Well dam. Was almost excited for a moment. Though I love that there is new content coming out that people like, I can't really say I'm all too excited. For context for what I'm about to say, I have only been a DM for about 4 years now so I can't say I am an all-knowing god who's opinion is even near being valid.
Now onto my main opinions on settings. Personally, I can not bring myself to play in most of these settings. While I think they are cool, they all stray away from what I want to play in D&D. Most of them are either MTG expansions, Ebberon or Forgotten Realms. MTG books, while had great content, never gave me much fun other than a few concepts to play around with. Ebberon, while cool, doesn't do much for me as i prefer more traditional fantasy games(though i like to put a twist in it,) and to be perfectly honest I hate Forgotten Realms. The lore? Impossible to keep up with and borderline retcons itself each edition. It's world feels boring, and ironically, feels to much like traditional fantasy with nothing to bring to the table really.
I personally would like to see WoTC to visit some older settings and play around with those, even if for one short book like Ghosts of Saltmarsh visiting Greyhawk for a bit. I would pay big money to see content for these settings in 5e. Perhaps a sand pirate adventure in the deserts of Athas for Dark Sun? A visit to Sigil for Planescape? Maybe trying to kill imposter clerics in Kyrnn for Dragonlance? For christ's sake, I don't care if you have to steal from the books!
For the new settings, like I said before I can bring myself to play there or care. Zendikar might do it for me if it can bring something new to the table(as Zendikar is pretty much the D&D setting for Magic). And for Ravenloft? Eh, haven't played CoS yet so I'll probably skip out on it. If there's a new Forgotten Realms book, I'll probably steal it as the basic lore makes a good base to work off of for my own homebrew settings.
TL;DR, Moron is glad to see everyone is excited for new sourcebooks and content for MTG and FG settings, but would prefer a blast from the past. Would be glad to see some discussion with this.
Just out of curiosity, given your dislike of the worlds available to you so far, where do you play, and if it's a home-brew, are there any published WotC or 3rd party publications that influence it? Not a diss, I'm honestly curious. For what it's worth, I largely agree with you about FR being the overwrought legacy default world of 5e. That said, most of the adventures published for it I've been able to play without the need to do a lore deep dive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I like the deep lore dive of FR. It makes the setting feel like the setting is alive to me. What I don't like is 5e's handling of it. I'm the kind of person that actually likes lore-heavy settings, regardless of what I decide to do with it. 5e seems to be changing the lore on a dime (and I'm not just talking RSEs and retcons. I mean the publications seem to change lore with no real plausible explanation, at least imho). I would be happy if we got more setting-specific products, rather than any one setting being the "default". That way, people could focus on the setting(s) they want to play in. By this I mean, those who want FR can have FR-specific products, same with Eberron, Dark Sun, etc. I realize this is a long shot, but it's what I would like to see. I have been a fan of FR for years, even managing to weather 4e, despite my dislike. Much as I love FR, I feel it would receive more authentic treatment if it wasn't the default--same holds true for the other settings.
If I were WotC, I'd spend some time making a shorter book that contains multiple settings, just to get it all out of the way. The updates to Dark Sun needed to play a 3e campaign were sufficiently contained in two Dragon magazine articles, and 3e was a significantly more complicated system than 5e. I would be happy to see a book that devotes a chapter to each of several campaign settings, pooling the crunch rather than spreading it across books. Like, the Theros crunch was nice, but the vast majority of campaigns have no use for the fluff. Of course, this wouldn't maximize profits...
The updates to Dark Sun needed to play a 3e campaign were sufficiently contained in two Dragon magazine articles, and 3e was a significantly more complicated system than 5e.
The update published in Dragon didn't come from TSR, or maybe is was Wizards by then I forget when that change happened. It was published by Paizo. Dark Sun never got any official 3.x content.
