I don't mean this in a snarky way at all, but why do you give more weight to an "official" setting? What qualities would an official book have that a well-made 3rd party setting would lack? It seems like if only you didn't have this requirement you could find any number of new settings out there on the internets.
How many 3rd Party Setting Books have you bought/seen that are as high quality (in art, mechanical content, text, and so on) as the official ones made by WotC (excluding the SCAG, of course)? I mean, just compare Explorer's Guide to Wildemount to the earlier, non-official Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is obviously of higher quality than the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book, in terms of mechanical balance, art, the ability to actually print the names of their deities, and just general readability. It's no contest. EGtW is better than the other book, largely because WotC helped make it and the fact that they had a higher budget.
WotC's books get to be on D&D Beyond, which has a ton of users. 3rd Party books don't get put on D&D Beyond.
Also, WotC's books are more popular. There is a social aspect to this. Tons of people know Dark Sun and Eberron, but not Midgard or Shin'air. The more popular, the more people are willing to play in that setting.
I could go on. Is this enough?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't mean this in a snarky way at all, but why do you give more weight to an "official" setting? What qualities would an official book have that a well-made 3rd party setting would lack? It seems like if only you didn't have this requirement you could find any number of new settings out there on the internets.
How many 3rd Party Setting Books have you bought/seen that are as high quality (in art, mechanical content, text, and so on) as the official ones made by WotC (excluding the SCAG, of course)? I mean, just compare Explorer's Guide to Wildemount to the earlier, non-official Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is obviously of higher quality than the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book, in terms of mechanical balance, art, the ability to actually print the names of their deities, and just general readability. It's no contest. EGtW is better than the other book, largely because WotC helped make it and the fact that they had a higher budget.
WotC's books get to be on D&D Beyond, which has a ton of users. 3rd Party books don't get put on D&D Beyond.
Also, WotC's books are more popular. There is a social aspect to this. Tons of people know Dark Sun and Eberron, but not Midgard or Shin'air. The more popular, the more people are willing to play in that setting.
I could go on. Is this enough?
the playing field is leveling...i mean look at what someone like matt colville can do with kickstarter. i would say the art, the design and quality of third party stuff is 100% gaining on what WOTC can do.
on that note, there are a ton of 5e based books on kickstarter
The existence of Kickstarter makes a massive difference compared to 3E, when a lot of companies churned out bad products they didn't invest resources in in order to develop them properly. Crowdfunding means initial budgets can be significantly higher, and to secure sufficient budget companies have to show convincing proof of concept. It's not a guarantee by any means and there's still a lot of chaff to separate from the wheat, but it's a lot better for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm going to be contrarian and say, no, it really doesn't. Medieval-style fantasy is the most popular, and I think it makes sense for WotC to focus on that. As well, the more they stick to the same setting, the more you can link up their published adventures in your campaign. There's well enough room for variety within the Forgotten Realms, from quite traditional fantasy settings on the Sword Coast to Indiana Jones style adventure in Chult. And planar antics can take you to diverse locations like Barovia.
D&D as a system is most suited to swords and sorcery, and while you can deviate a few centuries to either side of medieval, going from classical or bronze age to musketeers or a fantastical version of the wild west, even a bit sci-fi with steampunk, it isn't really suited to full space opera laser battles or a modern urban setting.
I think WotC can leave more unique settings to homebrew and third party publishers.
So first, let me toss my hat and wallet in the ring for Dark Sun. I truly don't believe that WoTC can publish that campaign setting at this time in the D&D lifecycle though for obvious reasons. If they do, I will reward them a lot of my money.
One of the challenges is that worlds like Eberron and Exandria are very rare. For every Eberron, there was a Kingdoms of Kalamar. Keith Baker is an incredible storyteller, and I think he drove that campaign and it's originality in a way that is difficult to find. Just reading his stuff on DMsguild blows my mind away, and I have all of the original Eberron and 4E stuff. **WHAT HAPPENED IN CYRE!!!***
That being said, I would love for WoTC to hold another Design a Setting competition, that allowed individuals from a variety of backgrounds to submit a base idea (similar in a way to the MTG conversions like Zendikar and Innistrad). From there, let everyone get involved, let us download base rules, play them, submit feedback. Vote. Stream. Do what Wizards is dead set on doing.
Top three winners get positions/winnings/whatever at WoTC and their campaign setting fully fleshed out.
I don't mean this in a snarky way at all, but why do you give more weight to an "official" setting? What qualities would an official book have that a well-made 3rd party setting would lack? It seems like if only you didn't have this requirement you could find any number of new settings out there on the internets.
How many 3rd Party Setting Books have you bought/seen that are as high quality (in art, mechanical content, text, and so on) as the official ones made by WotC (excluding the SCAG, of course)? I mean, just compare Explorer's Guide to Wildemount to the earlier, non-official Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is obviously of higher quality than the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book, in terms of mechanical balance, art, the ability to actually print the names of their deities, and just general readability. It's no contest. EGtW is better than the other book, largely because WotC helped make it and the fact that they had a higher budget.
WotC's books get to be on D&D Beyond, which has a ton of users. 3rd Party books don't get put on D&D Beyond.
Also, WotC's books are more popular. There is a social aspect to this. Tons of people know Dark Sun and Eberron, but not Midgard or Shin'air. The more popular, the more people are willing to play in that setting.
I could go on. Is this enough?
But in your original post you said Exandria doesn't count. Why not?
I have no doubt there are terrible settings out there. But if even 2-3% of them are good, that's a lot of material you could use.
I don't mean this in a snarky way at all, but why do you give more weight to an "official" setting? What qualities would an official book have that a well-made 3rd party setting would lack? It seems like if only you didn't have this requirement you could find any number of new settings out there on the internets.
How many 3rd Party Setting Books have you bought/seen that are as high quality (in art, mechanical content, text, and so on) as the official ones made by WotC (excluding the SCAG, of course)? I mean, just compare Explorer's Guide to Wildemount to the earlier, non-official Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is obviously of higher quality than the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book, in terms of mechanical balance, art, the ability to actually print the names of their deities, and just general readability. It's no contest. EGtW is better than the other book, largely because WotC helped make it and the fact that they had a higher budget.
WotC's books get to be on D&D Beyond, which has a ton of users. 3rd Party books don't get put on D&D Beyond.
Also, WotC's books are more popular. There is a social aspect to this. Tons of people know Dark Sun and Eberron, but not Midgard or Shin'air. The more popular, the more people are willing to play in that setting.
I could go on. Is this enough?
But in your original post you said Exandria doesn't count. Why not?
I have no doubt there are terrible settings out there. But if even 2-3% of them are good, that's a lot of material you could use.
To be fair, sifting through all the garbage to find that 2-3% is not all that worth while.
Exandria doesn't count because WotC didn't make it. They helped with EGtW, sure, but most of that was work that Matt Mercer was doing/directing. WotC's involvement besides funding and rule balancing was minimal, from what Mercer's team and WotC have said on the matter. Exandria is Matt Mercer's setting, not a "new setting". Sure, it's new in the fact that it's newly official to D&D, but it doesn't really count as an entirely new setting in the same way that Eberron did.
Sure, Eberron would not exist without Keith Baker, but it also would not exist without Wizards of the Coast. They worked together to create the world, both providing key elements to the world that is now known as Eberron (the name is included in an aspect of the setting WotC helped make). WotC didn't do that with Exandria. Exandria already existed before EGtW and was already popular among Critters.
That's why it doesn't count as a truly new setting to 5e (don't pretend like I'm bashing Exandria, either. I love the world as much as I love Eberron). It already existed. It's the same as why the Magic: the Gathering settings don't count as truly new settings, as they already existed before becoming official settings for 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't mean this in a snarky way at all, but why do you give more weight to an "official" setting? What qualities would an official book have that a well-made 3rd party setting would lack? It seems like if only you didn't have this requirement you could find any number of new settings out there on the internets.
How many 3rd Party Setting Books have you bought/seen that are as high quality (in art, mechanical content, text, and so on) as the official ones made by WotC (excluding the SCAG, of course)? I mean, just compare Explorer's Guide to Wildemount to the earlier, non-official Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is obviously of higher quality than the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book, in terms of mechanical balance, art, the ability to actually print the names of their deities, and just general readability. It's no contest. EGtW is better than the other book, largely because WotC helped make it and the fact that they had a higher budget.
WotC's books get to be on D&D Beyond, which has a ton of users. 3rd Party books don't get put on D&D Beyond.
Also, WotC's books are more popular. There is a social aspect to this. Tons of people know Dark Sun and Eberron, but not Midgard or Shin'air. The more popular, the more people are willing to play in that setting.
I could go on. Is this enough?
But in your original post you said Exandria doesn't count. Why not?
I have no doubt there are terrible settings out there. But if even 2-3% of them are good, that's a lot of material you could use.
To be fair, sifting through all the garbage to find that 2-3% is not all that worth while.
Also, at the end of the day this thread isn't about the good or the bad of third party settings and campaigns. WotC are the official content creators for D&D. It makes sense that people want the official content creators to make new content, settings included.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I want new official settings from WotC simply because content they create is more often than not more balanced against current content. It is often play tested by WotC and the actual player base through UA so things that could be potentially disastrously broken get caught before being published. 3rd party stuff doesn't get that same treatment most of the time.
Secondly, it is far easier to get a DM to use material if it is published by WotC than it is if it is 3rd party. This is often due to my point above.
Heck, I would take Treasure Planet for all that could be plundered. Eberron / Spelljammer? Check. Planet of treasure? What's not to like. Oh yeah, that one little small problem. The Disney IP.
One one hand, most of us like having some kind of visionary at the helm so you get a feeling for the world in question. How many books in how many series with how many authors before it becomes a viable idea? And how many before it is too much information? I mean, Dragonlance was great until it suddenly very much wasn't...
Does that mean a D&D version of Westeros? (I would list the planet, but we still don't know after how many thousands of pages?!?) Does that mean picking up Patrick Rothfuss and placing him at the helm of a new realm to tie into his lore? Christopher Nutall? Victor Gischler? Steven Erickson? L E Modesitt Jr (and which one?)? Robin Hobb? David Wells? Lois McMaster Bujold? Jonathan Renshaw? Jeff Wheeler?
I get wanting new worlds, but that takes a LOT of time, and likely a spiffy license fee. As many of us know after trying to build out ours over the years. So, yes, is a contest the right way to go? Should it follow the path of the Forgotten Realms with Ed Greenwood and R A Salvatore? And though we say this realm is filled with lore, time has advanced and I daresay 90% of the players playing in any of the Sword Coast campaigns do not know where Shadowdale or Myth Drannor lie, much less who Elminster was.
One of the interesting things found in old Forgotten Realms books was the portals to other places. And yet, that is missing in most things done in recent years. It would be a way to open up to other worlds that have similarities and vast differences, without going into licensing an established author. I mean, I like new stuff too... but there is still so much to explore in the worlds that TSR / WOTC already own the licenses to. But, man, I'm always down for new writers...
Exandria doesn't count because WotC didn't make it. They helped with EGtW, sure, but most of that was work that Matt Mercer was doing/directing. WotC's involvement besides funding and rule balancing was minimal, from what Mercer's team and WotC have said on the matter. Exandria is Matt Mercer's setting, not a "new setting". Sure, it's new in the fact that it's newly official to D&D, but it doesn't really count as an entirely new setting in the same way that Eberron did.
Sure, Eberron would not exist without Keith Baker, but it also would not exist without Wizards of the Coast. They worked together to create the world, both providing key elements to the world that is now known as Eberron (the name is included in an aspect of the setting WotC helped make). WotC didn't do that with Exandria. Exandria already existed before EGtW and was already popular among Critters.
That's why it doesn't count as a truly new setting to 5e (don't pretend like I'm bashing Exandria, either. I love the world as much as I love Eberron). It already existed. It's the same as why the Magic: the Gathering settings don't count as truly new settings, as they already existed before becoming official settings for 5e.
I'm not bashing Exandria as a setting at all (different opinion on Critical Role as a whole...but that's another basket of snakes). I think my point was more towards the difficulty of creating a truly fleshed out campaign setting, like Denning/Brown; Weis/Hickman; is very difficult, and I think that may be the reason that we haven't seen more "original" settings. I would love to see more settings that are not fleshed out prior concepts. That and Dark Dun.
I would like to see a setting in the Dune universe. Arrakis is a survivalist dream/nightmare. The political intrigue affecting the outcome of your characters actions.
You could keep it set in the medieval style and change intergalactic travel to ancient forgotten race teleportation circles (Not Stargates). So, you can still travel to places like Geidi Prime, Earth, or Caladan.
Could you imagine playing out the Machine Crusade with some Warforged variants like Warforged giants, spiders, humanoids, and dragons.
This would open up some really awesome flavor options for DM's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do you dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Exandria doesn't count because WotC didn't make it. They helped with EGtW, sure, but most of that was work that Matt Mercer was doing/directing. WotC's involvement besides funding and rule balancing was minimal, from what Mercer's team and WotC have said on the matter. Exandria is Matt Mercer's setting, not a "new setting". Sure, it's new in the fact that it's newly official to D&D, but it doesn't really count as an entirely new setting in the same way that Eberron did.
Sure, Eberron would not exist without Keith Baker, but it also would not exist without Wizards of the Coast. They worked together to create the world, both providing key elements to the world that is now known as Eberron (the name is included in an aspect of the setting WotC helped make). WotC didn't do that with Exandria. Exandria already existed before EGtW and was already popular among Critters.
That's why it doesn't count as a truly new setting to 5e (don't pretend like I'm bashing Exandria, either. I love the world as much as I love Eberron). It already existed. It's the same as why the Magic: the Gathering settings don't count as truly new settings, as they already existed before becoming official settings for 5e.
Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to get at the heart of what you want because it's not clear to me. I thought the complaint was a lack of good, useable settings, but you use Exandria as an example of a well-made setting. So it's not about the quality of the material.
Is it more that WotC isn't focusing their content in that direction? That given they have limited production resources, more of those resources should be devoted to generating a new setting?
In my mind, when WotC collaborates with people like Mercer and Baker, everyone wins. We get good content elevated to the standards of official material and it allows the WotC team to focus on other products that can apply to all campaigns. What in particular do you dislike about this model?
To be fair, sifting through all the garbage to find that 2-3% is not all that worth while.
I assumed that there was enough of a community around this stuff that you could find consensus on some of the best material without too much trouble. That or ratings/downloads/whatever metrics they have on sites that offer the content. But admittedly I'm not super familiar with those sites.
IF im being honest, even if WOTC makes a new world, the only reason id by the content is for the races/classes/spells/items/etc. Things that are published by WOTC are easier to justify then homebrew of any sort unless it is made by the DM.
I have never, and will probably never, use a world setting as a setting for my games. I have never run a published campaign and have only purchased things because of the monster or whatever else, especially when they are so weird like with Locantha Rising. I also will fully admit that I am the forever DM within my group
IF im being honest, even if WOTC makes a new world, the only reason id by the content is for the races/classes/spells/items/etc. Things that are published by WOTC are easier to justify then homebrew of any sort unless it is made by the DM.
I have never, and will probably never, use a world setting as a setting for my games. I have never run a published campaign and have only purchased things because of the monster or whatever else, especially when they are so weird like with Locantha Rising. I also will fully admit that I am the forever DM within my group
I am in the same boat as you. I want the settings as it would provide completely new options that are divorced from the lore of the Forgotten Realms and could explore something other than standard Eurocentric fantasy.
So far, there are 5(?) official settings that cover a fair variety of fantasy/sci-fi genres. We have:
High Fantasy: Forgotten Realms/Exandria
Magipunk: Ebberon/Ravnica
Mytholgical: Theros
There are still a ton of other types of fantasy, some of which have D&D settings which haven't been published this edition. These include:
Dark Fantasy: Ravenloft
Post-apocalyptic: Dark Sun
Sword's & Sorcery: Greyhawk
Sci-fi Fantasy: Spelljammer
What genres has D&D not covered so far? I would say that these include Low Fantasy (A very magics light setting, for example Westeros from A Song of Ice and Fire), A true sci-fi setting, a modern setting or tons of other ideas. I would enjoy both reprints of older settings (Dark Sun in particular) and new original settings.
If we are talking about literature that would make a good D&D setting, I have two ideas. One is the urban fantasy world of The Dresden Files, and the second is the high fantasy of the Stormlight Archive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
There is a certain appeal to brand new campaign settings. There is a lot of clamor for revivals of campaign settings from previous editions (e.g. Dark Sun, Spelljammer, etc...), but I would prefer a brand new setting that isn't already steeped in lore and history. Something like what Paizo did with Golarion for the Pathfinder game.
That, for me, would be most excellent!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How many 3rd Party Setting Books have you bought/seen that are as high quality (in art, mechanical content, text, and so on) as the official ones made by WotC (excluding the SCAG, of course)? I mean, just compare Explorer's Guide to Wildemount to the earlier, non-official Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is obviously of higher quality than the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book, in terms of mechanical balance, art, the ability to actually print the names of their deities, and just general readability. It's no contest. EGtW is better than the other book, largely because WotC helped make it and the fact that they had a higher budget.
WotC's books get to be on D&D Beyond, which has a ton of users. 3rd Party books don't get put on D&D Beyond.
Also, WotC's books are more popular. There is a social aspect to this. Tons of people know Dark Sun and Eberron, but not Midgard or Shin'air. The more popular, the more people are willing to play in that setting.
I could go on. Is this enough?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Many of us remember back when Wizards created the Open Gaming License for 3.0 and how many settings were released that were utter garbage.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
the playing field is leveling...i mean look at what someone like matt colville can do with kickstarter. i would say the art, the design and quality of third party stuff is 100% gaining on what WOTC can do.
on that note, there are a ton of 5e based books on kickstarter
The existence of Kickstarter makes a massive difference compared to 3E, when a lot of companies churned out bad products they didn't invest resources in in order to develop them properly. Crowdfunding means initial budgets can be significantly higher, and to secure sufficient budget companies have to show convincing proof of concept. It's not a guarantee by any means and there's still a lot of chaff to separate from the wheat, but it's a lot better for sure.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm going to be contrarian and say, no, it really doesn't. Medieval-style fantasy is the most popular, and I think it makes sense for WotC to focus on that. As well, the more they stick to the same setting, the more you can link up their published adventures in your campaign. There's well enough room for variety within the Forgotten Realms, from quite traditional fantasy settings on the Sword Coast to Indiana Jones style adventure in Chult. And planar antics can take you to diverse locations like Barovia.
D&D as a system is most suited to swords and sorcery, and while you can deviate a few centuries to either side of medieval, going from classical or bronze age to musketeers or a fantastical version of the wild west, even a bit sci-fi with steampunk, it isn't really suited to full space opera laser battles or a modern urban setting.
I think WotC can leave more unique settings to homebrew and third party publishers.
So first, let me toss my hat and wallet in the ring for Dark Sun. I truly don't believe that WoTC can publish that campaign setting at this time in the D&D lifecycle though for obvious reasons. If they do, I will reward them a lot of my money.
One of the challenges is that worlds like Eberron and Exandria are very rare. For every Eberron, there was a Kingdoms of Kalamar. Keith Baker is an incredible storyteller, and I think he drove that campaign and it's originality in a way that is difficult to find. Just reading his stuff on DMsguild blows my mind away, and I have all of the original Eberron and 4E stuff. **WHAT HAPPENED IN CYRE!!!***
That being said, I would love for WoTC to hold another Design a Setting competition, that allowed individuals from a variety of backgrounds to submit a base idea (similar in a way to the MTG conversions like Zendikar and Innistrad). From there, let everyone get involved, let us download base rules, play them, submit feedback. Vote. Stream. Do what Wizards is dead set on doing.
Top three winners get positions/winnings/whatever at WoTC and their campaign setting fully fleshed out.
But in your original post you said Exandria doesn't count. Why not?
I have no doubt there are terrible settings out there. But if even 2-3% of them are good, that's a lot of material you could use.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
To be fair, sifting through all the garbage to find that 2-3% is not all that worth while.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
(Why does this always happen?)
Exandria doesn't count because WotC didn't make it. They helped with EGtW, sure, but most of that was work that Matt Mercer was doing/directing. WotC's involvement besides funding and rule balancing was minimal, from what Mercer's team and WotC have said on the matter. Exandria is Matt Mercer's setting, not a "new setting". Sure, it's new in the fact that it's newly official to D&D, but it doesn't really count as an entirely new setting in the same way that Eberron did.
Sure, Eberron would not exist without Keith Baker, but it also would not exist without Wizards of the Coast. They worked together to create the world, both providing key elements to the world that is now known as Eberron (the name is included in an aspect of the setting WotC helped make). WotC didn't do that with Exandria. Exandria already existed before EGtW and was already popular among Critters.
That's why it doesn't count as a truly new setting to 5e (don't pretend like I'm bashing Exandria, either. I love the world as much as I love Eberron). It already existed. It's the same as why the Magic: the Gathering settings don't count as truly new settings, as they already existed before becoming official settings for 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Also, at the end of the day this thread isn't about the good or the bad of third party settings and campaigns. WotC are the official content creators for D&D. It makes sense that people want the official content creators to make new content, settings included.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I want new official settings from WotC simply because content they create is more often than not more balanced against current content. It is often play tested by WotC and the actual player base through UA so things that could be potentially disastrously broken get caught before being published. 3rd party stuff doesn't get that same treatment most of the time.
Secondly, it is far easier to get a DM to use material if it is published by WotC than it is if it is 3rd party. This is often due to my point above.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Heck, I would take Treasure Planet for all that could be plundered. Eberron / Spelljammer? Check. Planet of treasure? What's not to like. Oh yeah, that one little small problem. The Disney IP.
One one hand, most of us like having some kind of visionary at the helm so you get a feeling for the world in question. How many books in how many series with how many authors before it becomes a viable idea? And how many before it is too much information? I mean, Dragonlance was great until it suddenly very much wasn't...
Does that mean a D&D version of Westeros? (I would list the planet, but we still don't know after how many thousands of pages?!?) Does that mean picking up Patrick Rothfuss and placing him at the helm of a new realm to tie into his lore? Christopher Nutall? Victor Gischler? Steven Erickson? L E Modesitt Jr (and which one?)? Robin Hobb? David Wells? Lois McMaster Bujold? Jonathan Renshaw? Jeff Wheeler?
I get wanting new worlds, but that takes a LOT of time, and likely a spiffy license fee. As many of us know after trying to build out ours over the years. So, yes, is a contest the right way to go? Should it follow the path of the Forgotten Realms with Ed Greenwood and R A Salvatore? And though we say this realm is filled with lore, time has advanced and I daresay 90% of the players playing in any of the Sword Coast campaigns do not know where Shadowdale or Myth Drannor lie, much less who Elminster was.
One of the interesting things found in old Forgotten Realms books was the portals to other places. And yet, that is missing in most things done in recent years. It would be a way to open up to other worlds that have similarities and vast differences, without going into licensing an established author. I mean, I like new stuff too... but there is still so much to explore in the worlds that TSR / WOTC already own the licenses to. But, man, I'm always down for new writers...
I'm not bashing Exandria as a setting at all (different opinion on Critical Role as a whole...but that's another basket of snakes). I think my point was more towards the difficulty of creating a truly fleshed out campaign setting, like Denning/Brown; Weis/Hickman; is very difficult, and I think that may be the reason that we haven't seen more "original" settings. I would love to see more settings that are not fleshed out prior concepts. That and Dark Dun.
I would like to see a setting in the Dune universe. Arrakis is a survivalist dream/nightmare. The political intrigue affecting the outcome of your characters actions.
You could keep it set in the medieval style and change intergalactic travel to ancient forgotten race teleportation circles (Not Stargates). So, you can still travel to places like Geidi Prime, Earth, or Caladan.
Could you imagine playing out the Machine Crusade with some Warforged variants like Warforged giants, spiders, humanoids, and dragons.
This would open up some really awesome flavor options for DM's.
Do you dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to get at the heart of what you want because it's not clear to me. I thought the complaint was a lack of good, useable settings, but you use Exandria as an example of a well-made setting. So it's not about the quality of the material.
Is it more that WotC isn't focusing their content in that direction? That given they have limited production resources, more of those resources should be devoted to generating a new setting?
In my mind, when WotC collaborates with people like Mercer and Baker, everyone wins. We get good content elevated to the standards of official material and it allows the WotC team to focus on other products that can apply to all campaigns. What in particular do you dislike about this model?
I assumed that there was enough of a community around this stuff that you could find consensus on some of the best material without too much trouble. That or ratings/downloads/whatever metrics they have on sites that offer the content. But admittedly I'm not super familiar with those sites.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
IF im being honest, even if WOTC makes a new world, the only reason id by the content is for the races/classes/spells/items/etc. Things that are published by WOTC are easier to justify then homebrew of any sort unless it is made by the DM.
I have never, and will probably never, use a world setting as a setting for my games. I have never run a published campaign and have only purchased things because of the monster or whatever else, especially when they are so weird like with Locantha Rising. I also will fully admit that I am the forever DM within my group
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I am in the same boat as you. I want the settings as it would provide completely new options that are divorced from the lore of the Forgotten Realms and could explore something other than standard Eurocentric fantasy.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So far, there are 5(?) official settings that cover a fair variety of fantasy/sci-fi genres. We have:
There are still a ton of other types of fantasy, some of which have D&D settings which haven't been published this edition. These include:
What genres has D&D not covered so far? I would say that these include Low Fantasy (A very magics light setting, for example Westeros from A Song of Ice and Fire), A true sci-fi setting, a modern setting or tons of other ideas. I would enjoy both reprints of older settings (Dark Sun in particular) and new original settings.
If we are talking about literature that would make a good D&D setting, I have two ideas. One is the urban fantasy world of The Dresden Files, and the second is the high fantasy of the Stormlight Archive.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
There is a certain appeal to brand new campaign settings. There is a lot of clamor for revivals of campaign settings from previous editions (e.g. Dark Sun, Spelljammer, etc...), but I would prefer a brand new setting that isn't already steeped in lore and history. Something like what Paizo did with Golarion for the Pathfinder game.
That, for me, would be most excellent!