to existing players either.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 22, 2012)

Well, I'm a Greyhawk fan and I've introduced the setting to a whole new generation. 

I'd love to see support for the setting--if it's done right. The last thing that it (or any other setting, the Realms included) needs is some heavy-handed, apocalyptic change like the Realm's Time of Troubles or the Spell Plague, or Dragonlance's 5th age and subsequent Chaos war. Just because the editions change or whatever doesn't mean that there needs to be some large-scale changes to the setting.

If there are _any_ changes to the settings, they should advance the time in rather small steps and the changes should be an organic outgrowth of established fluff instead of some needless, heavy-handed deus ex machina.

I don't begrudge anyone support to their favorite setting. In fact, I'm all for it. I'd just like to seem some support for my favorite setting---just done right and by people that have the same love for the setting as me.


----------



## CM (Jan 22, 2012)

Never quite understood the hangups people have on Drizzt and Elminster. I've run probably a dozen multi-year campaigns (concurrently) over the last 20 years and I think Elminster made one appearance (where he needed the PCs' help). 

What I like about FR is that there's so much room for campaigns of different themes that it never gets stale. I've had campaigns set in Waterdeep, the Silver Marches, the Great Dale, the Dalelands, Chult, Cormyr, Phlan, Tashalar and other places and they all had their own unique flavor but were still identifiably set in Faerun.

That said, I think the spellplague was a bit overkill, but now the recent Cormyr articles in Dragon have given me a positive outlook. For those not familiar, some of the articles had both pre- and post-spellplague information on Cormyr. If that is a sign of things to come, then that should go a long way to mending the rift between pre- and post-spellplague FR fans.


----------



## gyor (Jan 22, 2012)

Another FR fan who hopes core uses FR at least in part. I liked how in the previews for heroes of the elemental choas they had Primordials from multiple settings. I think this will be the template for the phb.

As for what's FR's theme its right in the title. Forgotten Realms. It works on multiple levels. A lots of places and culture originated from earth, different planes, or other worlds, from cultures now dead in the places they originated. 
 Other cultures started on Toril, built great civilizations, which fell, they're forgotten ruins offering fun for exploration. Some of these civilizations try to reemerge making understanding what has been forgotten even more vital.

A side theme is divine politics and major characters, both a side effect of the novels and as such why the setting is so much more popular. FR=money. Its also why dimishing the characters, including the gods, created the bashlash in 4e and why reconning the spellplague would cause a backlash too.

Btw ddo expanding into FR is a stupid move, eberron is a great setting and FR will only get them more competition, and anger the eberron loving base. Neverwinter will have a much more advanced game engine and the foundry. Heck I don't even think ddo is lienced for FR.


----------



## Gerrin (Jan 22, 2012)

Perhaps instead of looking at what the first six books (novels) of DL made it, people should look more into Dragonlance's history before passing judgement on if it could be a default setting.

If you go the route of the War of the Lance you could do stories there, but whats the point you know the end result of the war and there's nothing new there to trend on to create real adventures.  How many copies of the original adventures, and reworked original adventures do I need to own.

If people seriously want real adventure and that feeling of being on the frontier then a sourcebook detailing Dragonlance post Cataclysm would be amazing for stories.  This time period of DL is mostly unknown with the whole Dark Age feel of knowledge lost, information no longer flowing, starvation is rampart and so much more.  

What would be the struggles of this time period "true" clerics no longer walk the land, those that do are considered fakes.  With the announcement though that clerics would no longer be that needed part in the party, I think that this modular could be very successful with the idea that clerical magic is unheard of, and in fact clerics showing their ability are hated by people.  For those of you who follow DL it is known that the Gods did not turn their backs to humanity following the Cataclysm but the other way around.  



Another time period of DL that would be great for adventuring would be before the founding of Istar.  A world of titans, high ogres, and high adventure.

These periods can be easily worked into great default settings.  

If a current setting would be needed for DL then Taladas or Adlatum would make great default continents in DL.


----------



## Tymophil (Jan 22, 2012)

In fact, I have never been interested in Greyhawk, nor Forgotten Realms, because I always thought that I could do better than what I read about those settings in the first place. I may lack humility, but they feel so bland, so obvious, that I could create one of those settings every week. Developping them is anarchic as should be : they try to encompass all the styles. Golarion is no different...

In fact the only time a setting surprised me was with *PlaneScape*. I bought all I could, even though I never played it much. This setting is brilliant, unfonately it was slaughtered by the infamous "Faction Wars" written by some one that I'd better not mention...


----------



## rounser (Jan 22, 2012)

Be careful what you wish for, Morrus.

I don't think WOTC has the time or staff, and maybe not even the requisite passion or morale, to do a good FR or WoG version at this stage.  IMO they should use something the size of Thunder Rift as the 5E setting.  Pack it to the gills with adventure and detail to rival a CRPG, make that handful of miles D&D's "new car showroom".  Enable it to be dropped into any of the "big worlds".  Make it the setting you use when you don't have one in mind.  The big worlds hand you a training wheels area like Shadowdale or a Hommlet for that purpose anyway, rather than the whole world.  The whole world is too big.

The big furphy that has gone unchallenged for decades is that D&D needs a world, whereas every popular adventuring site I can think of in any setting (with the exception of the rare "Road to Athas" or "War of the Lance" or Planescape roadtrip) would fit somewhere Thunder Rift in size.  You can fit all of Age of Worms there.  Setting is mostly irrelevant where the rubber meets the road, as hinted at in the conversion notes between settings for Paizo's adventure paths - adventures and campaign arcs are what is important.

As far as WoG versus FR versus DL goes, I like all three.  TSR was good with settings.  All three have got something special going on.  But given the handling of FR 4E, I think that WOTC should try something a bit more bite size, and where they're less likely to tip over apple carts.  A generic fantasy microcosm would tick all the boxes.  You could even have sidebars saying "in FR, throw in this detail or monster; in GH this".


----------



## Aenghus (Jan 22, 2012)

I've played in and used FR for decades, and have enough material to continue doing so regardless of what world is supported in the new edition. 

I suppose it's because the first setting I learned something about in D&D. Greyhawk always feeled too old-fashioned and peculiar to me.

God knows FR has flaws, and I hated the Avatar Trilogy with a passion when that came out, but I'm past most of that now. Any change I can't live with, I just won't, I can house rule it.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 22, 2012)

DaveMage said:


> The best folks to write Greyhawk today work for (or own) Paizo - Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds and Lisa Stevens.  (And there's always FGG's Greg Vaughan.)



So... I vote that Paizo buy the rights to Greyhawk and start putting out material for it. Who is with me?


----------



## Warunsun (Jan 22, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> So... I vote that Paizo buy the rights to Greyhawk and start putting out material for it. Who is with me?



They, Paizo, are fully vested into their own setting now. So while I  would have been really happy to see that happen about 3-4 years ago; I  actually don't want to see it happen now. And I know it will never  happen in any case. Paizo is doing its own thing and successfully.  Wizards would not part with the IP either now. Especially when they are  uncertain of things to come.

 Forgotten Realms is coming again whether any of us want it or not. I know  I never need to buy another Forgotten Realms book and could run a  campaign just fine with what I have. I just hope they support other  settings as well. There has been a lot of talk about Elminster in this  thread. For folks that haven't been keeping up on him he was reduced to a  mere Paragon-level combat encounter for the PCs to defeat in fourth  edition. He was defrocked and is no longer the Gandalf of D&D.  Indeed, Mordenkainen could legitimately kick his ass now. It makes no  sense but that is the current state of Elminster.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 22, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> So... I vote that Paizo buy the rights to Greyhawk and start putting out material for it. Who is with me?