If I were WotC, I'd spend some time making a shorter book that contains multiple settings, just to get it all out of the way. The updates to Dark Sun needed to play a 3e campaign were sufficiently contained in two Dragon magazine articles, and 3e was a significantly more complicated system than 5e. I would be happy to see a book that devotes a chapter to each of several campaign settings, pooling the crunch rather than spreading it across books. Like, the Theros crunch was nice, but the vast majority of campaigns have no use for the fluff. Of course, this wouldn't maximize profits...
I don't completely disagree, but it would not really be that great of a book for people that don't know much about the older settings. It takes a lot of effort to go through decades of lore and weed out the changes and retcons to get an understanding of what is current.
I love learning the lay of the land. For me, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and (for all the haters, a cue to gasp) Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide are better than small world overviews. Merely because you can learn it all so you can roleplay it far better. But, maybe you prefer to RP it your way? I just like being setting-accurate.
I love learning the lay of the land. For me, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and (for all the haters, a cue to gasp) Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide are better than small world overviews. Merely because you can learn it all so you can roleplay it far better. But, maybe you prefer to RP it your way? I just like being setting-accurate.
The SCAG IS a small world view of FR, that and the mechanical issues are the core issue for many of what folks have with it. Beyond that I agree with you.
I love learning the lay of the land. For me, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and (for all the haters, a cue to gasp) Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide are better than small world overviews. Merely because you can learn it all so you can roleplay it far better. But, maybe you prefer to RP it your way? I just like being setting-accurate.
The SCAG IS a small world view of FR, that and the mechanical issues are the core issue for many of what folks have with it. Beyond that I agree with you.
Well, Kara-Tur and all that have had racial issues in the past, so I'd be fine if they just stick with chult and Icewind Dale for now. Better veer on the safe side.
Also, yeah, purple Dragon Knight is supposedly weak, but it's actually strangely fun for roleplay, and the spells in there are classics (Grin Flum Blad, anyone?), and I rather like the Long Death Monk.
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it.
You likely won’t get a “Wildmount version“ of anything WotC does because they don’t write campaign settings anywhere near as well as Mercer. I would bet money that Mercer was at least heavily influenced by the old Gazetteer publications from way back in the day. He really seems to get it in a way that WotC writers either don’t, or intentionally try not to emulate.
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it.
You likely won’t get a “Wildmount version“ of anything WotC does because they don’t write campaign settings anywhere near as well as Mercer. I would bet money that Mercer was at least heavily influenced by the old Gazetteer publications from way back in the day. He really seems to get it in a way that WotC writers either don’t, or intentionally try not to emulate.
Matt Mercer wasn't the main writer of that, mainly just a loremaster. James Haek did a lot, and also Wizards employed Matt to assist with Dragon Heist so they might reel him in... Or maybe they'll try the ever splendid Sherlock Hulmes instead, but he's very busy...I mean, if I knew more of the lore I could write it as I do have some writing ability, but... yeah. They might reel Matt in... I mean, it's probably really good pay for him.
Even though Forgotten Realms is the default setting for 5e, I would love to see it treated with more authenticity to the setting (since some products have been either drastically changing lore--MToF--or are fairly setting-neutral). I would love an FR Campaign Guide along the lines of the 3.0 one, and more setting-specific books. Also I wouldn't mind some Planescape. Even though I am not too familiar with the setting, I do enjoy cosmology.
I certain a FR campaign book is coming.
1) To tie in with the MtG FR set and all the advantages to that.
2) hundreds of pieces of free art, payed for by the, MtG department, so it doesn't come out of D&D's budget. This was one of the things they loved about the Theros and Ravnica setting, piles of gorgeous card art to use in the books, saving money.
3) BG3 will most likely coming out next year, so that will create more FR fans.
4) The SCAG and the Elemental Evil Player Guide aren't allowed for AL now, most likely because the contents are being fixed to be added to a FR Campaign Setting Guide.
5) Right now compared to Theros, Ravnica, and Eberron both FR and Ravenloft don't have proper setting suport for like over 90% of their settings, so its harder for dmsguild writers to write those setting, they are missing a key resource.
6) according to the last poll WotC has shared, the top most popular settings are the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape, Darksun, and Eberron. Eberron has a book. If they do say FR, Ravenloft, and either Darksun or Planescape, that is 4 out of 5 of their most popular settings done. That leaves either Darksun or Planescape for afterwards, along with tier 2 setting Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Spelljammer.
7) It allows them to fix controversial things throughout the setting they are like Gurs, just like with Ravenloft and Vistani.
8) it's will make a ton of money
9) People have been asking for it for years
10) it will be useful to every single adventure they have already put out.
11) Most folks were unhappy with the SCAG and WotC knows it.
12) They clearly have been building up to another Realms Shaking Event, most likely with the goal of merging D&D and MtG cosmologies, making the setting even more in need of an update.
13) It would be the perfect time to re-launch the novel line.
14) They have learned so much from writing Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Mythic Odysessys of Theros, Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, and Eberron: Rising From The Last War, that they are very prepared for a Forgotten Realms Campaign book.
15) It would allow them to set anthologies across FR without causing problems, because it will provide both authors and DMs the knowledge required to write and use FR anywhere.
Also, the event? It happened. Spoilers for Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden!
There was a hint of it with the Obilesks, but that is one possible option for how Frostmaiden ends, the full story of what happens with the Obilesks will likely unfold in the MtG FR set and a Forgotten Realms Campaign guide to milk that sweet, sweet, MtG art. Also remember there are a crap load of those Obilesks and it's not just FR that has them, so this might be more of a Multiverse Shaking Event then just a Realms Shaking Event, it's that FR will be central to what happens, perhaps with the greatest repercussions there, although I can see the planar travel rules loosening up for none planeswalkers in MtG settings.
please put the comment you just made in a spoiler.
I'd just like to ask again for you to put your comment in a spoiler, I'm only asking because I know my players will be very excited for this secret and I don't want it ruined. I've already had a lot of close calls with this adventure involving spoilers and my players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
I doubt WotC will retcon a previous book they've made. Sure, it would be nice if they redid the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide in the same format as some of the other 5e setting books, but that is highly unlikely to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
I doubt WotC will retcon a previous book they've made. Sure, it would be nice if they redid the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide in the same format as some of the other 5e setting books, but that is highly unlikely to happen.
I could see them doing a book on the non-Sword Coast areas and maybe include some additional SC stuff.
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
I doubt WotC will retcon a previous book they've made. Sure, it would be nice if they redid the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide in the same format as some of the other 5e setting books, but that is highly unlikely to happen.
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
I doubt WotC will retcon a previous book they've made. Sure, it would be nice if they redid the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide in the same format as some of the other 5e setting books, but that is highly unlikely to happen.
They redid Wayfinders Guide to Eberron.
Not really. That is way different. First, the SCAG did not start out as a 3rd-party resource, it was the first "setting book" of 5e and one of the first books in this edition. WotC didn't know their formula for creating setting books in this edition, which they had figured out by the time they made E:RftLW. Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron was basically hijacked by WotC, who made it official without doing enough work on the mechanics of it. Second, Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron was not going to be published by WotC when it was made, the SCAG was. Third, Eberron: Rising from the Last War was not really redoing Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, it was more of a larger and more official book properly created by WotC.
They are way different scenarios.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
I doubt WotC will retcon a previous book they've made. Sure, it would be nice if they redid the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide in the same format as some of the other 5e setting books, but that is highly unlikely to happen.
They redid Wayfinders Guide to Eberron.
Wayfinders Guide was just UA material with a price tag.
Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron wasn't redone or 'retconned', it was a 'living document', a form of playtest+ and is independent of Eberron: Rising from the Last war. As a living document, it got updates as the versions progressed based on feedback (that's what living document means), which became 'set' when Rising released.
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
I doubt WotC will retcon a previous book they've made. Sure, it would be nice if they redid the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide in the same format as some of the other 5e setting books, but that is highly unlikely to happen.
I could see them doing a book on the non-Sword Coast areas and maybe include some additional SC stuff.
They'd have to be careful about that, and choose the less problematic areas of the non-sword coast parts of Toril (Thay, Cormyr, etc). They could do more material for the Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they're going to invalidate the SCAG and I think they should approach Kara-Tur, Maztica, Katashka, and Zakhara with caution if they seriously want them to be completely supported in an official 5e setting book. Another option is exploring areas of the Forgotten Realms that they have never really delved into a ton (Osse, Abeir, another planet in Realmspace, etc), so they can explore even more of this ginormous setting.
I like the deep lore dive of FR. It makes the setting feel like the setting is alive to me. What I don't like is 5e's handling of it. I'm the kind of person that actually likes lore-heavy settings, regardless of what I decide to do with it. 5e seems to be changing the lore on a dime (and I'm not just talking RSEs and retcons. I mean the publications seem to change lore with no real plausible explanation, at least imho). I would be happy if we got more setting-specific products, rather than any one setting being the "default". That way, people could focus on the setting(s) they want to play in. By this I mean, those who want FR can have FR-specific products, same with Eberron, Dark Sun, etc. I realize this is a long shot, but it's what I would like to see. I have been a fan of FR for years, even managing to weather 4e, despite my dislike. Much as I love FR, I feel it would receive more authentic treatment if it wasn't the default--same holds true for the other settings.
I'm not sure that you are entirely fair with 5 e and the FR, every edition has done some sort of cataclysm with the FR and changed things, and so you might have appreciated some of these and not so much others, but at least 5e did not make a lot of the previous lore obsolete at a stroke...
Actually, it kind of did (looking at you, MToF). While not the case with every single product, it seems like several products are changing the lore with no real plausible explanation. It is indeed true that a cataclysm or major event marked the shift to the new edition, and I was happy when 5e first came out, as it had restored a lot of what 4e had taken away, but now it seems like they're just throwing things in whenever they want, regardless of established lore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just out of curiosity, given your dislike of the worlds available to you so far, where do you play, and if it's a home-brew, are there any published WotC or 3rd party publications that influence it? Not a diss, I'm honestly curious. For what it's worth, I largely agree with you about FR being the overwrought legacy default world of 5e. That said, most of the adventures published for it I've been able to play without the need to do a lore deep dive.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I like the deep lore dive of FR. It makes the setting feel like the setting is alive to me. What I don't like is 5e's handling of it. I'm the kind of person that actually likes lore-heavy settings, regardless of what I decide to do with it. 5e seems to be changing the lore on a dime (and I'm not just talking RSEs and retcons. I mean the publications seem to change lore with no real plausible explanation, at least imho). I would be happy if we got more setting-specific products, rather than any one setting being the "default". That way, people could focus on the setting(s) they want to play in. By this I mean, those who want FR can have FR-specific products, same with Eberron, Dark Sun, etc. I realize this is a long shot, but it's what I would like to see. I have been a fan of FR for years, even managing to weather 4e, despite my dislike. Much as I love FR, I feel it would receive more authentic treatment if it wasn't the default--same holds true for the other settings.
If I were WotC, I'd spend some time making a shorter book that contains multiple settings, just to get it all out of the way. The updates to Dark Sun needed to play a 3e campaign were sufficiently contained in two Dragon magazine articles, and 3e was a significantly more complicated system than 5e. I would be happy to see a book that devotes a chapter to each of several campaign settings, pooling the crunch rather than spreading it across books. Like, the Theros crunch was nice, but the vast majority of campaigns have no use for the fluff. Of course, this wouldn't maximize profits...
The update published in Dragon didn't come from TSR, or maybe is was Wizards by then I forget when that change happened. It was published by Paizo. Dark Sun never got any official 3.x content.
I don't completely disagree, but it would not really be that great of a book for people that don't know much about the older settings. It takes a lot of effort to go through decades of lore and weed out the changes and retcons to get an understanding of what is current.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Too many settings!
I love learning the lay of the land. For me, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and (for all the haters, a cue to gasp) Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide are better than small world overviews. Merely because you can learn it all so you can roleplay it far better. But, maybe you prefer to RP it your way? I just like being setting-accurate.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
The SCAG IS a small world view of FR, that and the mechanical issues are the core issue for many of what folks have with it. Beyond that I agree with you.
Well, Kara-Tur and all that have had racial issues in the past, so I'd be fine if they just stick with chult and Icewind Dale for now. Better veer on the safe side.
Also, yeah, purple Dragon Knight is supposedly weak, but it's actually strangely fun for roleplay, and the spells in there are classics (Grin Flum Blad, anyone?), and I rather like the Long Death Monk.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
But, sure. SCAG isn't as in-depth as I want. I wanna see a Wildemont version of it, with backstory crafters, monsters, extra races, town population... I wanna see the Finder's Guide to Faerun or Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
You likely won’t get a “Wildmount version“ of anything WotC does because they don’t write campaign settings anywhere near as well as Mercer. I would bet money that Mercer was at least heavily influenced by the old Gazetteer publications from way back in the day. He really seems to get it in a way that WotC writers either don’t, or intentionally try not to emulate.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Matt Mercer wasn't the main writer of that, mainly just a loremaster. James Haek did a lot, and also Wizards employed Matt to assist with Dragon Heist so they might reel him in... Or maybe they'll try the ever splendid Sherlock Hulmes instead, but he's very busy...I mean, if I knew more of the lore I could write it as I do have some writing ability, but... yeah. They might reel Matt in... I mean, it's probably really good pay for him.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I'd just like to ask again for you to put your comment in a spoiler, I'm only asking because I know my players will be very excited for this secret and I don't want it ruined. I've already had a lot of close calls with this adventure involving spoilers and my players.
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
I doubt WotC will retcon a previous book they've made. Sure, it would be nice if they redid the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide in the same format as some of the other 5e setting books, but that is highly unlikely to happen.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I could see them doing a book on the non-Sword Coast areas and maybe include some additional SC stuff.
They redid Wayfinders Guide to Eberron.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Not really. That is way different. First, the SCAG did not start out as a 3rd-party resource, it was the first "setting book" of 5e and one of the first books in this edition. WotC didn't know their formula for creating setting books in this edition, which they had figured out by the time they made E:RftLW. Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron was basically hijacked by WotC, who made it official without doing enough work on the mechanics of it. Second, Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron was not going to be published by WotC when it was made, the SCAG was. Third, Eberron: Rising from the Last War was not really redoing Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, it was more of a larger and more official book properly created by WotC.
They are way different scenarios.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Wayfinders Guide was just UA material with a price tag.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron wasn't redone or 'retconned', it was a 'living document', a form of playtest+ and is independent of Eberron: Rising from the Last war. As a living document, it got updates as the versions progressed based on feedback (that's what living document means), which became 'set' when Rising released.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
They'd have to be careful about that, and choose the less problematic areas of the non-sword coast parts of Toril (Thay, Cormyr, etc). They could do more material for the Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they're going to invalidate the SCAG and I think they should approach Kara-Tur, Maztica, Katashka, and Zakhara with caution if they seriously want them to be completely supported in an official 5e setting book. Another option is exploring areas of the Forgotten Realms that they have never really delved into a ton (Osse, Abeir, another planet in Realmspace, etc), so they can explore even more of this ginormous setting.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Actually, it kind of did (looking at you, MToF). While not the case with every single product, it seems like several products are changing the lore with no real plausible explanation. It is indeed true that a cataclysm or major event marked the shift to the new edition, and I was happy when 5e first came out, as it had restored a lot of what 4e had taken away, but now it seems like they're just throwing things in whenever they want, regardless of established lore.