How much will the reinvention of the Forgotten Realms affect the acceptance of DDN?

It seems to me over the course of the 2e-3.xe span, that Forgotten Realms has almost become the default setting for D&D supplanting Greyhawk once the FR novels really started to take off.

FR on a macro level is a classical fantasy setting based off of western medieval conventions and mythology. The FR also added a variety of subsettings by visiting things like Maztica, Al-Qadim, and Kara-Tur.

Everyone can pretty much agree that the "Realms Shaking Events" of 4e were one Realms-shaking-events too many and interrupted the solid continuity of the Realms.

Now we have the authors of the modern day FR Canon coming together to reinvent the Realms again. How do you think this will impact the acceptance or rejection of DDN? Is the FR really the pivotal campaign setting that will either make or break the edition?

What do the creators need to get right about the realms to make them okay with you? What can the designers get wrong about the Realms that will be a deal breaker for you?

Would you like to see Forgotten Realms BE the default setting for D&D Next Officially? If so, what type of implications will that have for the default flavor of the game?

Would you think a different setting will be better as a starting point? I personally love Dark Sun, but feel that it bends traditional fantasy too far out of whack to resonate with most people who are looking to play a traditional fantasy game. Same with Eberron, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and Planescape.

I think they could choose either Forgotten Realms, Use Gary Gygax's Greyhawk dated from around the time of 1e for canon purposes, or possibly DragonLance. It seems to me that FR/GH fit the best into standard D&D defaults the best.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I think it's clear that they made an error in the new direction of the Realms.  While I personally have played and both and enjoyed them both, I can see the things that were done that caused the problems.

The Realms are important.  Very important.  But no, I don't think they should be the default setting for D&DN.  I don't think there should be a default setting, at all.  If you forced me to pick a setting to be official, I might well pick the Realms, but I'd do so grudgingly.  I prefer playing in Eberron and especially Dark Sun, but I recognize that the Realms are the closest to the "traditional fantasy" out of the major D&D settings.

I would very, very much prefer that the system itself remain setting-agnostic.  Campaign guides are where setting-specific material should be, not the PHB or DMG.  The MM is where you might make the case for default flavor, but I still believe that it's possible, and beneficial, to provide the sort of flavor in a monster's descriptive text so that it has some inherent flavor that's independent of the specific setting used.  So we might all know what a Beholder is and the sorts of areas that we're likely to find one in, but not necessarily things like "The Beholders were created by event X and are only found in places old enough and untouched enough for them to not have gotten killed yet, though with enough interaction with the rest of the world so they have enough food."  We need just enough default flavor that we're all talking the same language.  But to extend that shared flavor up to the "default setting" level I think goes too far.

I don't think that any of the settings will make the edition, but it's been established how they can damage one.  Care needs to be taken this time around, great care.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If they want me to get back into the Realms they'll need to completely erase what happened with the 4e version.  That'll never happen so looks like I'll either ignore them or use the new system to run 2e/3.5 FR lore.  Er, if I get into 5e at all. 

I don't think FR should be the default setting.  A lot of people hate it for a lot of reasons and now there's more hate about it than ever thanks to 4e's butcher job.  This goes back to 3.5.  A lot of people, I imagine, would want Eberron to be the 'it' world if there is to be one but I don't think that'd happen, either.  Eberron was made to appease people that hated FR and I think it's a little too outside what a lot of fans would consider 'traditional' D&D.  If it's to be a back to the roots effort, they'll need to look elsewhere.  I would say Dragonlance would be the best bet because it's not FR and it's not GH but it's close ... though it's seen some butchering, too.  Maybe it's not popular enough, though.  Oh well. 

Ideally there will be no default setting and, instead, we'll have a generic world that people can base adventures on and see a lot of CS material later.  And I mean a lot.  I want to see all of the old crew including Spelljammer and Planescape - and not 4e style, either.  I want books heavy on fluff and I want more than one or two of 'em.  Gimme official CSs and give me a lof of 'em but build the game in such a way as to make them totally optional.  There should be generic fluff, too, for those that don't want to play in a CS. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Is Greyhawk sufficiently generic enough to offer a robust default without offending a lot of canonical sensibilities?

Could that reign in the Gygax contingent that may relish playing in Greyhawk of Yore?
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Default? I hope that, if there is such a thing as a default setting, it is very easy to trade out for another settings.
Yes, the 4e Forgotten Realms was a big mistake, although I don't play in it. A real question to the people who didn't like the 4e FR would be "Do you think that the Sundering will "fix" FR?"
For me is very important that they support all settings, especially the 4th edition setting Light, Nentir Vale or the World Axis Cosmology (my home setting is build in their shoulders).
But about the big picture? Yes, the Realms are very important. Perhaps the most important setting. I honestly hope that they "fix" FR for its fans.
and see a lot of CS material later.  And I mean a lot.

