# [UPDATED] RAGE OF DEMONS! New D&D Storyline Features Drizzt, Underdark, & Demon Lords!



## ExploderWizard (May 6, 2015)

Oh wow. They are actually going to produce a mega-adventure that features the PCs having to put up with Drizzt as a mary sue.

That should go over well.....


----------



## Trickster Spirit (May 6, 2015)

Ha, my take is that that's more Sword Coast Legends cutscenes and the R.A. Salvatore novel. PotA has been praised for making it easy to migrate to non-Realms settings, and the Underdark is one of the most generic of D&D regions - they have to be counting on people setting it outside of the Realms which means Drizzt has to be excisable / replaceable.


----------



## Patrick McGill (May 6, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Ha, my take is that that's more Sword Coast Legends cutscenes and the R.A. Salvatore novel. PotA has been praised for making it easy to migrate to non-Realms settings, and the Underdark is one of the most generic of D&D regions - they have to be counting on people setting it outside of the Realms which means Drizzt has to be excisable / replaceable.




That's kind of my take as well, but the use of Drizzt is most definitely a calculated marketing move. He's the most iconic D&D character as of right now, so he's definitely there as a draw.

I do think they're smart enough not to write in a ready to use DMPC into the adventure though.


----------



## Waller (May 6, 2015)

Where can I get hold of the critically acclaimed version of Tyranny of Dragons?


----------



## Grimjack99 (May 6, 2015)

Sounds like they're finally getting their multi-media marketing plan right this time.  Way to go.


----------



## Zaran (May 6, 2015)

My players would kill him and take his stuff.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

Reposting from other thread...

Underdark-themed story? Yep, quite happy with that. Demon-themed story? Yep, quite happy with that.

Drizzt front and centre? And, especially, PCs _helping_ Drizzt on *his* quest? Ick.

So, I'm torn on this one. I remain cautiously optimistic, but... (Still, hopefully WotC are smart enough to know not to put Drizzt at the centre of the RPG adventure - which is really the one I care about - after all, they've said that often enough!)


----------



## chibi graz'zt (May 6, 2015)

This is awesome. The Underdark much sooner than expected. Looking forward to more announcements for the table-top products. And best part? We get official stats on the Demon Lords and stats for my daddy Graz'zt!


----------



## Patrick McGill (May 6, 2015)

I wonder what some of the player options might be? We've already for Drow and even Deep Gnomes now.

Maybe Duergar?


----------



## Morrus (May 6, 2015)

My guess is that they won't be accompanying Drizzt directly.  More that he'll be in the background and have a sort of "quest-giver" status for various missions.


----------



## Zaran (May 6, 2015)

I just want them to give the RPG more focus.  I get that they think they can make more money selling to other markets but the brand was created in the RPG and it needs more than a slight nod.


----------



## Patrick McGill (May 6, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I just want them to give the RPG more focus.  I get that they think they can make more money selling to other markets but the brand was created in the RPG and it needs more than a slight nod.




A full adventure path for each storyline seems like more than a slight nod to me.


----------



## Irennan (May 6, 2015)

I wonder if this will somehow feature the followers of other drow deities (Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, who have just returned in the Sundering), or other Underdark forces (Illithids and the likes).


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 6, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I just want them to give the RPG more focus.  I get that they think they can make more money selling to other markets but the brand was created in the RPG and it needs more than a slight nod.




The reality is that when the rpg market starts generating the revenue of other markets then it will get appropriate attention.  In other words, unlikely to happen as long as a large publicly traded company owns the IP.


----------



## Astrosicebear (May 6, 2015)

I hope next year the focus is on something other than FR.... I mean first Tyranny, then the princes of elemental evil, and now Orcus... that seems like a really bad world to be on lately.


----------



## Chimpy (May 6, 2015)

I think this has the potential to be good, but I'm not sure I want Drizzt stuffed down my throat every session. As an occasional NPC popping up I guess it would be OK.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

I wasn't too far off. Orcus is indeed part of the new AP and the AP will be linked to the video game. 

Steve Holt!


----------



## AriochQ (May 6, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> This is awesome. The Underdark much sooner than expected. Looking forward to more announcements for the table-top products. And best part? We get official stats on the Demon Lords and stats for my daddy Graz'zt!




Sweet! My current Greyhawk campaign involves Graz'zt! Looking forward to some 5e info on him to see how it compares to what I came up with.


----------



## Talmek (May 6, 2015)

*Speculation Alert*

Based on 3e and 3.5e release schedules (and my failing memory) didn't they release tons of information on the Forgotten Realms setting prior to going into Eberron and all the associated books? If so I'm wondering if they aren't using that same model again (only releasing books/info in a new setting after reaching market saturation and tapering off releases for the previous one). If so, it doesn't bode well for those groups who enjoy the 5e rule set but don't care for the Forgotten Realms setting. Personally this doesn't matter to my group and I since we just enjoy playing through the adventure paths and make/modify the settings to our own taste anyway.

In my opinion, (re)building off of the successes of the current releases is a sound (if conservative) business model to use when in the early stages of rebranding/rebuilding.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 6, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> I hope next year the focus is on something other than FR.... I mean first Tyranny, then the princes of elemental evil, and now Orcus... that seems like a really bad world to be on lately.




Heh.  You know, I used to think that too before I ran anything in the Realms and knew very little about it.  But once I started running Tyranny and starting actually delving into Realms history... fact is the entire world is RIFE with these kinds of events, even single month in every single year.  Just looking at each year in the Forgotten Realms Wiki with all the historical information that occurred in RPG setting book, RPG adventures, computer games, and all of the novel lines (which are all theoretically "canon")... the Realms have always been and always will be a chaotic mess of a magical pot that is continually boiling over.  Thousands of years of catastrophic events occurring over and over and over again, each and every year.  LOL.

So no... the fact the Realms have dealt with the potential return of Tiamat, the Elemental Lords, and Demon Princes all in the span of like 2 years in the Realms timeline is pretty much par for the historical course.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> I hope next year the focus is on something other than FR.... I mean first Tyranny, then the princes of elemental evil, and now Orcus... that seems like a really bad world to be on lately.



In an interview to Forbes, Nathan Stewart said the FR will be the default setting for a long time.


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

"Here's your guide to the Underdark, the infamous mega-hero who is waaaay more awesomeer than you lot, Drizz't Do'Urden. He'll take you down where you need to stop the most powerful demons of the Abyss."

Encounter #1: Beaten to near-death Drizzt is taken captive down into the darkness by a group of glaberzu.

Players unanimously agree to turn the party around and return to the surface, dancing a gig.

"That was GREAT! Where can we go adventure next?"

XPs all around.


----------



## Astrosicebear (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> In an interview to Forbes, Nathan Stewart said the FR will be the default setting for a long time.





Unfortunately... Other worlds need love too.. But its a good business decision since a massive investment and number of people play Neverwinter MMO, and you cant just up and pop Eberron into that.... brand unity and all...


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Oh wow. They are actually going to produce a mega-adventure that features the PCs having to put up with Drizzt as a mary sue.
> 
> That should go over well.....




I hate to say it, but that was my first reaction also... 

*Adventure Writing 101*: The PCs are meant to be the heroes of the adventure. Don't allow NPC heroes to steal the show.

I have a hard time seeing how this plays out well on the table top... Either 1) Drizzt just can't do it without the PCs, which undercuts him as a character and is a weak marketing move (and sorta a transparently pandering story-line). 2) The PCs get to trot along and fight behind Drizzt which undercuts them as characters and seems a bad idea. or 3) Drizzt is just window dressing and doesn't figure much into the adventure; which raises the question of why include him?

Yeah, color me skeptical... Maybe they can pull it off, and if they do, they have props from me; but that just sounds like a bad idea on so many levels.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (May 6, 2015)

Hey, they actually name smiteworks as licensee in the announcement! Did they do something similar with Trapdoor when they were announcing the first two story lines?


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

There is a mention of Drizzt's darker side. Maybe the PCs have a chance of facing him. They did something like that during 4e's reign. Gimmicky, but this is where D&D is at nowadays. 

What I wonder if Drizzt will have a stat bloc with PC classes and levels. Some of us like to see those.


----------



## Astrosicebear (May 6, 2015)

We haven't seen the text yet, so lets give the writers some leeway here. I am sure they wont fall into the tropes and obvious pitfalls the Internet seems so sure of.


----------



## TwoSix (May 6, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> I hope next year the focus is on something other than FR.... I mean first Tyranny, then the princes of elemental evil, and now Orcus... that seems like a really bad world to be on lately.



Considering that both of their video game IPs are based in FR, I don't think we'll see any of those transmedia initiatives outside of FR for quite a while.


----------



## Obvious_Ninja (May 6, 2015)

Alright!!! Hook Horror, player race!!!! <ducks>


----------



## TwoSix (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I have a hard time seeing how this plays out well on the table top... Either 1) Drizzt just can't do it without the PCs, which undercuts him as a character and is a weak marketing move (and sorta a transparently pandering story-line). 2) The PCs get to trot along and fight behind Drizzt which undercuts them as characters and seems a bad idea. or 3) Drizzt is just window dressing and doesn't figure much into the adventure; which raises the question of why include him?
> 
> Yeah, color me skeptical... Maybe they can pull it off, and if they do, they have props from me; but that just sounds like a bad idea on so many levels.



I imagine that Drizz't will be a more constant presence in Sword Coast Legends and Neverwinter, but only window dressing in the TT adventure.  I didn't see Drizz't actually mentioned in the three sentence blurb specifically about the TT adventure.  It did make note of more details about Demon Lords, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that being the specific focus of the adventure.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 6, 2015)

Sounds a little generic...but whatevs, all the storylines have been pretty generic so far. They haven't been able to hook me yet.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

So, on a side note, PCs defeating summoned cosmic beings again? Add cultists and I see a pattern of laziness.


----------



## Wulfang (May 6, 2015)

Not sure why everyone is hating on Drizzt's presence.

In every setting I run whether in Forgotten Realms or my own world, their are powerful "Gandalf" and "Drizzt" like NPCs to interact with. He's just an NPC that will take part of the story, its still YOUR story. 

So much negativity lol I for one am looking forward to this one more-so then that last two released.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (May 6, 2015)

Do not want.

FR setting? Blech. Demons? Meh. Underdark? Yeah, okay, maybe. Drizzt? Most definitely not.

The whole vibe of this project is early DL adventures with prescribed storylines and sacrosanct NPCs. I'm picturing a DM sidebar entitled "What To Do If Drizzt Dies: Thou Shalt Not Kill Off D&D's Most Iconic Character Even In a Home Game".

Can WotC avoid all the obvious pitfalls and produce a decent or even great adventure? Sure. Will I buy it if they can? Nope. Still not interested.


----------



## Raunalyn (May 6, 2015)

Why would Drizzt need the help of the PCs? He's such a Gary Stu that he can clear it out all on his own. No need for other adventurers to help him.

If I decide to purchase this one (big if...I am *not* a fan of Drizzt), I will gut him entirely from the campaign.


----------



## Obvious_Ninja (May 6, 2015)

Sylvain_L said:


> Not sure why everyone is hating on Drizzt's presence.
> 
> In every setting I run whether in Forgotten Realms or my own world, their are powerful "Gandalf" and "Drizzt" like NPCs to interact with. He's just an NPC that will take part of the story, its still YOUR story.
> 
> So much negativity lol I for one am looking forward to this one more-so then that last two released.




*Ninja-ed!* Just to add to this. My thought was, Drizzt would approach the PC's and pull the ol' "You guys go this way while I take care of this thing over here..." and depending on the results of the PC's action will react to what Drizzt pulls off...


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Sylvain_L said:


> Not sure why everyone is hating on Drizzt's presence.
> 
> In every setting I run whether in Forgotten Realms or my own world, their are powerful "Gandalf" and "Drizzt" like NPCs to interact with. He's just an NPC that will take part of the story, its still YOUR story.
> 
> So much negativity lol I for one am looking forward to this one more-so then that last two released.




