I'm really thinking its time WOTC updated Mystara to 4E. As of AC1020 the Night Dragon Synn is positioned to discover the secret of the Radiance and thus absorb 5000 RAD causing cataclysm (Collapse of all subterranean territories -Shadow Elf and Broken Lands) leaving the heart of the known world a bunch of 1000 feet deep craters and fissures, and Wizard Magic ended - though Shaman magic seems to persist because it all seems to come from Immortal Artefacts/Immortals associated with individual cultures making 'Shaman Magic' Unique to individual cultures.
With such an event reducing the otherwise prolific magic of the world to ashes, it immediatly throws the Known world into a Points of Light environment and empires become fragile and crumbly withouth magic telecommunications to prop it up.
WOW! What a concept.
Addendum: And didn't they already fry the Realms up pretty good and turn it into a destabilized, irradiated mess?
If they do any sort of Mystara revival, it would probably be best done using notable NPCs in new published adventures, or notable locations in adventure site supplements.
Isn't the post-apocalyptic arcane-magic-antagonistic D&D setting called... Dark Sun?
Because his idea includes a desert world where magic drains the life-force of the planet and psionics are a common mutation? This fallacy that any sort of post apocalyptic facet to a setting equates it to any other setting with a post apocalyptic facet really needs to end. It is lame, old, and a fairly useless abstraction when discussing settings. It seems to often be used as nothing but a fallacious attempt to end conversation on a topic. It is the same as saying that any setting with any sort of fantastical facet is in fact the same setting. That's right folks, you heard it here! Eberron, Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, the Forgotten Realms... there is no need for any of them because they are all pretty much the same thing. No, really...
Addendum: And didn't they already fry the Realms up pretty good and turn it into a destabilized, irradiated mess?
See my last paragraph. And the Realms were neither "fried up" nor turned into a "irradiated mess." Despite a few post apocalyptic facets to the new 4e FR setting, it is by and large still a typical high-fantasy, and largely recognizable as the Forgotten Realms (to anyone but a few die hard grognards who cant look past the changes to see the same foundation underneath). This doesn't sound like the thing that the OP is talking about.
If they do any sort of Mystara revival, it would probably be best done using notable NPCs in new published adventures, or notable locations in adventure site supplements.
Personally, I like the OP idea. If they released it as a campaign guide I would buy it.
It seems to often be used as nothing but a fallacious attempt to end conversation on a topic. It is the same as saying that any setting with any sort of fantastical facet is in fact the same setting. That's right folks, you heard it here! Eberron, Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, the Forgotten Realms... there is no need for any of them because they are all pretty much the same thing. No, really...
When a niche is filled, the developers should move on to a new niche. One of the things Wizards discovered when analyzing TSR's collapse was that they had too many product lines (settings), often competing for/fracturing the same player base. The high fantasy gamer is going to go with Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or Mystara. They typically invest in a single product line; few have the resources to follow multiple lines. You barely even compared half of the D&D settings out there. The problem isn't that all settings are similar, the problem is that many settings are too similar. They may all have unique histories and characters, but when the theme is the same you're spending development to reinvent the wheel and then you have to try to convince customers why they should buy both wheels. If you're going to make a new wheel, make it a wheel for a different consumer base (bike vs. car tires).
This is why if anything from a setting similar enough to FR or Eberron is considered it should be a light, compatible product, cheaper to produce and appealing to a wider audience without losing the fan-beneficial nods at a pre-existing continuity. An adventure site for Mystara I might buy; but not a whole campaign guide. Campaigns are too much of an investment for me, and likely most consumers, to buy into more than one, so each one needs to master its base.
If they do any sort of Mystara revival, it would probably be best done using notable NPCs in new published adventures, or notable locations in adventure site supplements.
I wonder if it'd be too much to throw in referances to Capcom's Tower of Doom and Shadow Over Mystara. But then again, there's the "4e = video game" crowd to deal with...
It seems to often be used as nothing but a fallacious attempt to end conversation on a topic. It is the same as saying that any setting with any sort of fantastical facet is in fact the same setting. That's right folks, you heard it here! Eberron, Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, the Forgotten Realms... there is no need for any of them because they are all pretty much the same thing. No, really...
When a niche is filled, the developers should move on to a new niche. One of the things Wizards discovered when analyzing TSR's collapse was that they had too many product lines (settings), often competing for/fracturing the same player base. The high fantasy gamer is going to go with Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or Mystara. They typically invest in a single product line; few have the resources to follow multiple lines. You barely even compared half of the D&D settings out there. The problem isn't that all settings are similar, the problem is that many settings are too similar. They may all have unique histories and characters, but when the theme is the same you're spending development to reinvent the wheel and then you have to try to convince customers why they should buy both wheels. If you're going to make a new wheel, make it a wheel for a different consumer base (bike vs. car tires).
This is why if anything from a setting similar enough to FR or Eberron is considered it should be a light, compatible product, cheaper to produce and appealing to a wider audience without losing the fan-beneficial nods at a pre-existing continuity. An adventure site for Mystara I might buy; but not a whole campaign guide. Campaigns are too much of an investment for me, and likely most consumers, to buy into more than one, so each one needs to master its base.
When/whether a niche is or is not/has or has not been filled is subjective. You don't get to pronounce empirical judgement on that. If someone is interested in a zero arcane magic/power source world, where most of the world has collapsed into one big giant pit, which some major connections to the Mystara setting fiction, then their niche of interest is not filled. You may feel that their niche has been filled, but your feeling is irrelevant. That person will not agree with you.
Additionally, your comments on TSR's product line, and the decisions made by WotC, totally fails to take account of the fact that Wizards first attempt at a solution was the 3e product philosophy of "less setting lines." This is the philosophy that you are espousing with your post. It is also a philosophy that WotC has chosen to ditch with 4e, because they tried that out and decided it did not work well. Their new philosophy is release as many setting as possible, at a rate of one per year, but only ever release 3 books for a setting. Someone with an interest in high fantasy is likely to buy the Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara, because each setting will be composed of only two books and one quest. Those gamers no longer have an option to pick one setting, and buy all the new books that come out for that setting, because once those 2 books are out no new books will ever be available. If they want new high fantasy setting books from which to get new gaming ideas they have to buy the new setting books. This is also why the new setting books all make a point of giving ideas about how to use the information found in them for different settings. In earlier editions I usually also picked a single setting and only bought books for that setting. I currently own every setting book released to date, and plan to buy every setting book released in the future. When I know that every setting is only going to have 2 books and 1 quest released for it, and only one setting will be released per year, buying every setting is really not that big of a deal. So I totally don't agree with a word you have said, about anything...
There are certain unique qualities of Savage Coast or the Hollow World that could make for campaign books that less clearly overlap with the current settings while remaining Mystara, but trashing the Known World and the suggested result for the setting still just seems like it's pulling from the Realms timeskip to add some slightly Dark Sun-esque flavor.
"One setting a year" is also not "as many settings as possible" - it's just a way to keep directing creative design towards something new, that the game doesn't already have, to keep 4e going at a steady but lively pace, reaching out to an ever-wider audience. "Who aren't we trying to sell to yet?" While Mystara fans may well be a potential and considered audience, "Mystara fans who want the setting to take on a devastated, arcane-less tone" is probably not even on their radar, or even something to avoid doing after the flak (justified or not) for messing with peoples' Realms.
Most of the published matterials were set in 1000 AC. Though some modules and several artifacts allowed time travel. The Yavdlom Divinarchy is a kingdom founded by it. And the railroad Wrath of the Immortals presented one possible future (1010 AC).
Unfortunately WotC has said they do not want to release similar settings. And Mystara (and others) is similar to Forgotten Realms, probably because of the way TSR would move writers from brand to brand. There are differences, but are they significant enough to warrent a whole book?
Maybe we can convince them to start a column on DDi on how to convert existing settings without needing to playtest new rules.
I'm much rather see elements of Mystara in PoL than see it revived as it's own setting.
Cyber-dave, don't dismiss ascottbay's opinion as irrelevant. I happen to agree with him, and whether you believe it or not, there are probably enough people out there that share that opinion that WOTC has to take that into account when planing. I personally would only support 1.5 campaigns at the most (1 as a dm, and only the Players handbook, for 1 I play). The fact is that the campaigns do compete with each other. I personally will not buy any Eberon or Dark sun products because I am playing in FR (and I have absolutely no interest in Warforged or Artificers (which in my opinion is a blatant attempt to get people to buy campaign books for non-campaign related material).
So I believe they will be seeing diminishing returns with each new campaign world. I would prefer they support the three they have better then to produce more.
Some aspects of Mystara have been folded into the Core Setting (such as Isle of Dread).
I'm much rather see elements of Mystara in PoL than see it revived as it's own setting.
This is true, and I think it is the best way to deal with it. Mystara had some very good parts, but some parts were clearly tacked on to fill in the blanks.
Hollow World, however, was awesome and win, and not only would be a good setting that could be 'plugged into any other setting' would give an excuse for rules for varrying tech levels (bronze vs iron, for example). I don't think it would be strong enough for it's own '3-book' setting of the year, but it could make a very strong 1-book sourcebook or a series of Hammerfast like books detailing different areas/eopcs of the Hollow World.
And as no one that lived there really knew WHY they were there (Civ-Preserve of the Gods, who flet bad for their mistakes, Raphaiel in particular), you could leave out the how and why for the DM to fill in for how it fits into his setting of choice, even if that reason ends up being, "It just is, and that is what those who live there accept."
Just one question, where else did Isle of Dread make its 4e debut, other than the Manual of the Planes? Or is that all so far?
I wonder if Mystara is too obscure for release as a setting of the year? it was one of the many settings of the 2nd edition era but it never seemed to get as much attention as say Planescape or even Birthright.
Still, the 'Known World' is a fond reminder of my Basic D&D days; my 'knights-n-shinning armor' homebrew is even inspired Karameikos (the cover of the first Gazetteer was awesome). Nostalgia alone would knock me out on a Mystara 4e update ;).
I'd personally enjoy seeing the setting appear as a D&D Insider exclusive, similar to the Assassin class. Maybe feature a Campaign Guide in Dungeon and a Player's Guide in Dungeon?
Something similar was done with Dark Sun a few years ago, bringing the setting to 3.5. The conversion wasn't popular with everyone but I liked it ('specially since I didn't know about the fan-based stuff at athas.org).
If there is an update to 4e for Mystara, I do hope there's no Spellplague-type world shaking event; I'm not a fan of the current incarnation of the Realms ;).