This.  I believe that settings books are among the most valuable things that can be introduced to an edition over its course, and I say this as a fan of the really obscure splatbooks.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Is Greyhawk sufficiently generic enough to offer a robust default without offending a lot of canonical sensibilities?

Could that reign in the Gygax contingent that may relish playing in Greyhawk of Yore?



Unfortunately I don't think GH is generic enough these days.  The most generic setting is, sadly, too specific for a lot of today's players.  And I think that's ok.  The best thing 5e can do is not designate any specific CS the official CS of 5e.  Nobody gets offended that way ... well, nobody but the CS snobs what think their world is the best.  I don't care about them, though.  ;)

This.  I believe that settings books are among the most valuable things that can be introduced to an edition over its course, and I say this as a fan of the really obscure splatbooks.



Yep.  We used 2e FR stuff way past its expiration date.  ;) Stuff like Faiths and Pantheons and Deities and Demigods never cease to be useful. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

What they can get Right is to continue on with the storyline and timeline, basing their new work on ALL that has come before. Yes, the Spellplague happened so they need to accept this event and move forward. Even with that said, I believe that authors should be encouraged to write in any timeline they choose. There were a lot of novels that got stopped short when 4E came out that had more potential but couldn't be written due to WotC decision to only write in the current timeline. Let the authors tell their stories, no matter what era of the Realms is happens in.

What they can do Wrong is to re-write or create an alternate timeline that diverges at some point in FR's history. On it's surface people think that it gives both those who enjoy pre-3E and 4E enough room to work with but I think a division of that nature isn't good for the brand, is too confusing for new people getting involved, and too much work from the authors and designers standpoint to make it function correctly. Also, they need to actually do some writing in areas that have not been covered. Do we NEED another Warderdeep, Menzoberranzan, Baldur's Gate, Cormyr, Neverwinter book detailing what's already been detailed dozens of times over FR's lifespan? No, please no. What would be nice? Westgate, Iriaebor, Phlan, Lake of Steam, Lyrabar (and, really, most of Impiltur), Tantras, Akanûl, Tymanther, Returned Abeir for starters. SOME informtion about these places, espically the later 3 because they're apparently leaving again   would be nice. 4E gets a lot of criticism about having all the lore be snuffed out but it's not the settings or rules fault, it's the development and setting producers that really dropped the ball in not providing MORE lore to the current age. Apparently we're getting Mexico and Egypt back into the Realms and while I personally ditest these elements in my Realms I can still acknowledge that some people liked them. So if this is being shoved back down our throats then they might as well detail the CRAP out of it and do a good job of makng it extreamly vivid.

As for making it default, simply put: NO. What they need to do is continue on with what they've already developed and that's Nerath, the Nentir Vale, Vor Rukoth, etc. and other areas that were mentioned in the last 5 years. Newer players relate to  these elements quickly and dismissing them outright throws out good information as well as the connection these newer players have with D&D. Expanding on this NEW setting that has internal elements and a story and interesting places that's 100% WotC own product (Eberron is too, but this one is newer) goes a long way. Further, giving this setting an iconic name so that people can reference it easier and creating MORE of this will also help.

Then, from there, settings like Greyhawk, Dragon Lance, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun can gain supplements and their own setting books that detail the world as D&D:Next sees it. I think certain elements of these setting are a stark contrast to D&D:Next design goals however, namely Magical Items. The Forgotten Realms, for example, has LOTS of magical items and always has. Red Wizards create and sell them at magic marts and you can purchase them in major cities like Waterdeep, Suzail, Baldur's Gate so this notion that magical items are SUPER RARE and cannot be bought/sold without having a seller or buyer are going to be harder to pull off.
That's the saddest thing about the Realms to me: There's no way to fix 'em now.  It wasn't fair to the 3.5 and earlier players to abuse FR the way they did but it's also unfair to the 4e players to completely destroy what they've come to enjoy.  For me, at least, new content for FR is dead. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

As a person in love with Greyhawk lore I find nothing generic about Oerth.  I love the pantheons and history.  But if you mean standard medieval setting I won't argue too much.  In fact their pantheons are far more complex and interesting than Faerun.  Though I am a lover of Al-Qadim.
I have high hopes for 5th ED Realms now that Ed Greenwood is back on board steeering the ship as it were. 4th ED realms was a bad mistake and it seems that WOTC have learnt from this and are trying to repair the damage and loss of trust with Realms fans. However for me it will not effect whether I buy 5th ED D&D or not, I will buy that for the rules only and use which ever version of the Realms I wish. Hopefully that will be 5th ED's version. Smile
That's the saddest thing about the Realms to me: There's no way to fix 'em now.  It wasn't fair to the 3.5 and earlier players to abuse FR the way they did but it's also unfair to the 4e players to completely destroy what they've come to enjoy.  For me, at least, new content for FR is dead. 