Some hate goes toward those DMs who made Drizzt a NPc in there game that upstaged the PCs. Some hate goes toward the Drizzt fanboys. Some toward those players who wanted to play always wanted to play a Drow to emulate their hero. Some of it toward bad novels who are somehow popular. Some of it toward Drizzt's omnipresence and Mary Sue qualities.

Some, like me, feel he unjustly upstaged D&D's true heroic character. Sorak. Sorak would kick Drizzt's butt! #teamsorak


----------



## TerraDave (May 6, 2015)

This is going to involve cultist, right?

I actually like demons lords, including with stats, and underdark is alright. I could certainly use some of it, depending on what it is.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So, on a side note, PCs defeating summoned cosmic beings again? Add cultists and I see a pattern of laziness.




Nah.

In the first one, there's a summoning going on that you can stop.

In the second one, there's several summonings going on, you can stop some of them, but at least one will complete.

In the third one, all the summonings have already been completed.

See? _Completely_ different!


----------



## Raunalyn (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Some hate goes toward those DMs who made Drizzt a NPc in there game that upstaged the PCs. Some hate goes toward the Drizzt fanboys. Some toward those players who wanted to play always wanted to play a Drow to emulate their hero. Some of it toward bad novels who are somehow popular. Some of it toward Drizzt's omnipresence and Mary Sue qualities.
> 
> Some, like me, feel he unjustly upstaged D&D's true heroic character. Sorak. Sorak would kick Drizzt's butt! #teamsorak




I think Drizzt is secretly evil. He wanted Cattie Brie, so he was the one who staged the first of Wulfgar's many deaths. I also think he was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll.


----------



## Irennan (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Nah.
> 
> In the first one, there's a summoning going on that you can stop.
> 
> ...




Don't forget that this time around the cultists will be some dimwitted, power hungry priestesses of Lolth/drow wizards, and that will totally make all the difference in the world (or perhaps it will be revealed that this is just another Lolth's plan to take over the world, when her previous one has just failed).


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

Dripp'z fandom notwithstanding, they are certainly taking a "Go big or Go home!" approach to these adventure paths. First we had the Dragonlancey Tiamat's Coming, let's do all things dragons. Then the homage to Hommlet/ToEE and all things earthy, windy, fiery & wet with Elemental Princes.

Now we're nodding to Descent to the Depths...and, no doubt, Queen of the Demon[inter]webs...not 1, but a BUNCH of D&D's biggest Demon Lords in the mix, Lolth has GOT to be making an appearance...in the Underdark, so count on Duergar, Derro, Drow, Mindflayers & Abolethy [...Beholder?...] goodness...and, apparently, demons, demons, demons (Baphomet and demonic mino's in a mega labyrinth, anyone? I'll take those odds.)

Seems like they are just saying, "Right. What are the biggest most dangerous and powerful things we have/have hinted at? Yeah. Let's use those. No. Not 'that', _thooose_. All of 'em. All at once. Hey Mikey! UA on demon-related/underdark stuff in the next 3 months."

[And complete aside/speculation for the undeniable upcoming "campaign in the Underdark" UA article: I will put money on "Duergar as a PC race" [though I don't agree they should ever be]. Maybe a "Demonologist" wizard tradition or magical feat...and/or demon/Abyssal Sorcerer subclasses (since it's the whine of the ages that there aren't enough sorcerers)...probably some rogue or ranger archetype as well. Maybe we'll see the "summoner" [gods I hate that word]/"pet" wizard some people have been crying about...some guy who just conjures up low level demons to do their fighting.

...not sure what else. I guess 1 race, 1-2 subclass, and a feat would be a solid article.]


----------



## Jefferson Jim (May 6, 2015)

Did they announce who is writing the book(s)?


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I imagine that Drizz't will be a more constant presence in Sword Coast Legends and Neverwinter, but only window dressing in the TT adventure.  I didn't see Drizz't actually mentioned in the three sentence blurb specifically about the TT adventure.  It did make note of more details about Demon Lords, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that being the specific focus of the adventure.






> The demon lords have been summoned from the Abyss and players must descend into the Underdark *with the iconic hero Drizzt Do’Urden* to stop the chaos before it threatens the surface. Rage of Demons is the story all D&D gamers will be excited to play this fall, whether they prefer consoles, PCs or rolling dice with friends.
> 
> Following on the critically-acclaimed Tyranny of Dragons and Elemental Evil stories, Rage of Demons will transport characters to the deadly and insane underworld. Rumors of powerful demon lords such as Demogorgon, Orcus and Graz’zt terrorizing the denizens of the Underdark have begun to filter up to the cities of the Sword Coast. The already dangerous caverns below the surface are thrown into ultimate chaos, madness and discord. The renegade drow Drizzt Do’Urden is sent to investigate but *it will be up to you to aid* in his fight against the demons before he succumbs to his darker temptations.




It sure sounds like Drizzt is intended to be the primary hero with the PCs tagging along, aiding, and be with Drizzt.  Really, from the marketing blurbs, it sounds like Drizzt, even more than the demons, is the focus of the campaign.  That might just be marketing spin, but its their words.

And the primary paragraph about the RPG adventure has a whole sentence devoted to checking out the new novel about Drizzt to help you better prepare mentally for the adventure. 




Sylvain_L said:


> Not sure why everyone is hating on Drizzt's presence.




I don't "hate" Drizzt. But its bad adventure writing to have an NPC steal the show from the PCs and this just strikes me as having huge potential to do just that.


----------



## Astrosicebear (May 6, 2015)

Sounds like a short story waiting to happen....

*Memoirs of a Cultist*

_The exhilarating tale of a single man, three cults, and the struggle to survive._


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> I think Drizzt is secretly evil. He wanted Cattie Brie, so he was the one who staged the first of Wulfgar's many deaths. I also think he was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll.




The "magic bullet" wasn't magic. It was just Drizzt's uber dexterity at work! Spread the truth people!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 6, 2015)

Let's see.  The Crystal Shard (and the debut of Drizzt) was released in 1988.  Twenty-seven years ago.  Most of the so-called Mary-Sueisms of him occurred twenty to twenty-five years ago, when all those players who did it were kids.  It's now been a _quarter-century_ later and people are *still* hung up on it?  Drizzt is *still* the Antichrist to them?  Jeez.  Ordinarily I'd say "You know, it's been 25 years... maybe you should just let it go already, you'd probably feel better"... but I'm pretty sure that'd just fall on deaf ears.

Your annoying friend from high school insisted on playing a dual-wielding ranger dark elf, and you've held onto that anger and resentment of him and the character for a quarter-century.  Yeah... that sounds about right for the average D&D fan.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 6, 2015)

The presence of Drizz't is a complete turnoff for this storyline.  I'll see about the player's companion, but this hold little interest so far because of the presence that character.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (May 6, 2015)

Wow, many of the things I dislike in D&D, tied up into a neat little package. I think I'll pass on this one. 

I think I'm starting to acclimate myself to this new model. I'm getting the kind of stuff I'm interested in for free, subsidized by the people buying into WotC's "stories".


----------



## Irennan (May 6, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Let's see.  The Crystal Shard (and the debut of Drizzt) was released in 1988.  Twenty-seven years ago.  Most of the so-called Mary-Sueisms of him occurred twenty to twenty-five years ago, when all those players who did it were kids.  It's now been a _quarter-century_ later and people are *still* hung up on it?  Drizzt is *still* the Antichrist to them?  Jeez.  Ordinarily I'd say "You know, it's been 25 years... maybe you should just let it go already, you'd probably feel better"... but I'm pretty sure that'd just fall on deaf ears.
> 
> Your annoying friend from high school insisted on playing a dual-wielding ranger dark elf, and you've held onto that anger and resentment of him and the character for a quarter-century.  Yeah... that sounds about right for the average D&D fan.




I don't think that people hate the character, rather his excessive prominence in most D&D stuff. I get that he is their icon, but we now are at like 40 novels revolving about him, and even after that, they alone still take up 2 of the 4 yearly novel releases that WotC appears to have set. I quite like him, but seriously, lets give other stuff more space.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Nah.
> 
> In the first one, there's a summoning going on that you can stop.
> 
> ...




Well, I stand corrected.

In all seriousness, cause D&D is serious business, what other themes are there left? Right now we got draconic, elemental, and soon demons/drows. The undead theme comes to mind. Giants/titans too. Any suggestions?


----------



## Baumi (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Well, I stand corrected.
> 
> In all seriousness, cause D&D is serious business, what other themes are there left? Right now we got draconic, elemental, and soon demons/drows. The undead theme comes to mind. Giants/titans too. Any suggestions?




The Orc-Horde would be a classic.


----------



## Osgood (May 6, 2015)

But in my campaign while back-flipping off a ship into Baldur's Gate, Drizzt slipped on some horse poop and was paralyzed from the neck down... he was last seen whimpering softly as a shady figure dragged his limp body towards a discount butcher shop... guess I can't run Rage of Demons! Bummer...


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> In all seriousness, cause D&D is serious business, what other themes are there left?




I would expect to see Strahd make an appearance soon, probably in a Castle Ravenloft re-tooled to be in the FR. There's also Slavers to redo.

Perhaps Ashardalon/the Bastion of Broken Souls? Something to do with Tharizdun? Dead Gods?


----------



## CapnZapp (May 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> My guess is that they won't be accompanying Drizzt directly.  More that he'll be in the background and have a sort of "quest-giver" status for various missions.



I'm hoping the Drizzter hands out quests, and, at the first sight of trouble appears to make it perfectly clear he could do the quest much faster and better himself.

No, wait


----------



## Xavian Starsider (May 6, 2015)

Talmek said:


> Based on 3e and 3.5e release schedules (and my failing memory) didn't they release tons of information on the Forgotten Realms setting prior to going into Eberron and all the associated books?




Not exactly. The Realms were of course heavily covered in 3rd edition as the most popular, best known and best detailed campaign setting D&D has, but when 3.5 launched, it launched with a new campaign setting that was birthed in 3.5. That was Eberron. They didn't do it because they ran out of Forgotten Realms material. Forgotten Realms continued to be updated in 3.5 right alongside Eberron. Not to mention many one-shots like Oriental Adventures and Ghostwalk. 

The one thing we can be certain of is that the business model for product releases in 5th edition has no relationship to the business model for product releases in 3/3.5


----------



## hbarsquared (May 6, 2015)

I hope they follow the same model as PotA with the light conversion suggestions.  I did have a cool flash of "inspiration" (as in, nothing new at all but still a cool idea) with Eberron and an expedition to Khyber through the Demon Wastes and battling the daelkyr and/or the Overlords.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> I would expect to see Strahd make an appearance soon, probably in a Castle Ravenloft re-tooled to be in the FR. There's also Slavers to redo.
> 
> Perhaps Ashardalon/the Bastion of Broken Souls? Something to do with Tharizdun? Dead Gods?




If Strahd makes an appearence, he will be called Manshoon. A gothic-ish adventure with Manshoon as the final cultist. 

I'm not even joking.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 6, 2015)

Corrosive said:


> Where can I get hold of the critically acclaimed version of Tyranny of Dragons?



+1  

(don't know how to thank from tapatalk)


----------



## Mhyr (May 6, 2015)

The general theme of this storyline is verrry much my cup of tea!!! ... although I would've preferred other demon lords. 

Linking it to Drizzt is not exactly what I would've wished for, but he surely is an iconic D&D- and Realms-character. I liked the first couple of novels I read back in the day and to be honest I can enjoy the new ones (on train to and from work). When we started playing in the Realms again (with LMoP) I gave each player a novel to get into the world and 4 out of 7 featured Drizzt. A famous deus ex machina or DMPC would be horrible, of course. Tying the adventure(s) and the novels together to immerse the players deeper in the setting/world, is much appreciated though. What I am saying is, I could life with a strong marketing horse like Drizzt, if it is done properly

So all in all, I am really looking forward to this one and wonder how they actually handled these aspects (demons, Underdark and Drizzt)!