Buy? Doubtful. License, ala 3e Ravenloft with White Wolf? Much more likely on WotC's end. However, I doubt it would happen on Paizo's end because they are very invested in Golarion. Paizo is already set on a multi-year course by the success of Pathfinder, and I don't see 5e changing that, even if they did get an opportunity to play in an old, familiar playground like Greyhawk.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 22, 2012)

Sigh.

I would dearly love to see the return of Greyhawk ... where I sweated, bled, enchanted, and strove as a young man.  It would be great fun.

Doubt it's going to happen, though.  It's just easier for WOTC to move forward with what it has.

But.  But.  One day ... from WOTC or Paizo or SOMEONE.  It would be a wonderful treat.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 23, 2012)

If they made Planescape/The Great Wheel the default cosmology in any capacity and made planar material for it... I'd mortgage my soul to be in on it. Just saying.

Please? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Hey, I more or less said the same thing and it got me in on Paizo's BotD III, so it can't hurt to try the same here. I can happily be invested in more than one cosmology and enjoy both.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> GREYHAWK FOREVER!



What is it about GH that inspires such excitement? I share your apathy toward FR, and extend it to GH and most other published settings. I've never played in GH, so I'm honestly curious what sets it apart from other settings.

(Particularly from FR, 'cause from what limited info I have, GH simply looks like a generic setting much like FR. Albeit with less detail.)


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 23, 2012)

I am not sure I see the Great Wheel becoming the default cosmology again, but it might be hybridized with the 4E cosmology to become something new...ish...

Cosmology would probably be a good topic for a thread.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 23, 2012)

Greyhawk as the implied setting? I like that. Casting raise dead on Dragonlance? No, please.

Love the Realms. And they sell. Selling is a good thing, as far as I can tell. License Dragonlance to Weis again, where it can live forever in the realms of third party stuff, for people like the OP, who never accepted the fact that the Realms simply came and trampled it. It seems DL sells enough to make a business for a small publisher, and that's where it should stay.

But as long as FR is the setting that sells, it should be the first setting to get support. The day Eberron or (god forbids) Dragonlance supplants it should be the day of changing that. Otherwise, keep it coming and we'll keep playing in the (non-spellplague) Realms.

Cheers,


----------



## the Jester (Jan 23, 2012)

The FR logo has actually pushed me away from buying quite a few products over the years.

I got the 1e Grey Box, and it was awesome. Then everything else... more or less ripped off (or "homaged", if you're feeling generous) pretty much every fantasy trope. Stole mainstream stuff and shoved it into an FR-labeled envelope (_Monsters of Faerun_, I'm looking you right in the eyes.) As time passed, more and more stuff got shoehorned into Realms books that was really intended for every D&D game (hi there swordmage!). I am so sick of it that I could vomit. 

If the 3e _Underdark_ book hadn't had the FR 'brand' on it, I would have grabbed it in a red-hot second. Likewise, _Serpent Kingdoms, Monsters of Faerun, Champions of Ruin,_ etc.

Is "Oh, it's an FR product" a good reason to skip a good sourcebook? *NO-* but, inevitably, I end up doing so anyway, because _that's how strong my antipathy towards the Forgotten Realms is._ I almost bought the 3e FRCS book; it was fantastic, but I always turned aside from it in favor of, well, anything- 3rd party products, the Eberron setting book, beer, porn, giving my money away to a homeless guy.

The FR brand is a HUGE turnoff to me. I hope to God that WotC doesn't put ONE. DAMN. REFERENCE. to it in DnDN, _except in FR books._ I do not want a single tiny drop of Realms garbage to get on the other books on my shelf. 

In fact, putting the level of FR support in 5e's PH that Greyhawk saw in 3e would be too much for my tastes- I DO NOT WANT Realmsian deities listed in the PH or Basic Set or whatever it ends up being. I DO NOT WANT references to Amn and Cormyr as 'assumed setting elements'. 

As far as I can come up with, FR support in the core rules is about the only thing that might push me away from buying 5e. Is that stupid? Probably, but it IS. I HATE the Realms, with all its damned DMPCs and ridiculous, flavorless, mashed-together nonsense, enough that it might be a dealbreaker for me. I really really really really really REALLY hope that the "early support of FR" we've heard about for DnDN/5e/whatever is not in the generic rulebooks. I want a system that supports MY HOMEBREW, NOT ED GREENWOOD'S.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 23, 2012)

Heh, I am another that does not care about the Forgettable Realms, outside of the Baldur's Gate series....

But then I had created my first setting before even The Wilderlands got published. (Wilderlands was my first purchased setting - those tan maps, with the fascinating blank areas on the player's versions. The stinking streets of 'The City State of the Invincible Overlord'....  )

The Auld Grump


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm 42 and also a Greyhawk fan from back in the day. I've only tolerated the Realms in video games. I might have ran a campaign in the setting for 4E, but the Realms lovers in the group naturally hated the changes.


----------



## master arminas (Jan 23, 2012)

I won't buy 5E, D&D Next, or whatever they decide to call it next week.  At least not until someone shows me it is BETTER than Pathfinder.

MA


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 23, 2012)

I have a special love for all three of the older worlds of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.  Each appeals to a different desire in my gaming.

Greyhawk is the world that most feels like I can make it my own.  While over the years there's been a good bit written for it, for me nothing beats just having either the World of Greyhawk Boxed set or the Greyhawk Gazetter, and going whatever direction you want from there.

Forgotten Realms is the world I turn to when I want a world that feels alive.  It's been so detailed over the years I feel like, with the information available for it, I could get into the mind of any Realmian and know them.

Dragonlance is the world of the epic saga.  It is the classic war of good and evil, of self-doubt and heroism and of bigotry and acceptance - in both the small scale and the large scale.  Where Greyhawk has the feel of Terra Incognito and Realms is the Lands Revealed, Dragonlance is the place of story.

I feel there's plenty place for each in D&D Next, and I hope to see all three return.

However, of all the three, if one is going to be tied to the rules, I would rather it goes to Greyhawk - to Terra Incognito.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 23, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> Where Greyhawk has the feel of Terra Incognito and Realms is the Lands Revealed, Dragonlance is the place of story.



I like this, I'd go as far as finding a place at the table for Mystara as the world where everything goes.

Mystara has a fantasy analog for every Earth culture, from nearly every era. Mystara has a place for grim and gritty, wahoo, high fantasy, low fantasy, comedy, dungeon crawling, wilderness exploring, age of exploration, domain building, urban drama, empires at war, sky ships, hollow worlds with floating islands, time travel, paths to immortality . . . *and all at the same time in the same campaign*, or just pick one and focus there.

There is already a lot of similarity to Mystara cosmology in the 4e cosmology. Nentyr Vale has so many similarities with northern Karameikos it is eerie.


----------



## Aoric (Jan 23, 2012)

Some of you may know me better under my other moniker Argon alas it was not available when I signed up for ENworld.

However with all due respect to everyone else who loves their particular setting for whatever reason. Dungeons and Dragons begins and ends with Greyhawk. Though if it where to come to light again the western continent has to be explored as well. This does not mean no more Flanaess. I see it as adding some frosting to a cake, a steak and potatoes, a beer and wings maybe even some pizza.

I'm 39 and have been playing for over 20 years. Whose to say if I will or won't but the fifth edition remains to be seen. One thing that has kept the setting alive is its fans. I like many members of canonfire have submitted material to keep the setting alive. I will continue to do so but to me that is the main pull of the setting fans made it a reality and fans continue to make it so today. I think the main reason many of us would like to see a resurgence of Greyhawk as a setting. Is not so much for ourselves as much as we would like to share such an experience with the next generation of roleplayers out there.

Here's hoping this next rendition of dungeons and dragons is an improvement upon the game we all know and love.

Later

Aoric


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 23, 2012)

My solution?  Default genre not default setting.  That way they can follow up with the settings they want to support and, even moreso if they OGL 5E, license out the settings they don't want to support in-house, allowing OGC customization to a more open DDI, of course.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jan 23, 2012)

I've played in Forgotten Realms and didn't have a problem with it, but also had no special love for it. Still, it's a decent enough setting.

But Greyhawk is the D&D setting. It was the setting I was introduced to when I was a kid, and it was the default setting when Third Edition brought me back to the game.

I would like to see it be the default setting again, and I'd like it to get a solid set of products. Something akin to the original boxed set, but built with modern production values. It doesn't need a full line, leave that to Forgotten Realms. Just make it something special.


----------



## Noumenon (Jan 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Did I mention I ran the biggest independent RPG news site in the world? Yet I haven't the faintest clue about the biggest mine of WotC's intellectual property. I bet you'd fire me now if you could.




You do know Drizz't and Elminster. I've been playing D&D for four years and I only _just_ learned the reason there are spells called _Mordenkainen's X_. This is despite having read about a hundred back issues of Dragon magazine and having 30 D&D blogs in my RSS feed. (I finally learned it from Justin Alexander's 10-year-old review of Greyhawk: Return of the Eight.)


----------



## Frylock (Jan 23, 2012)

*My Perspective*

I played D&D from 1977 to 1981 (AD&D), then returned to the game 24 years later (2005) for the tail end of 3e. The only D&D in between was a brief fling with the Eye of the Beholder I PC video game, which is where I was introduced to the Forgotten Realms. I love the Realms and prefer it over Greyhawk, yet I agree that Greyhawk should be the default setting for DnDNext simply because FR has been the default setting for 4e. Do something different. Shake up things a bit. That's my philosophy. You should try it sometime, Morrus. It makes things more interesting. 

Side note: I've never played in Dragonlance or any of the 2e settings except, of course, Dark Sun, which has support in 4e.


----------



## The Halfling (Jan 23, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> If they made Planescape/The Great Wheel the default cosmology in any capacity and made planar material for it... I'd mortgage my soul to be in on it. Just saying.
> 
> Please?
> 
> ...




Since this in a way is connected with GH, I'm going to comment on this.

For all of the complaints against 4e for it's gamist attitude, why on earth would you want to bring back the biggest gamist element  from 1e/2e. The Great Wheel is one huge conceit to support the alignment grid. It was too cold, too calculated...too PRECISE. It had no mystery. It was too easily understood. If anything, 4e's cosmology injected a mystery and mystic sensibility to the planes. 

Greyhawk and the Great Wheel are not synonymous. In fact I would put forth the premise that the cosmology envisioned by  4e would fit the sword and sorcery feel of Classic Greyhawk more than the Great Wheel. The titanic battles between Chaos and Order, capricious faerie realms, and creatures from the shadows. 

The only thing missing would be a 3rd coterminous plane...a Spirit World. Something to replace the old ethereal plane, but intended more as the Spirit world of China or Japan, coupled with the Hunting Grounds of Native America and Purgatory. A place of nature spirits and lost souls unable to either ascend or descend into the afterlife. 

That and have the the astral domain/dominion/plane of Hell fall from the heavens/astral plane to reside over the maw of the Abyss, only held aloft from complete oblivion by the will of Asmodeus.

I would rather WotC build something new with regards to a core campaign world. Something along the lines of the PoL setting "detailed" in 4e. Adjusted for what ever rules changes that may occur in 5e, and with a better designed map. 

Failing that, my preference would be Greyhawk, especially the synopsis detailed by Mearls, and the original Blackmoor utilized. But only because my preferred world is Eberron, and even I agree that that should not be core. It's too divisive. 

The Forgotten Realms/Mystara/Golarion all suffer from the kitchen sink syndrome. I look at Golarion and all I see is 2e Forgotten Realms with great art direction. All are too generic. To be honest, a reimaged Mystara that attempted a more sensible placement of the various cultures and countries would be a better than yet another take on the FR. 

It must be the Blackmoor Theory. Everything is better with Arneson's Blackmoor.


----------



## Weregrognard (Jan 23, 2012)

As someone who got into D&D during the 2e era and its many worlds, I vote for LESS settings and MORE info on making your own setting.  I may be in the minority here, though


----------



## Mortellan (Jan 23, 2012)

Androlphas said:


> As someone who got into D&D during the 2e era and its many worlds, I vote for LESS settings and MORE info on making your own setting.  I may be in the minority here, though




Good post. Slightly off topic. It got me thinking. You don't need spend money on a generic book on how to design worlds when you got the published ones to use for examples. If that's not good enough, nonfiction books always worked for me when designing realisitc maps or nations. These days there's wikipedia and so on.

Viva Greyhawk!


----------



## OpsKT (Jan 23, 2012)

If I'm not going to just make my own setting for a fantasy RPG (regalrdless of rules sets) I am most fond of Eberron. I've run it under v3.5, 4e, and have converted it to Savage Worlds. 

If they want to unify the player base, however, they need a setting that is 'Kitchen Sink' or 'Everything to most Everyone' and for that, either Greyhawk or Mystara would do best. Forgotten Realms is, while popular, somewhat limiting due to the meta-history attached to it. While Greyhawk and Mystara also have their histories, they are not near as fleshed out as the novel lines have done for the recent history of the Realms. 

That is why I think it should be one of those two. If not, I will not even look at D&D5 until they release the Eberron books for it, if ever.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 23, 2012)

*quietly mumbles something about Mystara from the corner*


----------



## jffdougan (Jan 23, 2012)

I was going to put these comments in last night, but opted out when we had a nasty thunderstorm start to roll through. Some of those thoughts have already been touched upon previously in the thread, but I'll try to make them articulate:

1) As an IP line other than M:tG, the Forgotten Realms is probably the most valuable asset that WotC has. This must  be accounted for in any planning & discussion.

2) Due to the extensive publishing about the Realms (through novels, computer games, and RPG products), there exists a sizable number of gamers (myself included) who feel as though there is no room for making it one's own. Said differently, I would not choose to run a game in the Realms because the odds of somebody telling me "No, it's not like that" are perceived to be extremely high.

3) I concur that at least one initial setting needs to be fairly generic, with lots and lots and lots and lots and lots (have I made my point yet?) of room for people to feel free to wander around in it without worrying about being told their wrong. From my BECMI/2E/4E brainspace, there appear to be 3 settings that I think could fit the bill:

    3A) I'm just too young to have had any real exposure to Greyhawk, but the gamers I know who are enough older than I am to have played in it tell me that it fits the bill here

    3B) As somebody noted above, I think that Mystara, possibly with a bit of rejiggering to make things feel slightly more coherent, would fit the bill quite well.

    3C) If it could survive the transition from 4E, I think the Nentir Vale would also work.

(Note: my gaming is on hiatus, so I know absolutely nothing about Golarian other than that it's the setting for Pathfinder.)

4) The part of me that grew up in the 2E era appreciates the plethora of worlds released during that time, even if some were better than others. To that end, I'd like to see at least some support for more than the default setting. I think the 4E model was close, but that Campaign Guide / Creature Catalog / tile set / 3 adventures (rather than 1) would come closer to the mark.