What you can hang your hat on is the years of Realms information that has been produced over the last 25+ years and the quality of that production that FAR exceeds what we've seen these last 5. I love FR Lore and when I heard some of the changes they were making to the Realms, I was really happy (animosity towards blatant Real World paralells being key) but then they really did NOTHING with the change. It was like *BAM* "Here's 3 new areas to explore and discuss and talk about!" and not providing ANY infromation about these setting outside a few DDI articles. That was really the hardest pill to swallow. To get these areas that are new and exciting to see them just go undeveloped outside the FRCG.

There was a lot of talk before 4E about how well supplemental splats sold for the Forgotten Realms and that was, from what I remember, one of the main reasons they stopped producing setting-specific splat books. I dunno but I bought nearly all the 3.X FR supplements including the adventures (Sons of Gruumsh, Tomb of Twilight, City of the Spider Queen, Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor).  I don't know if their policy has changed since then, that creating supplements helps sells a setting?

What they can get Right is to continue on with the storyline and timeline, basing their new work on ALL that has come before. Yes, the Spellplague happened so they need to accept this event and move forward. Even with that said, I believe that authors should be encouraged to write in any timeline they choose. There were a lot of novels that got stopped short when 4E came out that had more potential but couldn't be written due to WotC decision to only write in the current timeline. Let the authors tell their stories, no matter what era of the Realms is happens in.

What they can do Wrong is to re-write or create an alternate timeline that diverges at some point in FR's history. On it's surface people think that it gives both those who enjoy pre-3E and 4E enough room to work with but I think a division of that nature isn't good for the brand, is too confusing for new people getting involved, and too much work from the authors and designers standpoint to make it function correctly. Also, they need to actually do some writing in areas that have not been covered. Do we NEED another Warderdeep, Menzoberranzan, Baldur's Gate, Cormyr, Neverwinter book detailing what's already been detailed dozens of times over FR's lifespan? No, please no. What would be nice? Westgate, Iriaebor, Phlan, Lake of Steam, Lyrabar (and, really, most of Impiltur), Tantras, Akanûl, Tymanther, Returned Abeir for starters. SOME informtion about these places, espically the later 3 because they're apparently leaving again   would be nice. 4E gets a lot of criticism about having all the lore be snuffed out but it's not the settings or rules fault, it's the development and setting producers that really dropped the ball in not providing MORE lore to the current age. Apparently we're getting Mexico and Egypt back into the Realms and while I personally ditest these elements in my Realms I can still acknowledge that some people liked them. So if this is being shoved back down our throats then they might as well detail the CRAP out of it and do a good job of makng it extreamly vivid.

As for making it default, simply put: NO. What they need to do is continue on with what they've already developed and that's Nerath, the Nentir Vale, Vor Rukoth, etc. and other areas that were mentioned in the last 5 years. Newer players relate to  these elements quickly and dismissing them outright throws out good information as well as the connection these newer players have with D&D. Expanding on this NEW setting that has internal elements and a story and interesting places that's 100% WotC own product (Eberron is too, but this one is newer) goes a long way. Further, giving this setting an iconic name so that people can reference it easier and creating MORE of this will also help.

Then, from there, settings like Greyhawk, Dragon Lance, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun can gain supplements and their own setting books that detail the world as D&D:Next sees it. I think certain elements of these setting are a stark contrast to D&D:Next design goals however, namely Magical Items. The Forgotten Realms, for example, has LOTS of magical items and always has. Red Wizards create and sell them at magic marts and you can purchase them in major cities like Waterdeep, Suzail, Baldur's Gate so this notion that magical items are SUPER RARE and cannot be bought/sold without having a seller or buyer are going to be harder to pull off.




+1. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAoq-vwWHHg

outlines a lot of the FR plans
To be honest, I never like the realms since 1E.  I never liked the time of troubles.  Though I did like the Curse of Azure Bonds.
I am very happy that I have not acknowledged/accepted/embraced, etc, The Time of Troubles, Spellplague, Prism Pentad, Grand Conjunction, Inhuman War II, or The Faction War.