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> In all seriousness, cause D&D is serious business, what other themes are there left? Right now we got draconic, elemental, and soon demons/drows. The undead theme comes to mind. Giants/titans too. Any suggestions?




I was just thinking the next thing, almost certainly, must be Giants...and nodding to Against the Giants in plot (of course, having already done drow/underdark, I'm not sure where they'll go for the "who's really behind it all" thing)...since that seems to be their pattern/inspiration here. Take the old stuff, rework the theme and details.

Undead, generally speaking, aren't "big/mega/powerful" enough in/of themselves to follow the trend they seem to have set up. So I'm going to bet Giants next.

I would expect, following Giants, a "Ravenloft-ish uber-vamp demi-place + wants to turn the world into an undead paradise" storyline is plausible. 

Maybe an "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" rip off, to bring in some new weird monsters, try to highlight/play up 5e's modern/sci-fi munitions & vehicles stuff.

And, either in that or as a separate product, something that involves/focuses around the introduction of Psionics. Psionic critters. Psionic classes/subclasses. Psionic races...maybe that could all be wrapped up in the sci-fi package of an EttBP-themed product.

EDITTED after reading @_*delericho*_ post: The SLAVERS story! How did I forget the Slaver series?! That'll be one for sure. Not sure who/how they use as the big bads there...just other high leveled NPCs seems something of a "downer" after dragons, elemental princes, and demon lords.

...Slavers meets Giants? The giants are looking for slaves...and cold cuts? Slavers supply giants with raw meat and promises of a giant-led world for giant's help in conquering/building the slaver's own empires?...Nevermind, WotC, I can work with this myself...

OO! OO! Just had a lil' mental hiccup. What if Grazz't's presence in this one leads to a section/segment of the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth! That'd be pretty awesome. And, if not, then Drelzna (and, by extension, Tsojcanth) and Strahd, for sure, MUST be a team up for the Ravenloft/Vampire path when they get around to it.

EDIT 2 for additional mental hiccup: Strahd, Drelzna and ACERERAK! Ravenloft meets Tsojcanth meets Tomb of Horrors. THERE'S your Undead AP. Uber-Vamps and the uber-Lich in cahoots/working toward... something.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 6, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> I hope next year the focus is on something other than FR.... I mean first Tyranny, then the princes of elemental evil, and now Orcus... that seems like a really bad world to be on lately.



All that sweet xp...


----------



## chibi graz'zt (May 6, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> Sweet! My current Greyhawk campaign involves Graz'zt! Looking forward to some 5e info on him to see how it compares to what I came up with.



Yes, I hear that Graz'zt is a big player in Greyhawk, nice we'll get official stats and possible cross=over ideas into Greyhawk (that would be awesome). I've always been a big fan of Graz'zt and wonder at the similarity in Driz'zt's name (a possible relation?). Maybe someone should start a Rage of Demons speculation thread. Im super jazzed at this, definitely a much better release concept (and more iconic of D&D) than Alice in Wonderland.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 6, 2015)

Talmek said:


> *Speculation Alert*
> 
> Based on 3e and 3.5e release schedules (and my failing memory) didn't they release tons of information on the Forgotten Realms setting prior to going into Eberron and all the associated books? If so I'm wondering if they aren't using that same model again (only releasing books/info in a new setting after reaching market saturation and tapering off releases for the previous one). If so, it doesn't bode well for those groups who enjoy the 5e rule set but don't care for the Forgotten Realms setting. Personally this doesn't matter to my group and I since we just enjoy playing through the adventure paths and make/modify the settings to our own taste anyway.
> 
> In my opinion, (re)building off of the successes of the current releases is a sound (if conservative) business model to use when in the early stages of rebranding/rebuilding.



Personally I wonder how successful an edition needs to be for this strategy to give us a new Birthright..


----------



## doctorhook (May 6, 2015)

Corrosive said:


> Where can I get hold of the critically acclaimed version of Tyranny of Dragons?



Literally came here to say precisely this, but since I've already XP'd you, I'm gonna quote you too.


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (May 6, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> I think Drizzt is secretly evil. He wanted Cattie Brie, so he was the one who staged the first of Wulfgar's many deaths. I also think he was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll.




No, that was an actual Grassy Gnoll...






What? Gnolls cant wear grass hula skirts?


----------



## CapnZapp (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So, on a side note, PCs defeating summoned cosmic beings again? Add cultists and I see a pattern of laziness.



Add cultists and I see...

Cultists!


----------



## iwarrior-poet (May 6, 2015)

Here is where a well-implemented digital aide (Char-Gen, Combat Tracker, Maps, Campaign Tracker, etc) could really bridge the gap between dice, console and pc-gaming. I really hope WoTC and Hasbro gets it together one of these days (editions).


----------



## SavageCole (May 6, 2015)

Drizzt is a double-edged sword.  For every unit his presence sells, his presence un-sells at least one.  Making him bolt-off in the story will go a long ways towards marketing this product.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Add cultists and I see...
> 
> Cultists!




So meta! Cultist summoning nihilistic cultist demons who want to summon Dendar the World Serpent who wants to summon the end of the multiverse incarnate! Its name is Bob, Bringer of Bud. 

Kill it! KILL IT!


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

Xavian Starsider said:


> Not exactly. The Realms were of course heavily covered in 3rd edition as the most popular, best known and best detailed campaign setting D&D has, but when 3.5 launched, it launched with a new campaign setting that was birthed in 3.5. That was Eberron.




Nitpick: 3.5e didn't launch with Eberron. 3.5e was released in 2003, Eberron late 2004.

Other than that, you're right on all points, though - Eberron didn't come about because FR was played out, and FR continued to be supported in parallel.



goldomark said:


> If Strahd makes an appearence, he will be called Manshoon. A gothic-ish adventure with Manshoon as the final cultist.




For marketing reasons, it would go the other way: if they were considering a Manshoon-based story, they'd reskin him as Strahd. Because the latter has much better name recognition in the general D&D audience.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 6, 2015)

SavageCole said:


> Drizzt is a double-edged sword.




I thought he used two swords? 




I'll see myself out...


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> For marketing reasons, it would go the other way: if they were considering a Manshoon-based story, they'd reskin him as Strahd. Because the latter has much better name recognition in the general D&D audience.




Are they aiming for that audience? 

Anyway, so far they reskinned a DragonLance adventure into a FR one and Greyhawk adventure into a FR. Maybe not Manshoon, but Strahd would be reskinned, I would bet. 

For an undead themed adventure a lich would be more effective has a cult leader. Lots of those in D&D's history. Did you know Acererak and Vecna were always in the FR? 

...

Vecna. Of course! Undead, lich, god, iconic artifacts, cultists, tried to do something naughty to the mutliverse before, lots of history, hasn't been used in a while. Oh, yeah. 20$ on a Vecna AP next year.


----------



## SkidAce (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> ... or 3) Drizzt is just window dressing and doesn't figure much into the adventure; which raises the question of why include him?...




Advertising hook for more sales and money. Although I enjoyed the first three books featuring him, I stopped reading them after that.

But I am in the minority...so its a good branding move.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Are they aiming for that audience?
> 
> Anyway, so far they reskinned a DragonLance adventure into a FR one and Greyhawk adventure into a FR. Maybe not Manshoon, but Strahd would be reskinned, I would be.




He'll be _moved_ into FR, but they'll keep his name.

(They'll probably pitch it as some sort of planar incursion - suddenly the mists have cleared and where before there was a mountain range there now stands... Castle Ravenloft! Of something of that sort.)



> Vecna. Of course! Undead, lich, god, iconic artifacts, cultists, tried to do something naughty to the mutliverse before, hasn't been used in a while. Oh, yeah. 20$ on a Vecna AP next year.




Quite possibly. Though wasn't he the end boss of Scales of War, or whatever that first 4e AP was called?


----------



## Irennan (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Are they aiming for that audience?
> 
> Anyway, so far they reskinned a DragonLance adventure into a FR one and Greyhawk adventure into a FR. Maybe not Manshoon, but Strahd would be reskinned, I would be.
> 
> ...




The Realms have that likes of Szass Tam and Larloch (and Velsharoon, if you want a god) they don't have to bring in Vecna (unless the next AP isn't going to be in the Realms).


----------



## SilverfireSage (May 6, 2015)

Holy crap there's a lot of negativity on this thread. Seriously, Drizzt must have done some horrible things to your mothers other than be in some mediocre books to warrant this kind of vitriol. Here's a few points that you guys should remember:

1. the D&D team has been more than willing to help people convert their games into various settings. Remember the 20 pages of conversion guides at the back of PotA? Why do you think that's suddenly going away? They know that a lot of people want to put their games in their own campaigns or in ones set in the other worlds, so I seriously doubt they're going to get rid of all of that now.

2. Forgotten Realms is the only setting that anyone outside of our hobby has any knowledge of. Anyone can go into a bookstore and see the massive shelf full of FR books, or find the dozens of video games set in it, or look at the numerous board games set in it. Despite the massive (somewhat) success of 5E, they're still on the ropes. Using their most popular setting is their only option. I hate to tell people to stop griping about it, but they have said numerous times that FR is going to be their setting of choice for the foreseeable future, and there's always at least five or six people on these threads to complain about it. So seriously, stop griping about it. 

3. Is everyone forgetting that we play a modular RPG game that is completely up to the DM running it? If you don't like Drizzt, get rid of Drizzt! Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "you have to play this NPC that you hate." Replace him, put in a different character, excise him altogether. They didn't have any characters like that in the first or second adventure paths, so it baffles me that you guys would think they suddenly became terrible at writing and will force Drizzt-sue onto us. And for all those complaining that it's Drizzt again, our hobby would likely be 100x worse off if it wasn't for him and the success of the novels that he's in. They're the only reason a lot of people I know even know about D&D. 

In short, I'm looking forward to this AP. I somewhat enjoyed ToD, I'm greatly enjoying PotA, I've really liked their core system and the UA's that they've put online. They've built up a lot of good will with me, and I'm happy to return the favor and give them some benefit of the doubt in their next storyline.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Advertising hook for more sales and money. Although I enjoyed the first three books featuring him, I stopped reading them after that.




If you enjoyed the Icewind Dale trilogy, then the Dark Elf trilogy is probably worth a read. Though I wouldn't go beyond that.

(Of course, if you didn't enjoy IWD, or your tastes have moved on, then don't bother.)


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> He'll be _moved_ into FR, but they'll keep his name.
> 
> (They'll probably pitch it as some sort of planar incursion - suddenly the mists have cleared and where before there was a mountain range there now stands... Castle Ravenloft! Of something of that sort.)



Could be. Ravenloft with its domaine lors and domaine barriers make for a great sand box, but I'm not sure since all is FR. 



> Quite possibly. Though wasn't he the end boss of Scales of War, or whatever that first 4e AP was called?



Don't  know, but Tharizdun and Tiamat were used during 4e's reign...


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Irennan said:


> The Realms have that likes of Szass Tam and Larloch (and Velsharoon, if you want a god) they don't have to bring in Vecna (unless the next AP isn't going to be in the Realms).




Yeah, but they are less iconic than Vecna. Just imagine, cultist are trying to have Velsharoon morph into Vecna to extent his zone of influence outside of Greyhawk.


----------



## SilverfireSage (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> It sure sounds like Drizzt is intended to be the primary hero with the PCs tagging along, aiding, and be with Drizzt.  Really, from the marketing blurbs, it sounds like Drizzt, even more than the demons, is the focus of the campaign.  That might just be marketing spin, but its their words.




Well yeah, it is marketing spin. Drizzt is by far the most popular character to come out of D&D. Can you finish that last part though? Because it says "before he succumbs to his darker temptations". Sounds to me like you're going to be fighting him eventually.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Q: Those with Dragon+, did you get some promo article on Rage of Drizzt? With different/more info on RoD?


----------



## SkidAce (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Vecna. Of course! Undead, lich, god, iconic artifacts, cultists, tried to do something naughty to the mutliverse before, lots of history, hasn't been used in a while. Oh, yeah. 20$ on a Vecna AP next year.