I'm not sure what the reality is of the status for the Dragonlance IP (who owns it, what pieces are licensed elsewhere, etc.) I agree that it's got the library present to support an introduction to gaming. Dark Sun can capture the post-apoc vibe, especially if allowed to really push some of the things I remember the 2E  boxed set trying very hard for (e.g., playing up the defiler/preserver split and the possibility for any political message that might be present). Of the other major lines I recall from the 2E era that haven't already been mentioned, Spelljammer is too niche; I don't believe that Birthright covers a sufficiently broad spectrum of play; Planescape needs the foundation of at least one more setting to build upon (IMO); and I don't know enough about either Council of Wyrms or Red Steel to contribute usefully to the discussion.


----------



## GM Dave (Jan 23, 2012)

Rule Number 1 of Settings >  Never cut the authors off at the knees.  There are several authors writing stories that generate a good revenue stream for WotC.  Simply telling them that there is no more need for their services will not help the bottom line and it is the authors that are often the first point of contact for gamers to the hobby.

Rule Number 2 of Setting >  Never let the authors kill your setting.  This almost happened in the Dark Sun world with the story resulting in the death of the sole dragon on the planet.  It is hard to take the story forward from that point.  The same happened with Dragonlance after the God of Chaos and the Five Great Dragons were brought into the game.

Rule Number 3 of Setting >  Never alter the world so badly that it reduces your audience.  Forgotten Realms has suffered a couple of major problems (Time of Troubles, the Spell Plague) making it almost a fresh setting.  If you ever feel the need to alter a setting this amount it is time to consider a fresh setting.  Invite fresh characters and writing to explore and develop this world.  There are always plenty of authors willing to fill in a new world with new challenges rather then constantly check they are not stepping on someones toes.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 23, 2012)

To be perfectly honest, the main reason I like FR is the same reason I like Star Wars: I played some pretty cool CRPGs set in the universe and so became interested in the IP.

Of course, to a certain extent, that's just the root reason. The reason I _stuck_ with both settings long after NWN2 and KotOR had passed by is because both are massive, sprawling settings that, while at time continuity-intensive - something I don't really see as a problem - are also capable of telling most of any kind of story within their respective genre you can think of.

To this degree, I see FR's "everything but the kitchen sink" approach as a strength, not a weakness. While I don't like _everything_ in FR, there's quite a lot of things I _do_ like and I can do all kinds of things with them as a DM with relatively little messing around.

If I want to run a medieval fantasy? Cormyr. If I want a planar adventure? The FR cosmology is detailed enough to let me do that. Does one of my player wants to play a dwarf or an elf? Easy. Do they want to play something more exotic, like a tiefling? Fully supported since 3rd edition.

Point is, FR isn't _just_ generic fantasy - that's a large part of it - probably the biggest part - but it's not the heart of it. The truth is that it's simply too big to be pinned down that way. And that's what I like about the setting.

EDIT: In regards to the original poster's point about Greyhawk, I more or less agree. I'd be fine with keeping Nentir Vale, but I think Greyhawk, to a certain extent, makes more sense to bring back, given the long history and nostalgia surrounding it. Plus, as Gygax's original setting, it kind of seems a shame to put it out to pasture.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 23, 2012)

Looks like WotC is listening to you Morrus:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Greenwood-Presents-Elminsters-Forgotten-Realms/dp/0786960345/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I9614YTI0BMFG&colid=88MQKIY8D20H]Amazon.com: Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms: A Dungeons & Dragons Supplement (9780786960347): Wizards RPG Team: Books[/ame]


----------



## Sammael (Jan 23, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> Looks like WotC is listening to you Morrus:
> 
> Amazon.com: Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms: A Dungeons & Dragons Supplement (9780786960347): Wizards RPG Team: Books



Whatever this is, I just preordered it.

Hopefully, this will be an edition-neutral book full of fluffy goodness.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 24, 2012)

The Halfling said:


> To be honest, a reimaged Mystara that attempted a more sensible placement of the various cultures and countries would be a better than yet another take on the FR.



I created a re-arranged Mystara map, moving nations around to have them fit a better cultural coherency. I should brush them off and put them on my deviantArt gallery . . .


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 24, 2012)

Has anyone had a player in their game, not something you saw or heard about, but in their game say "that's not how it is in the books"? GH, FR, Mystara, PS, whatever? Not once have I heard that, or, if I have, I said "it's different in my version" and that was the end of it. Have any of you actually experienced that?


----------



## Gamerstable_Jayson (Jan 24, 2012)

*This would be a dream come true!*

Great post Morrus!

I prefer Greyhawk, and I've been playing on Oerth with my pals for the better part of 30 years, with the occasional jaunt to Mystara, Toril, Krynn, etc.  It is our blank canvas that we have lovingly added detail to over the years to the framework and basic info we were given.  A place where our PC's were the heroes, only rarely rubbing elbows with Tenser, Mordenkainen and their ilk. On the rare trip to Toril it was easy for my first level guy to feel like a grain of sand on a beach. It was detailed and unchangeable. Inflexible even. GH gave us an area of Oerth to deal with that was roughly the size of Europe and the Med with a larger (smaller) map to tantalize you into sailing off the edge of the Darlene Map to explore these unknow lands and name them ourselves. Toril is a planets worth of detailed info, some of which was shoehorned into the Realms after EGG was forced out of TSR. Some of that was originally intended for GH I might add... Yeah, I'm not bitter. Part of my disdain for WotC stemms from their non-support of GH. If they came back to Greyhawk they would definitely have my attention. 

Jayson @ Gamerstable | A roundtable podcast about tabletop roleplaying games and other nerd culture topics.


----------



## Warunsun (Jan 24, 2012)

Zaukrie said:


> Has anyone had a player in their game, not something you saw or heard about, but in their game say "that's not how it is in the books"? GH, FR, Mystara, PS, whatever? Not once have I heard that, or, if I have, I said "it's different in my version" and that was the end of it. Have any of you actually experienced that?



Sure. I heard this a few times in an AD&D second edition Forgotten Realms campaign. Had two players chiming in about stuff they had read mostly in the Du'Urden novels and mostly regarding Drow. At the time I told them I mostly based my campaign on the Grey box and didn't use the novels as a source. They mostly accepted that but I did hear occasional complaints regarding those novels. Even recently, under fourth edition, I had a player discussing making a drow PC with an angle from these Du'Urden books.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 24, 2012)

I absolutely LOVE the Forgotten Realms.

But as the first setting for the new edition, I think it should be Greyhawk.  To me, it's more generic and traditional for D&D.

But for my own campaigns, when using a published setting, I use FR.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jan 24, 2012)

See, if I'm a player in an established setting, I like being able to know the world I'm in, so it bothers me if the DM says, "That's not how it works in my version." Sure, the DM has that right, but it's frustrating.

That's where less detailed worlds have an advantage. There's less to contradict because there is less to know. 

Also, a less detailed world leaves everyone wanting to know more than is available. That may seem bad, but not knowing is the real source of wonderment. People discuss and speculate about parts of a setting they only have clues for. Knowing everything takes the magic away.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 24, 2012)

M'eh?

The Forgotten Realms is a huge setting and has something for everyone.

While it can be a little vanillia and overrun with storylines pushed by fiction and gaming, that can be a strength as well as a hindrance.

With games like Baldur's Gate and others out there, along with two old comic series, and hundreds of books, the setting's impact is far greater than its RPG setting.

In terms of why its so popular, in part, blame Dragon magazine. While I am not a fan of Ed's fiction, his game work speaks volumes and things like Pages From The Mages have been staples since first edition.

If you don't know the Forgotten Realms its a choice.

It's a setting not for everyone. Some left with the Avatar series where D&D made the move from 1st to 2nd. Everyone was fairly happy with the non-event to 3rd edition. To show that fan reaction doesn't matter, WoTC made an event that made the Avatar crisis look small in comparission and not only changed the setting but did a time leap. Not every era is for everyone.

If the PDF's ever come back, I'd recommend getting the 'Gray' Boxed set. If you have the Dragon PDF compilation on CD, I'd recommend looking at the pre-100 issues for Ed's gaming material. He's got some fantastic stuff there.


----------



## Alphastream (Jan 24, 2012)

I used to feel this way, but the more I read about the history of both Greyhawk and FR the more I had to admire FR. Now, no doubt, Greyhawk is my favorite traditional fantasy setting. But I really have to be impressed by what Ed Greenwood did from the age of 9 or some-such to create a really detailed and interesting world. He just wrote and wrote (and wrote well). 

In contrast, Greyhawk was really just a bunch of separate areas and dungeons that were finally woven together and expanded upon, largely when it became completely apparent that a world would sell well (and stave off competition). 

I like what Greyhawk became. It is a great setting. But I've also been impressed by what FR has produced over the years... and from the very beginning. I also recognize that FR has had incredible success with novels. That alone is a great reason to see it as a focus of D&D Next (if what has been written is true). 

I do want to see Greyhawk come back, but I'm patient. I want to see it released when it can be properly cared for. I don't want the 4E Eberron treatment of two books and no love, or even the very good Dark Sun treatment (with great DDI, organized play, and game day support). I want Wizards to really feel the passion and create a new version that can make the fans proud. I'll gladly wait until 6E for that to happen.

Separately, it is interesting to note that in _Designers and Dungeons_ Shannon Appelcline claims that for FR and Dragonlance "The sales figures for both worlds stayed about the same for much of their lifetimes". That's a really curious claim (especially since he seems to be considering all aspects of the worlds) and I would be interested to hear if others feel they have certainty to either back that up or state otherwise.


----------



## btmcrae (Jan 24, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> _*See, if I'm a player in an established setting, I like being able to know the world I'm in, so it bothers me if the DM says, "That's not how it works in my version." Sure, the DM has that right, but it's frustrating.*_
> 
> That's where less detailed worlds have an advantage. There's less to contradict because there is less to know.
> 
> _*Also, a less detailed world leaves everyone wanting to know more than is available. That may seem bad, but not knowing is the real source of wonderment. People discuss and speculate about parts of a setting they only have clues for. Knowing everything takes the magic away.*_




Perhaps players knowing about as much as their characters would is no longer a novel idea... 

Oh, don't listen to him.  He doesn understand those of us who must know *everything*.   

And don't listen to _*him*_, as he _thinks_ he knows everything, but very much knows _nothing_.   "The magic" of the game, the "knowing/not knowing",  is a wily and cunning mistress.  

Oh, there those two go again, always arguing about whether it is better to know everything or know only what your character would know.

Hey! I'm here too!  You and me are _the same_!  I have bouts of multiple personality disorder while posting too! 

Sometimes...or so they tell me. 



************************

Anyways, FR will likely stick around, but it would be nice to see a slew of products that would be fresh and new/new-ish.  Besides, there is the 4E FR debacle to consider.  Some people might like what WotC did with FR in 4E, but I know plenty of hard core "I gotta have _EVERYTHING_ FR!!!" fans who loathed it and would buy none of it.  FR was great(and very, very well received) once, but at this point I think it would be very healthy for FR to have a little downtime in way of cleansing the FR community's palette so to speak.  Until the recent FR becomes the stuff of suppressed memory, a return to Greyhawk would be a very good thing overall, both for Greyhawk fans and, in the end, for FR fans as well.

The timing and conditions are about as good as they are going to get for a Greyhawk rebirth.  Hopefully WotC will strike while the iron is hot, and that they get some decent writers who are more than passingly familiar with the setting.


----------



## btmcrae (Jan 24, 2012)

Double post.


----------



## Gamerstable_Jayson (Jan 24, 2012)

btmcrae said:


> Perhaps players knowing about as much as their characters would is no longer a novel idea...
> 
> Oh, don't listen to him.  He doesn understand those of us who must know *everything*.
> 
> ...




I think most of those writers work for Paizo.    But wouldn't it be glorious to have GH back in print? New material? New source books that tempt with new ideas to expand upon...  I'm getting chills just thinking about it.


----------



## Henry (Jan 24, 2012)

[MENTION=17850]Russ[/MENTION]:

You are no longer my Facebook Friend. 




That said, If Greyhawk were the "default" setting again, it wouldn't hurt me because i know it and like it just as well. I really didn't have much of an appreciation for the Realms until a really good DM about eleven years ago kindled a love of the setting in me. Though I don't game with him any more, he gave me a different perspective on it, and the big deal with the Realms is BECAUSE everything is detailed out in volumed, because I could tell you in detail what a day in the life of an inhabitant could be, is the appeal. Contrast this to Golarion or Greyhawk where the broad strokes are filled in, but it's up to you to fill in all sorts of minor detail, from the name of a particular inn & tavern, to what food and drink it serves, to why there is a puddle of flesh-morphed and petrified wizards half-phased into the ceiling, and how they got there.

What the spellplague tried to do was to turn the Realms into Greyhawk, post-Greyhawk Wars, essentially, where the safe zones were few, and the triumph of good was in doubt EVERYWHERE, no "safe zones". Problem is, the Realms doesn't work that way, and there's room for a second type of campaign setting.


----------



## cildarith (Jan 24, 2012)

Bah.  If 5E is to be a mish-mash of *old* rules, the least WotC can do is provide us with a *new* setting.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Jan 24, 2012)

I absolutely agree with Morris on this... and think I may have a man-crush on him now.

Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms:  There can be only one!


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jan 24, 2012)

btmcrae said:


> Oh, there those two go again, always arguing about whether it is better to know everything or know only what your character would know.
> 
> Hey! I'm here too!  You and me are _the same_!  I have bouts of multiple personality while posting too!




Yup, you get it. If I like a setting, I'll devour everything I can for it and, in the process, I might ruin it for myself. In the meantime, I expect the world to function as I know it to, and woe be to he who changes my fake-reality.

Adding something to the unknown is good and easy to accept. Removing or changing something known causes people to recoil. It's the same reason why having a simple core that you add complexity to is more acceptable than having a complex core with removable pieces.

This isn't to say that Greyhawk is objectively superior to Forgotten Realms in a vacuum, but that the former would be a more useful default setting.

That said, they might be planning to do with the Forgotten Realms what Paizo is doing with Golarion, and that could be a very smart move. I admit that the Pathfinder model is working well and that I'm tempted to subscribe to the setting content.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant (Jan 24, 2012)

I think Russ is right, not so much because of Greyhawk (though I am still a die-hard Hawker) vs FR, but because of customer accessibility:

As a gamer in my late 20s, I have no time to make research for a D&D campaign my second job, not even for a week, or so. Thus, settings that come with lots of baggage are not working for me.

One book, or two, and I need to have a coherent overview of that setting that enables me to run satisfying games for people new to it, as well as for experienced veterans. Now, try that with the novel-driven settings FR, or Dragonlance: Nearly impossible.

So, the core of D&D should remain a setting that doesn't require regular customer attention to work - and that's what Greyhawk really is.

Now, "new", 4e Realms might still do the trick, but then again, 250 novels in the back is gargantuan. Wizbro should either go back to well-appreciated simplicity, or come up with something completely new.


----------



## GM Dave (Jan 24, 2012)

The easiest approach for WotC would be to do a two-prong approach.

1>  Prong one is their announced support of FR.  That requires 1 world book which they could write 90% of it now if they choose to just do a setting over view book.  Any 'mechanics' parts can not be written but they can lay out what they feel will need to be part of that.  They could even do an 'update' book on a narrow section of the world.

Freelance writers and Ezine Dragon writers that live and breath FR will fill in the rest with fan content.

2>  Prong two is a series of articles and a setting built for the 'new' GM to DnD 5e or the person that is returning and wants something 'fresh'.  I'd put a few overall people in charge of setting up the overall concept of the world and major motions that will determine the feel.

Use this information to put together some writer packages for the writers to get a chance to review and develop ideas with agents for proposals.  Best ideas get green lit for the initial set of books for the new setting.

Roll out of the new setting starts in roughly thirteen months in Dragon Ezine with the announcement of the column of discussing world development on the 'fictional' new world and setting.  It is a Ezine centred development for the first year with plans to gather the material into a full setting book at the end of the year.

Weekly articles can cover items like towns, religion, countries, politics, and places to adventure.  This gives a weekly build on the new setting but doesn't commit to the actual role-out and gives time to modify items that lack ressonance.

The new books should start to roll out for the new setting three to four months after GenCon release of 5e.  The aim here is that people will have had time to absorb the new information, wind down old campaigns and be willing to explore things in the Oct to Dec time frame (Christmas novel buying peaks).  People will have seen the articles for three months in Dragon Ezine and will be curious what stories are going to get written for the new world.

Have demand precede supply.

By May of 2014 WotC should be able to make a full commitment to the new setting or be looking at supporting something else.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 24, 2012)

Dark Sun worked out well being rebooted back to nearly the same timeline as the original boxed set.

As much as I love all era of Greyhawk, I'm an even bigger fan of the post-Wars Greyhawk than the original release, I believe that Greyhawk could be rebooted like Dark Sun was for 4e back to the original release timeline very successfully. Especially if Greyhawk serves mostly as a proper name generator and as a framework to place a thin veneer of a story around generic adventures.


----------



## Warunsun (Jan 24, 2012)

Eric Anondson said:


> ...I believe that Greyhawk could be rebooted like Dark Sun was for 4e back to the original release timeline very successfully.



I had considered this idea as well. Just think if they reboot Greyhawk  for 5E and also re-release new versions of some of the classic Hawk  adventure modules. I don't mean more return-to scenarios but stuff like a  fully revised and possibly expanded Temple of Elemental Evil super  module. That would be way fun if it was written nicely. I think we could  all enjoy replaying it with a few new interesting turns or extra  encounters with up-to-date game rules.

 I did enjoy running the 3E Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and my  players also enjoyed it. Monte Cook authored that one and he is back on  staff. When I ran it I converted some of the 1E adventures tied into  the RTTTOEE and ran them in the same campaign. It was fun. WotC could  take that background work from RTTTOEE and actually work it into the  original scenario for a fresh and classic trip into nostalgic land.

I wonder if this new "Elminster's Forgotten Realms" is a reboot of the  pre-spell-plague era of Forgotten Realms. It could also be a reprint  anthology of any number of Dragon Magazine articles he has written.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 25, 2012)

the more I think about it, the more I want a new setting. That way we don't have any baggage about the setting. I'm already tired of reading about all the baggage that everyone feels (for some reason that i don't understand) they need to carry with every existing setting.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 25, 2012)

I think any new setting will suffer from design-by-committee mediocrity.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 25, 2012)

Eric Anondson said:


> I think any new setting will suffer from design-by-committee mediocrity.



Why?

WotC has shown that they are fairly good at designing creative settings on a regular basis (just for M:tG, not D&D), and the last original setting they released, Eberron, was certainly not mediocre. Whatever they make can't possibly be worse than the overwritten-to-death Realms, after all. 

Still, I support the idea that the next new edition doesn't really need the Realms. The 3E FRCS was the only D&D book I ever returned to the store. I couldn't stand it. It was just one big mass of uninspiring detail with no real hook or concept that lets it stand out. It just didn't grab me at all, and that was with the book that Realms fans can't seem to stop praising... Just not for me, I guess.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant (Jan 25, 2012)

Yeah, Wizbro might be good on the MtG side, but D&D has suffered, lately.

Golarion, that was good. But Nerath? Or, the other one, that Shadowfell City? 

Pweese. 

Just that I bought the box and can't remember the name should speak volumes.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 25, 2012)

The Dragonlance novels were my first introduction to Dungeons and Dragons. I read a few Forgotten Realms books, but the original Dragonlance trillogy was better.

I didn't actually start playing D&D until college, about early-to-mid 3.5. The problem I ran into with Forgotten Realms in how it was presented during 3e left me with a feelling that the whole setting was practically mapped out down to every 5 ft square. I found it stifling and dull. What remained of Greyhawk for 3.5 core was...well, also boring.

The settings that grabbed me? Eberron. Dawnforge (runner-up to Eberron in that contest). Iron Kingdoms. Each one for different reasons.

I refuse to run a campaign in Forgotten Realms because _I do not want to DM something in which a player can know more about a world than me._ Did that with Star Wars. It made DMing not fun. Playing in the setting? I don't mind it, except when a DM feels they need a cameo by Celcius Blackstaff or whatever to appease that one or two Forgotten Realms fanboy in the group.

While I have little interest in buying anything for the setting, I actually do think it would make a good "core setting" for D&D - if tweaked a little. I would prefer something new, but I'd be fine with a slighly rebooted Forgotten Realms as core.

Then I could ignore it and do my own thing like I did with 3e's bastardization of Greyhawk.


----------



## GM Dave (Jan 25, 2012)

If they do decide to actively support FR in 5e then they should at least do a reverse in time and start fresh at 100 years prior to the Time of Troubles.

This would give the designers and players still the 'base' world that people are familiar with working and writing within.

Much of Ed's work is detailed enough to help cover this period of time.

Many of the big name characters are long lived enough that 100 years prior to the time of troubles is still within their life time but covers more of their 'youth'.

Players and GMs could then use the new material with their saved older material to create 'generation' stories.  They would have mapped out over 200 years of time covering from before the Time of Troubles to after the Spell Plague.  A player with an elf or dwarf could cover some adventures in their youth (Heroic), later life around the Time of Troubles (Paragon), and finally dealing with the true insanity of the Spell Plague (Epic).  Other players could deal with characters that are the children, grand children, and great grand children of their human or halfling parents.

It also gives the GMs that dislike Dragonborn and Tiefling a go to time when these don't need to be included in their campaigns.

Older materials can be justified as being still 'there' in developing forms while there is still plenty of space for horrors to have existed and been wiped out between the prior 100 years and the Time of Troubles period.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 25, 2012)

Without having read this thread, I like your rant [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] but I don't really disagree with your assertion that the Forgotten Realms is lacking in unique flavor. Despite its faults, I think it does have it owns "Realmsian vibe," or at least it did pre-4E/spellplague.

My history with the Realms goes back to 1987. I'm about your age so I was 13 going on 14 and I remember seeing ads for the Realms on the back covers of comic books and in Dragon magazine and being enthralled with the original logo. I called around local gaming stores (back then there must have been three times as many as there are now) and found a single copy at a game store across town; I took a bus there and was very excited to get my hands on the grey box which was, at the time, a revelation in setting design (I only had the Greyhawk box set at that point and a couple Dragonlance products).

I've never run a game in a pre-made setting, but have always enjoyed collecting and reading setting materials. The old grey box (or at least its contents; the box is long gone) and the 3E tome remain two of my favorite setting products. 

The Realms aren't one of my very favorite settings, and I find many of its qualities annoying, but I think you should consider picking up the grey box, Morrus, to get a feeling of the original Greenwood-only Forgotten Realms, and maybe the 3E book as an example of one of the best setting products ever. Even if you don't like the Realms, they're worthy additions of any gaming collection.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 25, 2012)

Mercurius said:


> Without having read this thread, I like your rant @Morrus




I'm not sure I'd call it a rant - more an appeal for more _Greyhawk_!  I feel it has been sadly neglected.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 25, 2012)

Morrus said:


> (like I care about _Doctor Who_, I guess - he's a friggin' Time Lord and Elminster wouldn't stand a chance: he laughs at your 3E _Time Stop_ exploit) but I do not share that passion.




In many ways you have summed up my opinions on Dr. Who

*



Spoiler



insulting abbreviation is intentional


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 25, 2012)

"MOAR GRAYHAUK, LESS REALMS" is pretty much a war chant trying to start a war alliance between 1e and 3e players versus 2e and 4e players.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 25, 2012)

You know, I liked that the Forgotten Realms was such a massively-detailed world. I liked that you could really sink your teeth into a lot of minute, interconnected facts about the setting that spanned great distances and lots of time. It invited almost-scholarly research that could be done about the setting, making it not only very rich for those who preferred such detail in their games, but was also fun on its own. I enjoyed the designers who played up that aspect of the series (here's to you, Eric L. Boyd!).

A lot of people have complaints about this part of the game, and those complaints are the legitimate flipside to having a setting this detailed. But you know what? There are other settings that are much lighter on what they present and so lend themselves to a more fill-it-in-yourself style (Greyhawk is a superb example of this), so why can't we have one game world that goes all-in with what it presents?


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 25, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I'm not sure I'd call it a rant - more an appeal for more _Greyhawk_!  I feel it has been sadly neglected.




But do you really want _more _Greyhawk over, say, a new setting? Don't we have enough Greyhawk already?

I get that it is fun and nice and pleasurable to see one's favorite setting get a fancy new book, but I honestly don't understand the preference of a re-boot over a new setting. I'm always curious about what sort of new rabbits WotC can pull out of a hat; given that Nentir Vale has never been fully developed, it has been _eight years _since WotC published a major new setting with Eberron back in 2004. 

More on this in another thread...


----------



## avin (Jan 25, 2012)

My first D&D character was a Bladesinger, who lived in Faerun.

Then I played BG (which is a great game, but pales compared do Planescape or Fallout. Bioware < Black Isle) and IWD. After that NWN and NWN2.

I bought FRCS3E and run a game set in Thesk.

I came across Planescape far later and it was like a nuclear bomb in my gaming head, so I don't think the first setting you are exposed necessarly means your favorite... 

One thing is for sure: Wizards will never drop FR in the name of Greyhawk. IMO Greyhawk appeals only to older fans who had luck and could play earlier editions of D&D... but FR, nostalgia aside, it's a better "commercial" product.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 25, 2012)

Charwoman Gene said:


> "MOAR GRAYHAUK, LESS REALMS" is pretty much a war chant trying to start a war alliance between 1e and 3e players versus 2e and 4e players.




Which means 5e and Greyhawk belong to the leap-grognards who skipped happily from 1e to 3e and did not adopt the 4e ruleset?  I'm in!


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 25, 2012)

Morrus said:


> (like I care about _Doctor Who_, I guess - he's a friggin' Time Lord and Elminster wouldn't stand a chance: he laughs at your 3E _Time Stop_ exploit)



   C'mon... a show of hands, now... how many folks have worked Chronomancy, regeneration, and/or police boxes into the D&D games? 

  Okay, okay... so the Chronomancer is the mechanatrix daughter of a night hag, the regenerating character is an incarnum-based reef hag, and the TARDIS is a gargantuan spelljamming oyster "Shellship" (though I do have an apothecary that's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside).... same same


----------



## Morrus (Jan 25, 2012)

Mercurius said:


> But do you really want _more _Greyhawk over, say, a new setting?




I do.



> Don't we have enough Greyhawk already?




I do not feel so.



> I get that it is fun and nice and pleasurable to see one's favorite setting get a fancy new book, but I honestly don't understand the preference of a re-boot over a new setting.




Yeah; no way WotC can please everyone.  Well, unless they think of something really clever.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 25, 2012)

Greyhawk, because it was butchered for 3e and skipped over for 4e, _would_ be a brand new setting for me, and anybody who has come onboard in the last 15 years.

Here's hoping you get your wish, and don't suffer the curse of the monkey's paw in the process.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 25, 2012)

I wrote about my "proposal" right here. The short version is that I think WotC should create a new setting as core but support legacy editions through Dragon articles, the return of PDFs, and possible supplements and adventures.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 25, 2012)

Mercurius said:


> But do you really want _more _Greyhawk over, say, a new setting? Don't we have enough Greyhawk already?
> 
> I get that it is fun and nice and pleasurable to see one's favorite setting get a fancy new book, but I honestly don't understand the preference of a re-boot over a new setting. I'm always curious about what sort of new rabbits WotC can pull out of a hat; given that Nentir Vale has never been fully developed, it has been _eight years _since WotC published a major new setting with Eberron back in 2004.
> 
> More on this in another thread...




A new setting sounds good in principle, but when it comes down to it, do we really _need_ another one, particularly one that fills the slot Greyhawk would? After all, that's what Points of Light was supposed to be to a certain extent, but from what I'm hearing most people were largely unsatisfied with the setting (with a few exceptions).

New settings work better if they bring something unique but the core setting, by it's very nature, kind of needs to be generic and easily pliable. Greyhawk is that. Points of Light is that. But do we need _another_ setting in their mold?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 25, 2012)

Forgotten Realms should be published differently than all other campaign settings for D&D. It's there to support the novel line, not grow one's own gaming world. 

Greyhawk would be awesome. Make it < 60 pages and have page #1 all about Greyhawk's unique trees.


----------



## rounser (Jan 25, 2012)

I repeat to the Greyhawk fans (of which I am one):  After what current time WOTC did to FR, do you really want them messing with Greyhawk?  

The pre-spellplaguemess Forgotten Realms were more commercially viable than Greyhawk is in it's current state, and they performed major surgery that left the patient in a critical condition anyway.  And that was before everyone seemed to get laid off, so now they may be understaffed and demoralized as well....trying to update Greyhawk whilst somehow producing a whole new edition.

Now, if current WOTC cannot abide inoffensive places like Halruua and Mulhorand in their quest to reboot a setting, what do you think they'd do to a setting with names on the map like Geoff and Frost Barbarians?  The 3E gazetteer was a beaut book, the setting got off well that round (especially the bit on Blackmoor), but that was then.  Do you want them retconning in kingdoms populated by whatever is the race of the month?

Think about it.  I'd just keep quiet and hope they continue to ignore Greyhawk if I were you.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 25, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Greyhawk would be awesome. Make it < 60 pages and have page #1 all about Greyhawk's unique trees.




"Leave the Usk ALOOOOOOONE!"


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 26, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Forgotten Realms should be published differently than all other campaign settings for D&D. It's there to support the novel line, not grow one's own gaming world.
> 
> Greyhawk would be awesome. Make it < 60 pages and have page #1 all about Greyhawk's unique trees.