Al-Qadim was a nice example of leaving a campaign setting the hell alone (read: busybody writers and their annoying meta-plots).  
I am very happy that I have not acknowledged/accepted/embraced, etc, The Time of Troubles, Spellplague, Prism Pentad, Grand Conjunction, Inhuman War II, or The Faction War.

Al-Qadim was a nice example of leaving a campaign setting the hell alone (read: busybody writers and their annoying meta-plots).  




+1,000,000

You sir are a literary scholar, genius, and gentleman.
Well, they are doing some sort of "We're sorry" retcon by AO to clean up a lot of the junk, so the FR classic folks might be more comfortable with it than they might expect.
My two copper.
Should fiction from here on out be considered non-canon?

should it be default that Drizzt DOESN'T exist in the realms? And should we divorce fiction completely from setting? 
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
should it be default that Drizzt DOESN'T exist in the realms?



In my ongoing FR campaign of 26 years, Drizzt is now working the streets of Calimport as rough trade.
Should fiction from here on out be considered non-canon?

should it be default that Drizzt DOESN'T exist in the realms? And should we divorce fiction completely from setting? 


A setting is a setting, not a plot.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.  Feats, gods, spells, build options in the PHB should have nothing to do with any setting.       I want the PHB and the DMG to be setting neutral just like 2e was.     The 3.5e and the 4e PHBs screwed this up. 

I  have no use at all for a default generic world.     Modules don't need a setting, but they shouldn't all be created around the same generic world that I'll never use.   

As for the FR, it will only be usefull to me if they once and for all provide the following:

1.  Well deisgned detailed maps with borders - this is critical!
2.  A specialty priest book like Faiths and Avatars 
3.  Another Forgotten Realms Adventures book (with city maps and NPCs)
4.  Areas in the campaign setting that follow canon and other areas that are free from canon.  


I am very happy that I have not acknowledged/accepted/embraced, etc, The Time of Troubles, Spellplague, Prism Pentad, Grand Conjunction, Inhuman War II, or The Faction War.

Al-Qadim was a nice example of leaving a campaign setting the hell alone (read: busybody writers and their annoying meta-plots).  




+1,000,000

You sir are a literary scholar, genius, and gentleman.




Ha, thanks, that made me chuckle, and nice to know someone knows where I'm coming from.

I believe Hollow World also kept its integrity.

...if not, I don't want to hear about it! 
As a fan the Realms, particularly the 2e fluff, my gut says that the setting should be reset back to the good old days, and all will be well again.  However, having said that, my brain finds it difficult not to agree with Diffan in most respects.

I'd also reiterate that the most important thing DDN can do is not to make assumptions as to how we all play the game.  I'd wager most of us have different takes on D&D, and on what we like to emphasize, and what we like to downplay.  That said, I think the most "Right" thing they could do is to release a ruleset that was more of a sandbox, that gave us several options, and the rationales behind them, so we know how our decisions to modify affect the game overall, especially stuff like treasure rates, magical item rarity, and the like.  And most of all, give me back the ability to stat up a PC who can start out as a schmuck expert or commoner, and then evolve into something more... that was one of my favorite parts of the 3e ruleset, and a major reason I never switched to 4e.  Though in the interest of disclosure, I've pretty much abandoned level based stuff in favor of M&M's 3e... a truly awesome ruleset IMHO.

That and getting rid of those horrid color schemes in the 4e PHB/DMG... that stuff gave me a headache just to look at. 

"Be careful to choose your enemies well.  Friends don't much matter.  But the choice of enemies is very important."  

- Oscar Wilde

There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.  Feats, gods, spells, build options in the PHB should have nothing to do with any setting.       I want the PHB and the DMG to be setting neutral just like 2e was.  
 




But 2nd Ed had spells such as Bigby's this, and Melf's that, etc.
Yeah, 2e had a lot of setting specific issues, something that they started to exorcise in 3e, though, never quite successfully.

"Be careful to choose your enemies well.  Friends don't much matter.  But the choice of enemies is very important."  

- Oscar Wilde

There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.  Feats, gods, spells, build options in the PHB should have nothing to do with any setting.       I want the PHB and the DMG to be setting neutral just like 2e was.  
 



But 2nd Ed had spells such as Bigby's this, and Melf's that, etc.



That's true those were Greyhawk wizards, but if I recal they did cross settings sometimes.   

My main point is that I don't want subclasses in the PHB that are based around FR gods.   