XP for Vecna.


----------



## TheMadGent (May 6, 2015)

The blurb on the RPG adventure is the only one that doesn't namedrop Drizz't, so it's unclear what his role's going to be in the actual RPG product. I feel like the main reason they're pushing Drizz't in this is because of the novel coming out.

I don't really mind the focus on the FR. If anything, it means the settings I like are getting left alone instead of having biannual "realms-shattering events", and I can just keep on using 2e and 3e material for setting notes.


----------



## Bayonet (May 6, 2015)

I'm just thankful we got three major adventure paths so far (LMoP, HotDQ/RoT, and PotA) that were fairly Drizz't and Sword Coast light. I don't hate the character or region, but I do think they're overused. That being said, I will likely either play or run this module with friends, and enjoy the hell out of it. 


I'm interested in the idea that WoTC is concentrating on big, sprawling adventures focusing on bad guy "themes" and I wonder what's next. Someone already mentioned Lichs/Undead and Giants as possible contenders. 

What about Aquatic stuff? Kuo_Toa and Sahuagin, Dragon Turtles and Krakens? Would fit in with that bit of  mariner flavoured UA we had lately.

I guess extra-planar stuff is possible, too. Gith and Modrons and whatnot.


And, just throwing it out there, WotC ( I know they're listening)... everyone seems to have LOVED LmoP. LOVED it. No world-eating demon lords, no sprawling epic doin's, just a tightly written, enjoyable regional adventure, and everybody LOVED it. Just a thought. You could sticky-note that, put it on the office fridge...


----------



## the Jester (May 6, 2015)

SavageCole said:


> Drizzt is a double-edged sword.  For every unit his presence sells, his presence un-sells at least one.  Making him bolt-off in the story will go a long ways towards marketing this product.




Yep. The demon prince stats alone might be worth $50 to me, but Drizzt reduces the value by virtue of inflicting a condition in which my eyes just CANNOT. STOP. ROLLING. Amf I am full of hate hate hate for drow as pcs, which Drizzt sort of epitomizes, and am a FR hater. So this product... like Princes of the Apocalypse... should be a solid must have for me, but instead, it's more like, "Maybe I'll find it at a garage sale or used book store in five years or so." It's like it's designed to immediately throw one of the worst, most criticized aspects of the FR front and center (all the superuberultranpc Mary Sues).

If it turns out that Drizzt is easy to cut out of the adventure completely and absolutely, and if NONE of it revolves around him- I'm hoping, but his very inclusion argues that I'm out of luck- I'll probably pick this up; otherwise, I almost certainly won't.


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (May 6, 2015)

Man, screw Drizzt... Give us what we really want; more Warduke!


----------



## SkidAce (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> If you enjoyed the Icewind Dale trilogy, then the Dark Elf trilogy is probably worth a read. Though I wouldn't go beyond that.
> 
> (Of course, if you didn't enjoy IWD, or your tastes have moved on, then don't bother.)




I actually meant I read Icewind Dale and the Dark Elf Trilogy...THEN I stopped.

Didn't consider IWD to be a"his" trilogy.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

Bayonet said:


> What about Aquatic stuff? Kuo_Toa and Sahuagin, Dragon Turtles and Krakens? Would fit in with that bit of  mariner flavoured UA we had lately.




That's not a bad call. I've been reading through the MM over the past few days, and there's a _lot_ of aquatic stuff in there.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

The Dark Elf trilogy is the more iconic Drizzt trilogy. The first book is actually fun.


----------



## BoldItalic (May 6, 2015)

Drizzt dies in chapter three. You get to pick up his magic swords. You are the new Drizzt. Enjoy!


----------



## IchneumonWasp (May 6, 2015)

So, I guess this means we can expect to not get much player options out for this? (Not that I am unhappy with what we are getting now in Unearthed Arcana. I'm very happy in fact.)


----------



## Remathilis (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> He'll be _moved_ into FR, but they'll keep his name.
> 
> (They'll probably pitch it as some sort of planar incursion - suddenly the mists have cleared and where before there was a mountain range there now stands... Castle Ravenloft! Of something of that sort.)




You're overthinking it; Ravenloft in 5e is pretty much independent domains in the mists of the shadowfell. Would not be hard to have the "mists" swallow up a group of PCs and release them home at the end. 

It's going to be more Expedition to Castle Ravenloft than Realms of Terror.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

IchneumonWasp said:


> So, I guess this means we can expect to not get much player options out for this?




I don't think they've said anything, but my best guess is that we'll see something much like the free PDF associated with PotA - a couple of new races, maybe some backgrounds, and a bunch of spells. Some of this may well be reprints (in particular, I'd expect Deep Gnomes to recur).



Remathilis said:


> You're overthinking it; Ravenloft in 5e is pretty much independent domains in the mists of the shadowfell. Would not be hard to have the "mists" swallow up a group of PCs and release them home at the end.




They've been tending towards "save the world" adventures, so I'd still expect an attack on FR rather than just the PCs being pulled into the Shadowfell.

'course, it would be a welcome surprise if I were proven wrong.


----------



## God (May 6, 2015)

Struggled to find an appropriately onomatopoetic word to describe the violent puking prompted by this announcement. Please, me, can we have something other than FR?


----------



## halfling rogue (May 6, 2015)

Bayonet said:


> And, just throwing it out there, WotC ( I know they're listening)... everyone seems to have LOVED LmoP. LOVED it. No world-eating demon lords, no sprawling epic doin's, just a tightly written, enjoyable regional adventure, and everybody LOVED it. Just a thought. You could sticky-note that, put it on the office fridge...




Yes! I want to keep beating this drum too. More adventures like Lost Mine are what I'm looking for. I think the APs out now look cool, but they are simply outside of my needs. Most of my campaigns can only go as far as something like Lost Mine, and since that is the case a $50 book (or even 35 on amazon) is simply more than I'd rather spend. It's not that I don't think it is worth the value, it's just not valuable _for me. _I don't need it so I'm not going to spend it. But if you give me some Lost Mine-esq adventures at, say, $10-15 a pop, then I'm all over it every. single. time. If you want my money, that's how you're going to get it.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

IchneumonWasp said:


> So, I guess this means we can expect to not get much player options out for this? (Not that I am unhappy with what we are getting now in Unearthed Arcana. I'm very happy in fact.)




As much as ou got in PotA. 

Since no Adventurer Handbook seems to be in the works, they might not have a cancelled book to scavange some material to produce a 25 pages PDF this time around.


----------



## mykesfree (May 6, 2015)

Did anyone see the plot description for the "Out of the Abyss" Module on the WOTC website?  I don't think our Dark Elf Ranger will have a prominent role in the RPG version. 

http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/outoftheabyss





​[h=3]SYNOPSIS[/h]*Dare to descend into the Underdark in this adventure for the world’s greatest roleplaying game! *
The Underdark is a subterranean wonderland, a vast and twisted labyrinth where fear reigns. It is the home of horrific monsters that have never seen the light of day. It is here that the dark elf Gromph Baenre, Archmage of Menzoberranzan, casts a foul spell meant to ignite a magical energy that suffuses the Underdark and tears open portals to the demonic Abyss. What steps through surprises even him, and from that moment on, the insanity that pervades the Underdark escalates and threatens to shake the Forgotten Realms to its foundations. Stop the madness before it consumes you!
_A Dungeons & Dragons adventure for characters of levels 1–15_
[h=3]ITEM DETAILS[/h]*Price:* $49.95 C$63.95 
*Release Date: *15 September, 2015


----------



## SilverfireSage (May 6, 2015)

mykesfree said:


> Did anyone see the plot description for the "Out of the Abyss" Module on the WOTC website?  I don't think our Dark Elf Ranger will have a prominent role in the RPG version.




wow, it doesn't even mention Drizzt at all, and people are getting so up in arms about it? This sounds exactly like PotA, an adventure that anyone can transport to whatever setting they want. Almost like they've done this before or something.


----------



## RichGreen (May 6, 2015)

I'm a big fan of demon lords and the Underdark so very much looking forward to this!


----------



## Inchoroi (May 6, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> Why would Drizzt need the help of the PCs? He's such a Gary Stu that he can clear it out all on his own. No need for other adventurers to help him.
> 
> If I decide to purchase this one (big if...I am *not* a fan of Drizzt), I will gut him entirely from the campaign.




As much as it pains me, as I do own all the Drizzt novels and love them...I'll be cutting him as well, assuming he plays anything more than a "This person exists and is part of history. Learn about him to gain info on the Underdark. Go adventure yourself, forgetting about the Notorious Mary Sue." Still, I'm hoping for quality commiserate with Princes of the Apocalypse.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

With Menzo mentioned and Gromph, I would think Drizzt will be prominent.


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2015)

There's so much angst for Drizzt in this thread, it reads like a page of his journal.  Oh, the irony!

Do we know who's designing the adventure?  Seeing as Kobold and Sasquatch did the last two, I'm assuming this one will be freelanced as well?


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> wow, it doesn't even mention Drizzt at all, and people are getting so up in arms about it?




They put him front and centre in their official announcement of the storyline. You can hardly be surprised if people assume he's going to be kind of important to it.


----------



## Raunalyn (May 6, 2015)

mykesfree said:


> Did anyone see the plot description for the "Out of the Abyss" Module on the WOTC website?  I don't think our Dark Elf Ranger will have a prominent role in the RPG version.
> 
> http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/outoftheabyss
> 
> ...




That *is* a really sweet picture of Demo-gorgon though...


----------



## jbear (May 6, 2015)

So we all know what paragraphs are for, right people? Well, I would suggest those of you who are getting all worked up about Drzzt potentially overshadowing PCs inthe newadventure should re-read the 'full announcement' with a view that a paragraph contains a main idea which is elaborated with supporting detail. Fans (us and others who don't frequent RPG internet boards alike) will be able to interact with the new storyline in different ways. These different ways are then explained, each involving Drzzt in varying degrees.

Read this way the announcement indicates (as TwoSix mentioned but was ignored) that Drzzt kicks off a segment of *the computer game* Sword Coast Legends where players are sent into the underdark.; an *expansion of the MMORPG* Neverwinter:Underdark will send players to Menzoberranzan with Drzzt; players of the *tabletop RPG* can descend into the Underdark in the new adventure Out of the Abyss where *demonlords* are rampaging about the place and minis will be produced to support the adventure (please notice that in this section of the announcement there is NO DIRECT MENTION of Drzzt being involved in the adventure at all, just demonlords); also a new novel about Drzzt is being written (this comment is tacked on, not warranting a paragraph of its own).

I really don't think that Drzzt is going to be a major part of the table top adventure whatsoever, let alone a threat to overshadowing PCs involvement. The writers are every bit as aware as you and I that doing so would be an error, I am certain. 

In any case, I think the whole hating on the character Drzzt has become a movement of its own. It's just not cool amongst D&D nerds to like Drzzt. One must mock and poopoo Drzzt at any opportunity lest one be thought of as less cool. Pfft. I didn't read all of the forgotten realms books with Drzzt, true. I reached a point where I found that the description of the fights reminded me too much of someone narrating the mechanics of a D&D session when fights occurred. I'm not a fanboy defending anything. But I'm not going to lie and pretend that the first couple of Drzzt books I read when he had first ventured into the underdark and was surviving down there by himself, the evil mindflayer, the drow priestesses whith their snake whips, the assassin Artemis Entreri, the double agent Jarlaxle, disgusting driders and all of the scheming of the drow houses wasn't thoroughly enjoyable to read about.

I know a lot of people don't like FR, but as I really don't give a crap about being a 'cool nerd' (a term I just made up, and a status which is only relative amongst other nerds), I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something else equally unpopular. I've found loads of great inspiration for my own campaigns from FR material. Yes, I cherry pick, 'tis true. But seriously ... FR 4e campaign book ... full of loads of gems! Helped me create a very cool place for my players to adventure within (yeah, if I say so myself ... who else is going to say it?). 