I don't know how unusual I am but I have read barely any FR books at all. I mostly just game with it.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 26, 2012)

Nivenus said:


> A new setting sounds good in principle, but when it comes down to it, do we really _need_ another one, particularly one that fills the slot Greyhawk would? After all, that's what Points of Light was supposed to be to a certain extent, but from what I'm hearing most people were largely unsatisfied with the setting (with a few exceptions).
> 
> New settings work better if they bring something unique but the core setting, by it's very nature, kind of needs to be generic and easily pliable. Greyhawk is that. Points of Light is that. But do we need _another_ setting in their mold?




But why do we need more Greyhawk (or Forgotten Realms)? Both settings, especially the Realms, have been heavily detailed and across multiple editions. Why do we need a reboot of either? 

I like the idea of a new setting for a variety of reasons, one of which is that I personally would find it much more interesting discovering a new world than seeing shiny new versions of old settings. I also think that Paizo's approach of publishing Adventure Paths and setting books alongside each other is a great model for WotC to at least look at, and that an ongoing setting creates a shared context and reference point for the community. This would be better facilitated, imo, with a new setting that doesn't have any baggage or isn't mired in decades of legacy.

As I said in this thread, I think that WotC can both support old settings and create a new one that better serves the need and design goals of 5E than older settings would.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 26, 2012)

Mercurius said:


> As I said in this thread, I think that WotC can both support old settings and create a new one that better serves the need and design goals of 5E than older settings would.




But aren't the design goals of 5e mixed up pretty heavily in nostalgia and bridging edition gaps? Creating a new edition that may be ignored or rejected doesn't sound like a great way to do that, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 26, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I don't understand why Elminster has taken Mordenkainen's place.



Because WotC has always had uncontestable control of the IP of FR since Greenwood sold it all to TSR lock, stock, and barrel.  I suspect that was not the case for GH which was probably a contributing factor to why they had been looking for a new setting at that time anyway.



> FR? Give it a friggin' rest. It's boring!



Several years ahead of you there.  I started running FR when it was first released for 1E in 1987 and ran it fairly exclusively through about 2002 when I ran a heavily modified take on it for my big 3E campaign.  After that I was SO bored with it, bored with even tinkering with it, that I took an honest vow to _never_ run it again.  I've thought about reneging briefly once or twice but not with any significant danger of actually going back to it.

I could probably get into Greyhawk but for no particularly good reason I just never have. Well, ONE reason is simply that I never, EVER saw it on a store shelf anywhere, or if I did I was not at that time in the market for a setting.  I'm only sorta thinking now about picking up a box set off Ebay, but I again don't really need a setting right now - not even for 5E.  If I don't succumb to the itch to just homebrew something _entirely_ from scratch I'll almost certainly use the Wilderlands materials I have instead as the framework to build a campaign on.

Sprout me a nice, new edition of Greyhawk for 5E (if I even LIKE 5E...) and I'll shell out my shekels for it.  If money and a desire to know what I REALLY missed all these years starts burning a hole in my pocket I'll go Ebay for the original stuff.  Otherwise - meh.


----------



## Aelfwyn (Jan 27, 2012)

Excellent post! We are the same age and have been playing the same number of years (though I have to admit I've bought a few FR products here and there). I love Greyhawk and Dragonlance. DL was my intro intro into gaming as well. So I give you a resounding "Here, here!!!"


----------



## Uzzy (Jan 27, 2012)

Aelfwyn said:


> Excellent post! We are the same age and have been playing the same number of years (though I have to admit I've bought a few FR products here and there). I love Greyhawk and Dragonlance. DL was my intro intro into gaming as well. So I give you a resounding "Here, here!!!"




And then you've got someone like me, who's introduction to gaming was through firstly Baldur's Gate, then through the 3rd Edition FRCS. I'd hate to see the Realms forgotten to bring back another fairly generic setting of which I have little interest in, or fond memories of. 

Anyway, it's not going to happen. The Realms are too commercially viable, and they do have a number of advantages over the other settings mentioned. The books, games and other multimedia will help bring in a continuous stream of new players. WOTC still have the creators of the Realms freely on tap as well. 

That's not to say they shouldn't change things up a little. A high level overview of the Realms, just like the 3rd Edition FRCS, should be the only thing needed for any DM, and tell DM's in big bold 72pt letters that they can change things up in their setting, just so they get the message.


----------



## southernmagnus (Jan 27, 2012)

Glad this is out there- nothing makes me feel as narcoleptic as the mention of Khleben "Blackstaff" Arunsun in any context...

<stretch><yawn>

In our need to have all aspects of any given setting mapped out we've lost all sense of mystery and danger.  Who are we helping with infinite detail?  Unimaginative DMs?  People who need to sell more supplements?  D&D needs not one more of either. 

Remember when all you got of Lolth was an incredibly creepy Erol Otus picture and a single entry in Deities & Demigods? 

I'm not advocating an anemic lack of detail, but we can all agree that 5e needs more mystery.

More creepy, perverse, evil, terrifying worlds full of secrets.  You can either join the fray and start your Cult of Doom or kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight, but the world needs to be dangerous and cruel.   

Keep D&D evil.


----------



## Gamerstable_Jayson (Jan 27, 2012)

At our regular Wednesday game session I went though my file folder that contains old characters, notes and maps from past campaigns.  I found about a half dozen or so old FR characters that I have played over the years.  With one exception, few of these characters or past campaigns had any meaning to me.  The one that did was short lived and was fun, but not particularly noteworthy as FR - it could just as easily been on Krynn, Oerth or Mystara.  The longest FR campaign that my cohorts ever played, mostly over the course of a summer long ago, I missed out on while working as a lifeguard.  They speak of it fondly, but not with enough nostalgia to bring them back to Toril.  The only thing FR has that would make me want to play there is the Ruins of Under Mountain.  With some modification even that could be transplanted to any campaign setting.  I like a good Dungeon Crawl.  

Grey Hawk would be a fine setting for 5th Edition's infancy (to give it cohesion), slightly updated (stress the word slightly), perhaps a new map that shows some areas to the west and south, the Baklunish West, the jungles of Hepmonaland and the Pearl Sea archipelagos.  

I don't see any reason why WotC couldn't support all campaign worlds from the past.  Electronic media would be the way to go, and throwing support behind fansites like canonfire!, the Vaults of Pandius or the Burnt World of Athas.  Fans have producing material for decades, and if WotC would select some few of these periodically for official production in the form of a PDF for $1.99 or so, they could reap a profit as well as recharge their respective communities.  The same could be said of an entirely new campaign setting, one that the fans build from the ground up.

Make it so.


----------



## Warunsun (Feb 6, 2012)

The announced here that Forgotten Realms would be taking center stage for the DDI content for this year. RIP Nentir Vale.


----------



## The Shadow (Feb 6, 2012)

My first D&D world was Mystara, and I still have intense nostalgia for it, warts and all.  That said, I far prefer to build my own worlds.

Greyhawk just never grabbed me, really.  (Except for the Rain of Colorless Fire - Gygax did have a way with evocative names at times.)  Oh, and I also like that Gygax thought out the prehistory of the Flanaess - movements of peoples and so on.  Kind of overkill, but good worldbuilding!  His nations, though, come across as rather dull.

Krynn and Toril both once appealed to me at one time.  No more.  Rereading the Dragonlance stuff would be an effective form of torture for me today...  While the Realms are far too much about the NPC's.  (And also have more than their share of excruciatingly bad fiction.)

I don't mind seeing old worlds revived for their fans.  But I'd like to see something new at this point.  Much as I dislike 4e as a system, I have to say I've been rather intrigued by the Points of Light.


----------