Yeah, 2e had a lot of setting specific issues, something that they started to exorcise in 3e, though, never quite successfully.



They added more in 3e.   Just look at all the deity options.


There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.

Isn't that the definition of default setting? If the PHB and DMG don't do what you don't want them to do, then it's not a default setting

2e had some pretty strict rules for Druid hierarchy as well. I never could figure out how to implement that Anywhere really.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Yeah, 2e had a lot of setting specific issues, something that they started to exorcise in 3e, though, never quite successfully.



They added more in 3e.   Just look at all the deity options.


Well, yeah, hence the 'never quite successfully' part up there.  But you could see they were at last trying on some level... Spell Compendium in particular showed that urge, inconsistent and uneven as it was.

"Be careful to choose your enemies well.  Friends don't much matter.  But the choice of enemies is very important."  

- Oscar Wilde

There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.  Feats, gods, spells, build options in the PHB should have nothing to do with any setting.       I want the PHB and the DMG to be setting neutral just like 2e was.  
 



But 2nd Ed had spells such as Bigby's this, and Melf's that, etc.



That's true those were Greyhawk wizards, but if I recal they did cross settings sometimes.



Total, a lot of the time, Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and they had those The Wizards Three articles (or whatver they were called) in Dragon mag, where 3 wizards met to chat, Dalamar from Krynn, and who were the other two chaps, one from Oerth, and the other from Toril?
Mordenkainen from Oerth, Elminster from Abeir-Toril (as it was formally known as back then).

"Be careful to choose your enemies well.  Friends don't much matter.  But the choice of enemies is very important."  

- Oscar Wilde

Mordenkainen from Oerth, Elminster from Abeir-Toril (as it was formally known as back then).



Bingo, thanks, my mags are packed away, currently.

I guess Raistlin was too busy chained to that rock in the "Abyss" (actually Avernus) to join in. 
There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.

Isn't that the definition of default setting? If the PHB and DMG don't do what you don't want them to do, then it's not a default setting




It's not my definition.   For me, the default setting is what setting the generic modules are written in.     

  Apart from a few spell names, 2e was very neutral.  It did not provide a list of specialty priests except for the druid.    The 2e DMG was more focused around helping the DM with his own homebrew setting.  The information on technology level and magic level of the campaign was very helpful.



I do like colorful fancy names for spells.  I see nothing wrong with Melf's acid arrow being in the Forgotten Realms.  These high level wizards are also planewalkers.
There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.  Feats, gods, spells, build options in the PHB should have nothing to do with any setting.       I want the PHB and the DMG to be setting neutral just like 2e was.  
 



But 2nd Ed had spells such as Bigby's this, and Melf's that, etc.



That's true those were Greyhawk wizards, but if I recal they did cross settings sometimes.



Total, a lot of the time, Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and they had those The Wizards Three articles (or whatver they were called) in Dragon mag, where 3 wizards met to chat, Dalamar from Krynn, and who were the other two chaps, one from Oerth, and the other from Toril?



Funny I was just going to mention that dragon mag article.      

 


There is nothing wrong with a default setting for D&DNext.    

But there is something very wrong with a PHB and DMG that referrences that setting.  Feats, gods, spells, build options in the PHB should have nothing to do with any setting.       I want the PHB and the DMG to be setting neutral just like 2e was.  
 



But 2nd Ed had spells such as Bigby's this, and Melf's that, etc.



That's true those were Greyhawk wizards, but if I recal they did cross settings sometimes.



Total, a lot of the time, Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and they had those The Wizards Three articles (or whatver they were called) in Dragon mag, where 3 wizards met to chat, Dalamar from Krynn, and who were the other two chaps, one from Oerth, and the other from Toril?



Funny I was just going to mention that dragon mag article.      

 




So cool, D&D really hit a family-stride (I am sure that is not the right term...) in the early 90s.
2e had some pretty strict rules for Druid hierarchy as well. I never could figure out how to implement that Anywhere really.



The druids handbook helped in that regard.  


I do like colorful fancy names for spells.  I see nothing wrong with Melf's acid arrow being in the Forgotten Realms.  These high level wizards are also planewalkers.



Absolutely, but I can understand a DM running FR (for example), and saying those guys do not exist.
So instead of Melf's Acid Arrow it just becomes...Acid Arrow.

I'd still rather have the more flav-o-rific names in the spell list.  Even that doesn't establish a default setting - maybe my campaign world's Melf is different from your campaign world's Melf, but calling it "Melf's Acid Arrow" gives a hook for world-building that "Acid Arrow" does not.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition