| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Apr 2015 : 13:45:18
|
In a recent interview, Jeremy Crawford (one of the devs at WotC) said this:
quote:
D&D has this multiverse where many worlds are part of one setting and that has been around for a long time. Over time though that connection was eroded, so rather than being all D&D in different worlds they were almost different games: Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft... but we wanted to undo that.
I don't know how such a concept would concretely translate, but I'm worried about some possible interpretations. It seems that he wants all worlds to share typical D&D concepts, but each world is rather unique and forcing such conecpts into them would diminish their uniqueness.
However this appears to be the route that they want to take, with FR being turned into the generic ''D&D world'' for their new setting-lite APs and whatever product that they have in mind (emphasizing ''new'', non-setting specific threats and storylines over specific ones). FR has its own background and even -for example- its races have a different history from traditional D&D. I would hate to see this diluted.
It also contrasts with Perkins' statement about their wanting to ''embrace the complexity of the Realms'', so Idk what to think anymore.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 07 Apr 2015 13:46:28
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2015 : 14:58:44
|
I think that interview is referring to Planescspe type of universe, where the Realms is just one of the worlds you can dance in.
Without the greater context of the interview, I can't be sure. However, they've been talking about such a model for awhile now. The Realms is the flagship, Planescape is the fleet, and the amount of current information on all of it is scant. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
 |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2015 : 15:21:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I think that interview is referring to Planescspe type of universe, where the Realms is just one of the worlds you can dance in.
Without the greater context of the interview, I can't be sure. However, they've been talking about such a model for awhile now. The Realms is the flagship, Planescape is the fleet, and the amount of current information on all of it is scant.
The interview is about 5e in general, what I posted basically is all that he says about settings (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/13729-An-Interview-With-Jeremy-Crawford-Co-Designer-and-Editor-of-Dung.3).
I would too think something along the Planescape lines, but his talking about how each world felt like playing a different game is what makes me worry that they want all worlds to share the typical D&D concepts. IMO the feeling of playing different ''games'' when playing in different worlds is good: not every setting has prominent gods (or has them at all), tech, uber magic, the same races (and their history/nature can even change from world to world) and so on. It's actually cool, it gives option and diversity, which is always a good thing. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 07 Apr 2015 15:26:41 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2015 : 15:55:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Well i'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you not to read to much into this single statement, along with not reading too much into all the other signs about what they are going to do to the realms.
This...
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Either they are not paying due care and attention to what they say and do, or little snippets of their master plan keep on escaping in their sharing.
Also this. 
Sorry, looks like my smartass is showing.
I remember an interview with two big names back at the beginning of 4e, where I wasn't sure if they were being good little corporate stooges or if they were personally to blame for what they were saying, but it was clear that somebody had no clue at all of how to build FR. But both of dazzlerdal's observations were true: it was a glimpse into their thought process, and since they had no idea how far "off" they were they probably didn't realize how horrible it was going to sound.
The same thing might be at work here; I don't know. I agree with your assessment that they're aiming for non-specific threats in their adventure paths. That's smart for them and good for us, from the angle that it maximizes both potential sales and each AP's usefulness to us... if they do it right. Obviously bad when they don't do it right.
If this were my questionable idea, the motive would be to use this idea to leverage the opening of several/all other settings. Faerun, Oerth, and Mystara are all different worlds, but they have a lot of commonality in comparison with Athas. Those three settings all have large cities and small towns and forests and rivers and a fairly comparable amount of magic. There might be more mages flitting about in FR than there are in Greyhawk, but there isn't a Ye Olde Magic Item Shoppe on every corner. They all have (or can have) the same sorts of dragons. So a story like Tyranny of Dragons could work in all three... assuming of course some guidelines for conversion, in a nice table at the beginning of the books: "We present this adventure path for the Forgotten Realms, but it's usable without major modification in several other settings and (we hope!) in your homebrew campaigns as well! We offer here our suggestions for where to situate this adventure in the Greyhawk and Mystara settings, but of course you're free to place them elsewhere if you wish -- and please share your success stories with us, at this email, so that we can let others know via the D&D website." Following that (perhaps better-worded) paragraph would be a table of names to find/replace for using the adventure path in the other published settings.
Now the leverage part of my sinister plan, were I given a position of any influence at Wizards (muahaha, crazy eyes, and so forth). Since we have an adventure path set in Greyhawk, we need to provide some updates on the world. A who's who in the Free City, obviously, but we also need to write up and release a summary of Recent Events worldwide, some Current Clack, and some influential NPCs across the setting. Once we're working on those things, we really need to talk more about what's happening in the regions around these people and events, and write up some adventure hooks and basically everything that goes into a regional sourcebook, expanding outward to hit all the regions in the known world of Greyhawk. Whatever's been done before gets updated and expanded. Whatever hasn't been done before gets glimpsed and pondered. Because we have this adventure path that we're going to set there, and just find/replacing names from an FR adventure path does not make a GH adventure path -- it needs support; it needs a living world around it. Same for Mystara.
I don't know if that's in the works at WotC. I don't know if they have the budget for it, but it wouldn't necessarily be expensive. It doesn't have to be printed books. It could be released as pdfs, or it could be in columns on the website... all that matters is that it's free to produce outside of paying the authors for their time. (Pay the authors!)
If I did it right, that's an example of how Mr Crawford's comments could take us in a good direction. Perhaps it's unlikely that they're planning to resume official development of all these settings, but my point is that I don't necessarily mind if they bring together certain aspects of different worlds. Obviously it's not the case that everything about each world needs to be totally different. The adventure paths only require comparable things... like Greyhawk's Forlorn Forest versus the Border Forest in the Realms and the probably-nameless forest around Shraek in Mystara. Similar climates, similarly removed from urban sprawl... good enough for an adventure to be set in the area. The differences between those forests can be preserved and shape the local perspective on various details of the adventure. In theory. I'm cool with them selling things that are useful in multiple settings.
As long as the adventures are written well, the uniqueness of each setting can be brought in by the DM to make the adventure feel like it belongs there and the other worlds are just find/replacing.
|
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 07 Apr 2015 15:57:01 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2015 : 16:25:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Now the leverage part of my sinister plan, were I given a position of any influence at Wizards (muahaha, crazy eyes, and so forth). Since we have an adventure path set in Greyhawk, we need to provide some updates on the world. A who's who in the Free City, obviously, but we also need to write up and release a summary of Recent Events worldwide, some Current Clack, and some influential NPCs across the setting. Once we're working on those things, we really need to talk more about what's happening in the regions around these people and events, and write up some adventure hooks and basically everything that goes into a regional sourcebook, expanding outward to hit all the regions in the known world of Greyhawk. Whatever's been done before gets updated and expanded. Whatever hasn't been done before gets glimpsed and pondered. Because we have this adventure path that we're going to set there, and just find/replacing names from an FR adventure path does not make a GH adventure path -- it needs support; it needs a living world around it. Same for Mystara.
It would be cool, it would give us a sort of updated FRCS, and that would be awesome. But it doesn't seem to be the case, at least not from what we have seen. FR is ''generic D&D world background'' right now.
quote:
As long as the adventures are written well, the uniqueness of each setting can be brought in by the DM to make the adventure feel like it belongs there and the other worlds are just find/replacing.
I don't mind adventures to be generic (actually I don't really care about them, because I generally don't use them. I pointed at them because their approach hints about the focuse being on the generic elements rather than the characterizing ones), what I'm worried about is how this plan would affect the worlds themselves --especially now that new updates on all worlds and FR too are lacking--, if they intend to make changes or to ignore specific parts of them. The talk about feeling like playing a ''different game'' and wanting to undo that, sounds like wanting to streamline (to me, at least). Then again, I don't know what to think, as always WotC can only talk vaguely and offer no concrete insight on the direction they want to take the settings (and now their statements even kind of contradict each other). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 07 Apr 2015 16:29:31 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
5e FR and other D&D worlds.