Now that I don't have the time to invest in cherry picking ideas I like as fodder for creating my own world anymore (RL and all that), I am enjoying getting to know the Sword Coast, so I don't mind that the 5e adventures that are being prduced up until now (both Encounters and Adventure Books). It helps expanding the pathways a lot easier for me. I'll admit to feeling very constrained by the adventure as proposed in Tyranny of Dragons. The expectation of the movement of events in the adventure was not something that made sense to my players... my coming up with things on the spot to try and make those things make sense felt very forced to me. It felt like I was forcing my plyers down 'the one path'. I didn't enjoy that feeling, and I was sure that my players didn't enjoy the feeling that their options were so narrow. The adventure took players to the iconic city of Baldur's Gate, and so I decided to sit down and have a look at the Murder in Baldur's Gate adventure. It was awesome how the adventure brought that city that had been a really great memory as a young man playing the computer game of the same name. So Baldur's Gate is no longer going to just be a pitstop for my PCs. The pathways will open and they will make of it as they choose.

Looking further ahead the PCs pick up NPCs in the equally iconic Daggerford (one of those a renegade Red Wizard of Thay), so I decided to take a look at the Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, which also involved NPCs from there. All of a sudden I felt like I was able to interweave different storylines, open up different pathways to new adventure, as the PCs journey through and actually get to know the locations they are travelling through... and with no real prep (which I don't have time for sadly). They can choose which adventure they wish to proceed with, and if they want to stick with the main story line then that is a genuine choice; if they want to take the hooks elsewhere then I have material based on the same locations ready to go, which can easily feed back into the main story if I so wish. (This particular adventure would also be incredibly easy to link into the new Temple of Elemental Evil I imagine as well, although I do not have that adventure ... but the common locations and themes make it really easy to link.)

That's really what I want. Linked options that I can connect like a web together, and players can choose the strands they are drawn most strongly towards. I want to be able to bring a place to life in the minds of my players rather than Baldur's Gate being a generic city where there are loads of people, it has urban events, and you can get stuff. I want my players to be able to visit and then revisit a place, benefitting from the fact that they now know people and places there. I want to have world changing events going on that the PCs connect to at certain times depending on their chose course of action. I want their actions to effect the world and I want the actions they chose or chose not to take to develop to have an impact on how those world changing events proceed for good or for ill. I don't have time to create a giant sandbox of my on accord, an intricate game world , or even an elaborate adventure anymore. I love doing those things, but its just not feasible for me. SO having adventures linked by location, factions and organisations is really really useful. All I have to do is connect the dots. A little tweak here, a bit of a jiggle there, and voila, I can do all that with an absolute minimum of prep. Not with the adventure as a stand alone but in combination, pulling bits and pieces from here and there to create a web. An option to link things down to demons below... sweet I say, personally. It seems like a cool place to be able to take an adventure and to have other new things already going on. 

So complain away if you like, because this next one includes Drzzt, and Drrzt aint kewl, but I personally think they are doing a pretty good job at the moment. I happily await other major themes to emerge  (I'm hoping a nod to Ravenloft emerges next personally).


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 6, 2015)

BoldItalic said:


> Drizzt dies in chapter three. You get to pick up his magic swords. You are the new Drizzt. Enjoy!




Of course!

"Well, Drizzt had grown so rich, he wanted to retire. He took me to his cabin and he told me his secret. 'I am not Drizzt Do'Urden', he said. 'My name is Ryan; I inherited the swords from the previous Drizzt Do'Urden, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Drizzt Do'Urden either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Drizzt has been retired fifteen years and living like a king in Calimport.'"


----------



## SilverfireSage (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> They put him front and centre in their official announcement of the storyline. You can hardly be surprised if people assume he's going to be kind of important to it.




Except nobody bothered to actually read the description of the RPG itself and proceeded to post 8 pages of complaints about it. I'm not surprised they did put him front and center though. This is essentially a marketing campaign for the new book as well, which likely sells better than any D&D book.


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2015)

Also, why do people here assume they are so much more intelligent than the adventure writers?  What was the last professionally designed adventure where the party followed around a mary sue NPC and did as they were told?  Maybe assuming the worst possible and least likely outcome isn't very productive.

I could make a fortune selling these here. 
View attachment 68235


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> Except nobody bothered to actually read the description of the RPG itself...




Or they did, especially the bits where it says:



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> The renegade drow Drizzt Do’Urden is sent to investigate but it will be up to you to *aid in his* fight against the demons before he succumbs to his darker temptations.
> 
> “Rage of Demons is a huge storyline involving all expressions of Dungeons & Dragons, and we’re excited to bring players this story in concert with all of our partners,” said Nathan Stewart, Brand Director at Wizards of the Coast. “I can’t wait to see *everyone* interact with one of the world’s most recognizable fantasy characters: Drizzt Do’Urden. Descending into the depths won’t exactly be easy for him, and D&D fans will get their mettle tested just like Drizzt when they come face-to-face with all the demon lords.”






SilverfireSage said:


> and proceeded to post 8 pages of complaints about it.




ENWorld has thousands of members. At time of writing, this thread has 110 posts in it. So, actually, what you have is a small subset of ENWorld members saying they don't like Drizzt, mostly _once each_. People are hardly "up in arms".



> I'm not surprised they did put him front and center though.




Yeah, they put him front and centre to get a reaction. Well, they got one. But the thing about doing that is that the reaction isn't always going to be 100% positive.


----------



## ronaldsf (May 6, 2015)

"it will be up to you to aid in his fight against the demons before he succumbs to his darker temptations."

I agree with a commenter several pages ago that there is a possibility of facing Drizzt himself. (And get his swords!) 

Also, if WotC is thinking bigger than the tabletop D&D game (which they have officially said they are), then they're thinking about a broader market of people who aren't burned-out over Drizzt. And people who play computer RPGs are less concerned about railroading.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

ronaldsf said:


> "it will be up to you to aid in his fight against the demons before he succumbs to his darker temptations."
> 
> I agree with a commenter several pages ago that there is a possibility of facing Drizzt himself. (And get his swords!)




Yep. And, actually, that could be quite a cool twist on the story - rather that being the quest-giver or the Mary Sue, if Drizzt turned out to be the BBEG (possibly while possessed).



> Also, if WotC is thinking bigger than the tabletop D&D game (which they have officially said they are), then they're thinking about a broader market of people who aren't burned-out over Drizzt.




Agreed again. And rightly so, actually.


----------



## JeffB (May 6, 2015)

This just keeps getting better and better 


Edit- I'm calling it now, next AP  Undead focused. Vecna and/or Acererak as the BBEG(s)


----------



## Raunalyn (May 6, 2015)

I really didn't have a problem with the Icewind Dale trilogy...it was a fun read, and had some great moments in there. The Exiles prequels are where I started to have problems with Drizzt. And then, in the subsequent novels, his Gary-Stuedness (it's a real word...I just made it up!) became more and more apparent. It's not so much that I hate him...it's just a lot of fun to poke fun at him and remark on his invincibility.

So, having him involved in the adventure is a big negative in my mind. If he's just a quest-giver and does nothing to over-shadow the party, I can accept that. More than likely, though, I'll just end up stripping him out entirely and using the material in my own way.


----------



## mflayermonk (May 6, 2015)

Any chance for a pajama set as well?


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> ENWorld has thousands of members. At time of writing, this thread has 110 posts in it. So, actually, what you have is a small subset of ENWorld members saying they don't like Drizzt, mostly _once each_.




And some of us are ambivelent about Drizzt and merely think its a mistake to write adventures centered around icons.


----------



## DMZ2112 (May 6, 2015)

Has this ever been done before?  Does Drizzt show up in any other published FR modules?

I agree with the assessment that he will be a lot more prominent in the digital games -- he's been a fixture in those since he gibbed all those ogres in Baldur's Gate.

This is probably (once again) not a purchase for me, but I look forward to the player PDF and will at the very least leaf through it to see if the setting treatment of the Underdark is expansive enough to be worth picking up.


----------



## Remathilis (May 6, 2015)

I think people are still thinking in terms of the RPG being prominent. Is only one facet of the RoD story. Drizzt will do battle, but his part of the story will mostly be in the novel. I don't think he will appear accept as a small cameo in the module. The PCs will handle one part of the quest, Neverwinter players another, Drizzt (via the novel) a third and SCL played the fourth. All separate parts of an interconnected story. 

When the ad text says "fight next to Drizzt" they probably don't mean it literally. Drizzt handles his part of the war, the PCs handle theirs. You're still on the same team, just different battlefields. 

We'll see soon enough I suppose


----------



## the Jester (May 6, 2015)

jbear said:


> In any case, I think the whole hating on the character Drzzt has become a movement of its own. It's just not cool amongst D&D nerds to like Drzzt. One must mock and poopoo Drzzt at any opportunity lest one be thought of as less cool.




Or, you know, instead of being shallow twits, maybe Drizzt haters hate Drizzt not because they think it makes them cool, but because Drizzt is a perfect example of what they perceive of as the worst of D&D- the Mary Sue, never-gonna-die-cuz-DM-fiat, special-snowflake-Underdark-evilbadrace-good-guy, the uberNPC that dominates the game. Instead of having anything to do with "cool", Drizzt hate is, simply put... Drizzt hate. 

Not to say that Drizzt lovers are in the wrong; it's a matter of personal taste. But claiming that Drizzt-haters are just trying to be cool is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Iosue (May 6, 2015)

No mention of any partners in the OotA blurb.  I wonder if WotC is doing this one totally in-house...


----------



## Celtavian (May 6, 2015)

Now this sounds interesting. I will most likely give this a shot.

I'll probably drop Drizz't and include a character from the world we're playing in.


----------



## moldyderp (May 6, 2015)

So much Drizzt hate. Maybe it's time for a new Mary Sue? Someone call Rothfuss and ask him if WotC can use Kvothe in a new D&D adventure.


----------



## Patrick McGill (May 6, 2015)

I like Mike's tweet on the subject:

"What I love about this story is when [MENTION=13127]chrisp[/MENTION]erkinsDnD & co. decided that the Underdark was way too safe and happy, needed some real danger."


----------



## BoldItalic (May 6, 2015)

Iosue said:


> No mention of any partners in the OotA blurb.  I wonder if WotC is doing this one totally in-house...




Apparently it's Green Ronin, according to Polygon


----------



## Ghost Matter (May 6, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> Unfortunately... Other worlds need love too.. But its a good business decision since a massive investment and number of people play Neverwinter MMO, and you cant just up and pop Eberron into that.... brand unity and all...




You can make a similar event happening in both. Dungeons & Dragons Online had Elemental Evil and it's set in Eberron..



Jan van Leyden said:


> Hey, they actually name smiteworks as licensee in the announcement! Did they do something similar with Trapdoor when they were announcing the first two story lines?




No, because Smiteworks actually released the products.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (May 6, 2015)

As a WoW player, I'm used to share the spotlight with an official protagonist for some time now. If anything, it helps different groups connect to the same story, which is a good thing, in my opinion.

Personally, I don't like Drizz't that much, but not doing a FR path where he has an important role is much like doing the Hogwarts adventure path and not featuring Harry Potter as an important NPC for the players to interact with. It seems that, except for a vocal minority, people really love Salvatore's creation, and not using him is leaving money on the table.

That said, I really looked forward to the Underdark storyline, and I cannot say that I'm not frustrated about demons being the main antagonists. Not a lot of chance for a mindflayer/aboleth storyline in the near future, it seems...


----------



## Greg K (May 6, 2015)

The good news is that it has Demon princes.  On the other hand, it is an adventure path and also tied to the Underdark which means that there are two reasons that I will not be buying it.  

 A major factor in my decision to not purchase 4e was how they released the Monster Manuals with one Demon prince (or, in the case of Lolth, Queen) per book and other Demon Princes and Demon Lords in various books and online Dragon issues.  Based on 4e's release of Demon Princes and Arch-Devils,  I made a conscious decision to hold off on investing in 5e to see how they handle the release of stats for Tiamat, Demons Princes, etc..  I don't see this format as any  for my preferencesthan was 4e. In some ways it is worse as it is tied to Adventure Paths for which I have no use.  
So, if the only way to get stats for Tiamat, Demon Princes, Elemental Lords, etc. is to purchase individual Adventures/Paths, bye bye 5e and WOTC.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 6, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Also, why do people here assume they are so much more intelligent than the adventure writers?  What was the last professionally designed adventure where the party followed around a mary sue NPC and did as they were told?  Maybe assuming the worst possible and least likely outcome isn't very productive.





This isn't an IQ debate. It is about features that a lot of tabletop players don't care for in published adventures, and as such it is purely opinion. We aren't playing "are you smarter than a WOTC designer" here. 

The company has goals that go well beyond the tabletop and some of the decisions made about the design are included because of that. So if 80% of your revenue comes from sources OTHER than tabletop, then designing your product to market heavily towards those sources is SMART.  Some of us hold the tabletop game as more important than anything else and wish that decisions reflected that. 

D&D had to become a brand to survive under Hasbro. A brand is simply an asset used to generate revenue. D&D is now just a corporate marketing tool.


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

moldyderp said:


> So much Drizzt hate. Maybe it's time for a new Mary Sue? Someone call Rothfuss and ask him if WotC can use Kvothe in a new D&D adventure.




Will the adventure be 500 pages of making sympathy lamps and endless farting around with paying your tuition? How many talents and jots will you need to buy your textbooks? Can you get your library card back? Stay tuned for the epic conclusion of the Student Loan of the Wind trilogy!

For all the hate Drizzt gets, he's not a 1% of the Mary Sue Elminster is, who spends all his time flying through the multiverse banging various goddesses of magic. Or Raistlin, the biggest junior high school vengeful nerd fantasy ever. "Yes, one day I'll lord it over the cool kids, after I get my comp sci degree! Then the girls who wouldn't date me because of my odious personality and grooming habits will have to like me!"


----------



## Ghost Matter (May 6, 2015)

The only people I see hung up on Drizzt are the people saying they're tired of him or that's he's going to steal the show.

We only have a single press release right now. Let's wait and see, no use in panicking.


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

Greg K said:


> The good news is that it has Demon princes.  On the other hand, it is an adventure path and also tied to the Underdark which means that there are two reasons that I will not be buying it.
> 
> A major factor in my decision to not purchase 4e was how they released the Monster Manuals with one Demon prince (or, in the case of Lolth, Queen) per book and other Demon Princes and Demon Lords in various books and online Dragon issues.  Based on 4e's release of Demon Princes and Arch-Devils,  I made a conscious decision to hold off on investing in 5e to see how they handle the release of stats for Tiamat, Demons Princes, etc..  I don't see this format as any  for my preferencesthan was 4e. In some ways it is worse as it is tied to Adventure Paths for which I have no use.
> So, if the only way to get stats for Tiamat, Demon Princes, Elemental Lords, etc. is to purchase individual Adventures/Paths, bye bye 5e and WOTC.




I mean, to each their own, but it seems odd to base your decision around whether or not they include in the basic monster manual the stats for group of unique NPC's that probably shouldn't even need stats until the party is level 20+, given that they should be on par with demigods in order to boss around a bunch of balors. 5E is a good system, and its pretty easy to make stats for creatures.


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> This isn't an IQ debate. It is about features that a lot of tabletop players don't care for in published adventures, and as such it is purely opinion. We aren't playing "are you smarter than a WOTC designer" here.
> 
> The company has goals that go well beyond the tabletop and some of the decisions made about the design are included because of that. So if 80% of your revenue comes from sources OTHER than tabletop, then designing your product to market heavily towards those sources is SMART.  Some of us hold the tabletop game as more important than anything else and wish that decisions reflected that.
> 
> D&D had to become a brand to survive under Hasbro. A brand is simply an asset used to generate revenue. D&D is now just a corporate marketing tool.




I agree that smart business decisions are smart.  That said, what a lot of people are worried about is not a smart business decision.  Having Drizzt on the cover and a part of the adventure is smart. Having him be a part of the party as a DMPC isn't.  Therefore, it makes sense that the latter isn't going to happen, that was my point.

You can have a big name NPC take more of a prominent position on other aspects of the media and still make a good adventure.


----------



## casterblaster (May 6, 2015)

The posts in this thread are very predictable. Anyway this sounds awesome cant wait to learn more about it.


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2015)

casterblaster said:


> The posts in this thread are very predictable. Anyway this sounds awesome cant wait to learn more about it.




When I came in and saw 10 pages already, I was thinking, "Thanks Drizzt".


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> That's not a bad call. I've been reading through the MM over the past few days, and there's a _lot_ of aquatic stuff in there.




Kuo-toa, traditionally, should fall in the upcoming underdark one...but the sahuagin and other aquatic MM stuff (and if Nautical UA is a preview/hint) could EASILY be a Saltmarsh trilogy AP. Would need to be teased out a LOT to get into higher letter/involve something else...maybe the Saltmarsh modules seguing into the Slavers plot...I could see that pretty easily.


----------



## moldyderp (May 6, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Will the adventure be 500 pages of making sympathy lamps and endless farting around with paying your tuition? How many talents and jots will you need to buy your textbooks? Can you get your library card back? Stay tuned for the epic conclusion of the Student Loan of the Wind trilogy!
> 
> For all the hate Drizzt gets, he's not a 1% of the Mary Sue Elminster is, who spends all his time flying through the multiverse banging various goddesses of magic. Or Raistlin, the biggest junior high school vengeful nerd fantasy ever. "Yes, one day I'll lord it over the cool kids, after I get my comp sci degree! Then the girls who wouldn't date me because of my odious personality and grooming habits will have to like me!"





Thanks! Gave me a really good chuckle.


----------



## edutrevi (May 6, 2015)

InstaBuy!
The Underdark storyline is my fav!


----------



## Mirtek (May 6, 2015)

The good thing that will come out of this is the demon themed miniatures line


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> Has this ever been done before?  Does Drizzt show up in any other published FR modules?




2e's Accursed Tower. http://www.amazon.com/ACCURSED-TOWER-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786913371


----------



## Celtavian (May 6, 2015)

edutrrevi said:


> InstaBuy!
> The Underdark storyline is my fav!




I'm with you. It's been a while since I've played a fun Underdark story.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Or they did, especially the bits where it says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is Nathan "D&D stopped being a tabletop game decades ago" Stewart talking. When he says *everyone*, I think he's talking about the triple AAA video game audience, not the tabletop audience.

This is the "Rage of Demons" storyline announcement. "Out of the Abyss" gets a single line mentioning it - two, if you're going to generously count "whether they prefer consoles, PCs or rolling dice with friends" as a mention.

The actual description the AP has no mentions of Drizzt whatsoever. You'll be delving into FR's Underdark so of course his name will come up in the book, but I'm skeptical he'll even appear in the AP as an NPC.

Whether the adventure turns out to be any good of course depends on who's writing it.


----------



## delericho (May 6, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Kuo-toa, traditionally, should fall in the upcoming underdark one...but the sahuagin and other aquatic MM stuff (and if Nautical UA is a preview/hint) could EASILY be a Saltmarsh trilogy AP. Would need to be teased out a LOT to get into higher letter/involve something else...maybe the Saltmarsh modules seguing into the Slavers plot...I could see that pretty easily.




Don't forget, for the end-game: RELEASE THE KRAKEN!


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> The actual description the AP has no mentions of Drizzt whatsoever. You'll be delving into FR's Underdark so of course his name will come up in the book, but I'm skeptical he'll even appear in the AP as an NPC.



They mention Menzo and Gromph. Hard to imagine those without Drizzt somehow. Plus Drizzt is mentioned a lot. It would be a suprised if he isn't in the AP. 



> Whether the adventure turns out to be any good of course depends on who's writing it.



Green Ronin it would seem.


----------



## Onslaught (May 6, 2015)

Also... i don't know Grayhawk, but Underdark spawning demons could be a nice Eberron campaign (like in Khyber spawning demons, plus that demon-wasteland somewhere northwest of Khorvaire)


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Don't forget, for the end-game: RELEASE THE KRAKEN!




Perfect! And in keeping with the "pulling all of the most powerful possible stuff out of the MM" theme they are following.

I can totally see this....But still think Giants will come first (for those who want to go back, like, 10 pages at this point to that original conversation. hahaha)


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll (May 6, 2015)

Is it just me who thinks Drizzt Do'urden sounds like the noises you make when straining on a particularly difficult motion? Is that how he got his name?


----------



## vandaexpress (May 6, 2015)

iwarrior-poet said:


> Here is where a well-implemented digital aide (Char-Gen, Combat Tracker, Maps, Campaign Tracker, etc) could really bridge the gap between dice, console and pc-gaming. I really hope WoTC and Hasbro gets it together one of these days (editions).




Cool idea. Play through a CRPG and have a button to print off the character sheet of your protagonist/party members.

Or a *really* unlikely and implausible idea would be allowing you to import your AL character into a CRPG, plug in your #, WotC pulls a record for the character and their magic items, etc and imports it into the game. That'd be awesome. Totally impossible with the way things are set up and probably not worth the time it would take to implement, but still an awesome idea.



goldomark said:


> So, on a side note, PCs defeating summoned cosmic beings again? Add cultists and I see a pattern of laziness.




Seriously though. As much as I love how PotA has been written and its overall quality, when my group wraps up Tyranny in December or so, we'll probably move on to Rage of Demons instead of PotA, just so I can give them a break from cultists. Seriously.



delericho said:


> That's not a bad call. I've been reading through the MM over the past few days, and there's a _lot_ of aquatic stuff in there.




Not to mention the UA for seafaring campaigns that went up a little while ago. I think you might be on to something.



Remathilis said:


> I think people are still thinking in terms of the RPG being prominent. Is only one facet of the RoD story. Drizzt will do battle, but his part of the story will mostly be in the novel. I don't think he will appear accept as a small cameo in the module. The PCs will handle one part of the quest, Neverwinter players another, Drizzt (via the novel) a third and SCL played the fourth. All separate parts of an interconnected story.
> 
> When the ad text says "fight next to Drizzt" they probably don't mean it literally. Drizzt handles his part of the war, the PCs handle theirs. You're still on the same team, just different battlefields.
> 
> We'll see soon enough I suppose




Agreed with this. I *guarantee* you that the digital properties and licensing dollars are far more profitable than the pen and paper stuff. Traditional publishing has razor thin profit margins as is, combine that with the small audience and you have a very compelling reason to try and grow the brand through other channels, then getting those people to pick up tabletop D&D as icing on the cake. Or the other way around. They're pushing really hard for the tabletop crowd to check out their other stuff. To be honest, though, I spend so much of my free time prepping the tabletop game as a DM that I don't have tons of time to invest into their computer games. I do read FR occasionally (just so I can better understand the setting, the books aren't particularly well written from what I've experienced), so I _might_ pick up the Drizzt Book.

Either way, I like the idea of a battle with multiple fronts taking place in different properties. I think they did something similar with Tyranny of Dragons when they showed the cult/red wizards up north looking for something in one of the comic books. Sort of channeling the feel of Dead in Thay Style megadungeons with multiple parties working together. We'll see.



steeldragons said:


> Perfect! And in keeping with the "pulling all of the most powerful possible stuff out of the MM" theme they are following.
> 
> I can totally see this....But still think Giants will come first (for those who want to go back, like, 10 pages at this point to that original conversation. hahaha)




I'm a big fan of them pulling out these big epic enemies. I think D&D is in a state of rebirth and there's a lot of new players coming to the table (at least mine) who haven't played before, and have never experienced a battle with Tiamat or Demon Lords or Elemental Princes. These are bad ass enemies that are memorable and epic, perfect for captivating new audiences.

Wondering when they'll put the Tarrasque into play.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They mention Menzo and Gromph. Hard to imagine those without Drizzt somehow. Plus Drizzt is mentioned a lot. It would be a suprised if he isn't in the AP.




Right, Gromph opens up portals to the Abyss throughout the Underdark. Drizzt tackling that is obviously going to be the plot of _The Archmage_, so I'm doubtful the AP will actually have to do with the players travelling to Menzoberranzan or facing Gromph at all. The blurb states that "what steps through surprises even him..." so _that's_ what I'm betting the PCs will be getting up to. Entirely possible they never cross paths with Drizzt at all, or if they do it's a cameo appearance.

Basically, I'm thinking it'll be Drizzt vs. Gromph, and the PCs vs. whatever terrible Abbysal thing is co-opting Gromph's plot for it's own nefarious purposes. Possibly even a high-level excursion into the Abyss itself towards the very end for a climactic final boss battle with the one responsible. From the cover art, I'm thinking... Demogorgon? That could be misdirection, though.


----------



## Wrathamon (May 6, 2015)

My thinking is that the D&D MMO Game is FR ... but, that doesnt mean Cryptic isn't making a massive update to make it Less FR and more D&D to allow them to open up the flood gates on other campaign settings. Since the Multiverse is back ... I can see them exploring Darksun, planescape and eberron easily enough via portals... even Grayhawk.


----------



## Beleriphon (May 6, 2015)

Wrathamon said:


> My thinking is that the D&D MMO Game is FR ... but, that doesnt mean Cryptic isn't making a massive update to make it Less FR and more D&D to allow them to open up the flood gates on other campaign settings. Since the Multiverse is back ... I can see them exploring Darksun, planescape and eberron easily enough via portals... even Grayhawk.




Neverwinter is explicity FR, and DDO started as Eberron only but there are FR parts (something about portals, and dragons or something).


----------



## vandaexpress (May 6, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> From the cover art, I'm thinking... Demogorgon? That could be misdirection, though.




Maybe, but I haven't seen a lot of misdirection in their other products so far. Hoard had Glazhael on the cover, Rise had Tiamat (who, admittedly, you might not fight if you disrupt the ritual), LMoP had Venomfang, and PotA had Aerisi. You might not be required to fight the cover enemies, but in each case, they are definitely an option and statblocks are included.

I'm jazzed for a Demogorgon statblock and this adventure in general. It sounds awesome. And if Drizzt has a statblock, I'd like that too, as part of my ongoing quest of figuring out how powerful all these iconic creatures are in the world of 5e.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 6, 2015)

Corrosive said:


> Where can I get hold of the critically acclaimed version of Tyranny of Dragons?




Tyranny of Dragons was released in two parts, "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" and "The Rise of Tiamat". While it is popular on this board to trash the adventure path, it has garnered many good reviews and each book is currently at four (out of five) stars on Amazon.

You can find Hoard of the Dragon Queen on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Hoard-Dragon-...386&sr=8-1&keywords=hoard+of+the+dragon+queen

You can find The Rise of Tiamat on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Tiamat-A...386&sr=8-2&keywords=hoard+of+the+dragon+queen

Of course, I would recommend supporting your local gaming store over Amazon if possible. If you would like more reviews than the ones on Amazon, here is a useful internet tool to search for them: www.google.com

Then again, you already knew all of that, didn't you?


----------



## Pauper (May 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Something to do with Tharizdun?




Spoiler alert!

The Tharizdun adventure has already been released.

--
Pauper

P.S.: What's everybody so upset about Driz'zt for, when the real tragedy is that
_somebody made ape-headed Demogorgon a thing again_!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 6, 2015)

Chimpy said:


> I think this has the potential to be good, but I'm not sure I want Drizzt stuffed down my throat every session. As an occasional NPC popping up I guess it would be OK.




Luckily, it's highly unlikely that Drizzt, or anything, will be "stuffed down your throat" should you make the CHOICE to purchase this adventure.

Drizzt hate mystifies me just like all the hate Ben Affleck used to get. If you don't like the character (or the actor), that's fine . . . but why the unending vitriol and frothing? Never understood it.


----------



## Morrus (May 6, 2015)

Couple of updates I added to the above news story:

- The adventure is by Green Ronin

- Chris Perkins says "Drizzt's role in the RoD story varies depending on the platform. In the TRPG adventure, the PCs are the stars. "


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 6, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Tyranny of Dragons was released in two parts, "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" and "The Rise of Tiamat". While it is popular on this board to trash the adventure path, it has garnered many good reviews and each book is currently at four (out of five) stars on Amazon.
> 
> You can find Hoard of the Dragon Queen on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Hoard-Dragon-...386&sr=8-1&keywords=hoard+of+the+dragon+queen
> 
> ...




Yeah but he wanted the *critically acclaimed *version.... but you already knew that didn't you. 

Edit: For the record I'm only teasing. I've never checked it out since I'm not interested in FR products, so I don't have an opinion either way.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 6, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Your annoying friend from high school insisted on playing a dual-wielding ranger dark elf, and you've held onto that anger and resentment of him and the character for a quarter-century.  Yeah... that sounds about right for the average D&D fan.




Heh!

PC: "I want to play a barbarian who doesn't wear much more than a loincloth, carries around a huge sword, and speaks in an Austrian accent"
DM: "Okay, sounds good."

PC: "I want to play a human ranger who is of the "old race" of men and is secretly the heir to the human kingdom."
DM: "Okay, sounds good."

PC: "I want to play a drow ranger who has been banished from his home because he is of good alignment and won't worship the evil Spider Queen."
DM: "WHAT!?!? How dare you try to destroy my game with such a lame, clichéd, derivative character that EVERYONE just wants to play! Gah! You've ruined my carefully crafted world and story! Leave!"


----------



## Bayonet (May 6, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Also, why do people here assume they are so much more intelligent than the adventure writers?




To be fair, I don't think that posters are assuming foolishness on the side of seasoned TTRPG adventure writers. Marketing Execs and other members of the corporate super-structure are another thing.


----------



## Talmek (May 6, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Personally I wonder how successful an edition needs to be for this strategy to give us a new Birthright..




That's something to consider, actually. Has WotC set up any means for feedback on future releases? I know Birthright campaign setting was popular in it's time (was that 2e? I never played it but heard lots of people talk about it) but if insufficient "formal" support for it is shown in the fan base I wouldn't think they would be willing to take a chance on it so early on in the lifespan of 5e.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 6, 2015)

Irennan said:


> I don't think that people hate the character, rather his excessive prominence in most D&D stuff. I get that he is their icon, but we now are at like 40 novels revolving about him, and even after that, they alone still take up 2 of the 4 yearly novel releases that WotC appears to have set. I quite like him, but seriously, lets give other stuff more space.




Yeah, how strange that WotC should put so much focus on one character. It's not as if Drizzt is the most well known, most loved character in D&D and has tons of fans that keep all those novels on the NYT best sellers list and automatically boosts a products sales when involved.


----------



## Celtavian (May 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Couple of updates I added to the above news story:
> 
> - The adventure is by Green Ronin
> 
> - Chris Perkins says "Drizzt's role in the RoD story varies depending on the platform. In the TRPG adventure, the PCs are the stars. "




Nice. I figured that would be the case. WotC knows most of their gamers don't like using high level NPCs. Making it optional is the ideal way to use Drizzt.


----------



## Zaran (May 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Couple of updates I added to the above news story:
> 
> - The adventure is by Green Ronin
> 
> - Chris Perkins says "Drizzt's role in the RoD story varies depending on the platform. In the TRPG adventure, the PCs are the stars. "




I wonder why this one isn't done in house.


----------



## Irennan (May 6, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Yeah, how strange that WotC should put so much focus on one character. It's not as if Drizzt is the most well known, most loved character in D&D and has tons of fans that keep all those novels on the NYT best sellers list and automatically boosts a products sales when involved.




Why the sarcasm? It's obvious that Drizzt is a marketing tool and it is known that his stuff sells better than most D&D. I've just tried to explain that (for a portion of the Drizzt haters) the hate is more due to his ''ubiquity'' than to the character itself, and that it would be nice if he alone didn't take up half of the available space in their novel release schedule (especially after like 40 books).


----------



## Irennan (May 6, 2015)

Irennan said:


> it would be nice if he alone didn't take up half of the available space in their novel release schedule (especially after like 40 books).




For example, this Underdark story could be a good opportunity to release -among the other things- more info on Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, who have just returned, and whose return should have at least some impact on the drow (now, Drizzt's presence doesn't necessarily prevent that, but makes it less likely, considering that one of the reason those two deities were removed was to make him more ''iconic'').


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

> PC: "I want to play a drow ranger who has been banished from his home because he is of good alignment and won't worship the evil Spider Queen."
> DM: "WHAT!?!? How dare you try to destroy my game with such a lame, clichéd, derivative character that EVERYONE just wants to play! Gah! You've ruined my carefully crafted world and story! Leave!"





True story - we had a buddy who wanted to play Batman in a Rifts game in junior high school. Not a character like Batman, but actually BATMAN. We ragged on him, but he stuck to his guns and the GM eventually just rolled with it and said "Fine, Batman, you wake up in an alternate dimension - go!". And you know what? It worked out just fine. He got in character, and roleplayed as Batman and went on a couple of adventures with a dragon, pack of dogboys and a vampire. There seems to be the notion that you need to RP an original character to actually RP. Lots of players, particularly newer ones, are more comfortable playing as someone they already understand.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 6, 2015)

SavageCole said:


> Drizzt is a double-edged sword.  For every unit his presence sells, his presence un-sells at least one.  Making him bolt-off in the story will go a long ways towards marketing this product.




Really? For every pro-Drizzt sale there is an equal-and-opposite anti-Drizzt no-sale? Wow, WotC must be fools thinking that Drizzt equals a net increase in sales. They must not have sales numbers to look at.



CapnZapp said:


> I thought he used two swords?




Both of Drizzt's scimitars are double-edged.


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I wonder why this one isn't done in house.




Staff limitations I would guess. They can pay Green Ronin to write it, and publish it themselves. They aren't necessarily stuck with employees they need to manage, provide healthcare for, etc.


----------



## Mirtek (May 6, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Both of Drizzt's scimitars are double-edged.



Are they? IIRC they are single-edged


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Right, Gromph opens up portals to the Abyss throughout the Underdark. Drizzt tackling that is obviously going to be the plot of _The Archmage_, so I'm doubtful the AP will actually have to do with the players travelling to Menzoberranzan or facing Gromph at all.



I'm not so sure. The cover of Sword Coast Legends features a balor and a male drow caster. Gromph? If he is in the novel and the video game, why not the AP?



> The blurb states that "what steps through surprises even him..." so _that's_ what I'm betting the PCs will be getting up to. Entirely possible they never cross paths with Drizzt at all, or if they do it's a cameo appearance.



I'd be surprised if there are no cameos of Drizzt. 



> Basically, I'm thinking it'll be Drizzt vs. Gromph, and the PCs vs. whatever terrible Abbysal thing is co-opting Gromph's plot for it's own nefarious purposes. Possibly even a high-level excursion into the Abyss itself towards the very end for a climactic final boss battle with the one responsible. From the cover art, I'm thinking... Demogorgon? That could be misdirection, though.



We'll see in around 6 months. I wonder what sort of board game they have up their sleeve. We already have a Drizzt board game.


----------



## Sunsword (May 6, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So no... the fact the Realms have dealt with the potential return of Tiamat, the Elemental Lords, and Demon Princes all in the span of like 2 years in the Realms timeline is pretty much par for the historical course.




Its more than 2 years in the Realms time line, Out of the Abyss is set several years AFTER Elemental Evil.


----------



## Mirtek (May 6, 2015)

Sunsword said:


> Its more than 2 years in the Realms time line, Out of the Abyss is set several years AFTER Elemental Evil.



 If it's in the current Drizzt novel timeline that remains to be seen. The last Drizzt novels happened before ToD and I don't think that the drow will sit idle for years


----------



## Dire Bare (May 6, 2015)

Agamon said:


> When I came in and saw 10 pages already, I was thinking, "Thanks Drizzt".




Perhaps "Thanks Drizzt!" should be the tabletop version of the (satirical) "Thanks Obama!"


----------



## Dire Bare (May 6, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Or, you know, instead of being shallow twits, maybe Drizzt haters hate Drizzt not because they think it makes them cool, but because Drizzt is a perfect example of what they perceive of as the worst of D&D- the Mary Sue, never-gonna-die-cuz-DM-fiat, special-snowflake-Underdark-evilbadrace-good-guy, the uberNPC that dominates the game. Instead of having anything to do with "cool", Drizzt hate is, simply put... Drizzt hate.
> 
> Not to say that Drizzt lovers are in the wrong; it's a matter of personal taste. But claiming that Drizzt-haters are just trying to be cool is absolutely ridiculous.




Sorry, but no. Drizzt-hate is simply one of the many examples of fan-negativity rampant on these boards and elsewhere on the intertubes. It's tiring for those of us who don't feel the need to bring "hate" into our hobby lives.

Now, I'm not saying everybody has to "love" Drizzt or that your dislike of a fictional character isn't legit. But Drizzt-hate goes way beyond, "I don't care for that character and how he is used in D&D fiction."

And, like most irrational hate, the "crimes" attributed to our poor dark elf go beyond truth and rationality. And is equally tiring.


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (May 6, 2015)

What saddens me, is that Drizzt is the most popular and more importantly most well known... 

Where is the love for Morgan Ironwolf? Black Dougal? Sister Rebecca? Aleena Halaran? Bargle? Warduke? 

There are far more characters in D&D than just Elminster and Drizzt, and yet no one remembers them...


----------



## Celtavian (May 6, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Sorry, but no. Drizzt-hate is simply one of the many examples of fan-negativity rampant on these boards and elsewhere on the intertubes. It's tiring for those of us who don't feel the need to bring "hate" into our hobby lives.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying everybody has to "love" Drizzt or that your dislike of a fictional character isn't legit. But Drizzt-hate goes way beyond, "I don't care for that character and how he is used in D&D fiction."
> 
> And, like most irrational hate, the "crimes" attributed to our poor dark elf go beyond truth and rationality. And is equally tiring.




Makes you wonder if D&D fans would avoid a D&D movie based on Drizzt. I know people that don't even play D&D that know about Drizzt. A Drizzy movie would have a way better chance of succeeding than some no name D&D movie.


----------



## Mephista (May 6, 2015)

I'm not a fan of Drizzt.   That said...?

There's the promise of tieflings in the first expansion, and I'm totally a Brimstone Angels fangirl.  I'd be excited about a Farideh cameo, so, hey.  To each their own.


----------



## TwoSix (May 6, 2015)

YourSwordIsMine said:


> What saddens me, is that Drizzt is the most popular and more importantly most well known...
> 
> Where is the love for Morgan Ironwolf? Black Dougal? Sister Rebecca? Aleena Halaran? Bargle? Warduke?
> 
> There are far more characters in D&D than just Elminster and Drizzt, and yet no one remembers them...



Yea, I have no idea of who any of those people are, except I think I've seen Bargle referenced here a few times.  No idea who he (or she) is.


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll (May 6, 2015)

What steps through? Strahd and his hellish minions.


----------



## raphaelus (May 6, 2015)

Some are expressing concern, but others are out right narrating the pitfalls that the design and story WILL have. Insane (and pretentious). This especially considering the great track of current releases. 
The few mentioned elements could be worked on dozens of ways.**

The thing with "Drizzt hate" is that is a good revealer of the delusional fabricated sense of self coolness of many nerds. Man are pop hatreds lame. You can be sure that there will be some people around complaining that have never followed Drizzt media, and their dismissive "reasons" are repeated from comments they've read.

Friends, if you want to play a drow or a dual weilding ranger and the DM or fellow player scoffs at the idea, RUN. Consider it a red flag of the dark side of dorkiness.


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2015)

YourSwordIsMine said:


> What saddens me, is that Drizzt is the most popular and more importantly most well known...
> 
> Where is the love for Morgan Ironwolf? Black Dougal? Sister Rebecca? Aleena Halaran? Bargle? Warduke?
> 
> There are far more characters in D&D than just Elminster and Drizzt, and yet no one remembers them...




RPG characters that have a couple, if any, words printed about them, have no way of competing with characters from books.  Especially multiple best sellers.

Stories are memorable. A name and a picture is less so.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 6, 2015)

Onslaught said:


> Also... i don't know Grayhawk, but Underdark spawning demons could be a nice Eberron campaign (like in Khyber spawning demons, plus that demon-wasteland somewhere northwest of Khorvaire)




I had the same exact thought when I read the premise.  Just like _Tyranny_ was set in the Realms but had echoes of Dragonlance, and _Princes_ was set in the Realms but had echoes of Greyhawk... demonic lords clawing their way up from underground echoes Eberron to a T.  So while this book will also be set in the Realms, the conversion docs in the back of it will probably have plenty of info on switching things over to the Overlords and Lords of Dust, rather than Demogorgon and Grazzt.


----------



## Saxon1974 (May 6, 2015)

Awesome, looking forward to this! Love demons and the under dark. Like drizzt fine but do agree he is over used.


----------



## pukunui (May 6, 2015)

Zaran said:


> My players would kill him and take his stuff.




And they might just get the chance if/when he "succumbs to his darker temptations".


----------



## raphaelus (May 6, 2015)

Sylvain_L said:


> In every setting I run whether in Forgotten Realms or my own world, their are powerful "Gandalf" and "Drizzt" like NPCs to interact with. He's just an NPC that will take part of the story, its still YOUR story.
> 
> I for one am looking forward to this one more-so then that last two released.




Well put! 
I think people are perhaps giving too much weight to that name drop (important as a product aiming to grow). Hope you end up enjoying it. 

I'm glad we get at least a third book with Forgotten Realms. The PotA idea of the conversion chapter was genius.


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

YourSwordIsMine said:


> What saddens me, is that Drizzt is the most popular and more importantly most well known... Where is the love for Morgan Ironwolf? Black Dougal? Sister Rebecca? Aleena Halaran? Bargle? Warduke? There are far more characters in D&D than just Elminster and Drizzt, and yet no one remembers them...



Only ones I recognize are Bargle and Warduke. Bargle only because of the "Kill Bargle" adventure Paizo ran in the last adventure of Dungeon (though I understand he was in the 1983 boxed set "Learn to Play" section). Warduke I had a toy of and he adventured with Boba Fett, Cobra Commander and the rest of the Bad Dudes posse.None of them are particularly noteworthy to the brand, certainly not in relation to a character featured in over 20 novels. Other than possibly Warduke, I'd have to rank all of them under Bupu in traction.Strahd? Minsc? Vecna? Maybe you could build off them.  But most of those are bit players who appeared 1-2 times and haven't seen print since before your average player today was even born.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 6, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> None of them are particularly noteworthy to the brand, certainly not in relation to a character featured in over 20 novels. Other than possibly Warduke, I'd have to rank all of them under freakin Bupu in traction.




Yes! That is the adventure they need to make to outsell all adventures!  BUPU'S FANTASTIC ADVENTURE!

Edit: I'm sorry! I'm at work and I'm bored!


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

justinj3x3 said:


> Yes! That is the adventure they need to make to outsell all adventures!  BUPU'S FANTASTIC ADVENTURE!
> 
> Edit: I'm sorry! I'm at work and I'm bored!




Not gonna lie. I would buy if it was appropriately terrible and full of bizarre boxed text like the Forest Oracle.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 6, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Not gonna lie. I would buy if it was appropriately terrible and full of bizarre boxed text like the Forest Oracle.




 Lol. True. If handled appropriately it would be pretty amusing.

Edited for typo...


----------



## SavageCole (May 6, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Really? For every pro-Drizzt sale there is an equal-and-opposite anti-Drizzt no-sale? Wow, WotC must be fools thinking that Drizzt equals a net increase in sales. They must not have sales numbers to look at.




Those must be amazing sales numbers that grant WotC marketing and creative infallibility.  

What's obvious is that Drizzt is a polarizing figure in the community.

Prediction: the Drizzt stuff will, at best, sell half as well as the lackluster Tyranny of Dragons.  Meaning, at least every other member of their established customer base passes on it-- many because of Drizzt.  

People love demon lords, and love the underdark, but thousands of us are SO over Drizzt at this point.  We'll pass unless he can be excised from the story.   Here's hoping he's an unfortunate, but negligible inclusion.   If he plays too central a role, they will alienate a significant part of their base.   

I would like to think WotC is too smart for that, and he'll be limited to something fanboys can celebrate and the rest of us can grudgingly endure.   At the same time, I'm cool with them releasing something to cash in on this with the Drizzt fanboys.  Not everything they release has to suit my tastes or prompt me to open my wallet.


----------



## Mistwell (May 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So, on a side note, PCs defeating summoned cosmic beings again? Add cultists and I see a pattern of laziness.




WOTC Announces X.  Goldomark craps on X, and WOTC, with not much more than a single sentence of crapping.  And you're accusing someone else of having a pattern of laziness?


----------



## redkobold (May 6, 2015)

I think many misread that release.  For the tabletop rpg, Drizzt will not be around.  Drizzt is only in the CRPG.

"Players of the tabletop roleplaying game can descend into the Underdark in Out of the Abyss, a new adventure which provides details on the demon lords rampaging through the Underdark. Partners such as WizKids, GaleForce 9 and Smiteworks will all support Rage of Demons with new products to help bring your tabletop game to life. To really get in the mind of Drizzt, fans will have to check out Archmage, the new novel by R.A. Salvatore, scheduled for release in early September."

No tabletop group is going to be tagging along with Drizzt or even have him acting offstage in an adventure.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 6, 2015)

When I think of Orcus, Grazz't, Demogorgon, et al., I don't connect them to Lewis Carroll's Alice.

Where is the connection for Chris Perkins? Is this going to be "Orcus Through the Looking Glass (into the Underdark)"? Is he confused and bewildered by the strange beings he encounters there?


----------



## Zaran (May 6, 2015)

TarionzCousin said:


> When I think of Orcus, Grazz't, Demogorgon, et al., I don't connect them to Lewis Carroll's Alice.
> 
> Where is the connection for Chris Perkins? Is this going to be "Orcus Through the Looking Glass (into the Underdark)"? Is he confused and bewildered by the strange beings he encounters there?




I might actually buy this one just because it isn't visibly an homage to Lewis Carroll.  I was so worried that we would be seeing talking animals and giant top hats.  No Drizz't is another selling point for me.  I just wish they would stop with APs and do more regular adventures.


----------



## jbear (May 6, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Or, you know, instead of being shallow twits, maybe Drizzt haters hate Drizzt not because they think it makes them cool, but because Drizzt is a perfect example of what they perceive of as the worst of D&D- the Mary Sue, never-gonna-die-cuz-DM-fiat, special-snowflake-Underdark-evilbadrace-good-guy, the uberNPC that dominates the game. Instead of having anything to do with "cool", Drizzt hate is, simply put... Drizzt hate.
> 
> Not to say that Drizzt lovers are in the wrong; it's a matter of personal taste. But claiming that Drizzt-haters are just trying to be cool is absolutely ridiculous.




I probably went overboard with my hyperbole to make a point. And I am certain that my sweeping statement will have many cases where it is completely false. But my impression is what it is. I don't hang out with anyone who embodies the worst of any roleplayer tropes, and the only time I actually talk to anyone about RPGs is here at EnWorld. All of the people I play with are people that I have personally introduced to RPGs and if it weren't for me there is absolutely no way on earth they would have ever gotten into the game. So I really don't get caught up in emotional reactions to things like Drzzt being involved as an NPC in a computer game that links players to an Underdark adventure, and I really wouldn't get excited or angry if he appeared as an NPC in the Underdark. I would use him as I would any other NPC, and I've never used an NPC to overshadow the players, because that wouldn't be fun for anyone, myself included.

In fact there's a lot of RPG stuff that I don't know myself. I know what is meant by a Mary Sue because of the context you and others put it in, but I have no idea whyit is called Mary Sue for example. Having been on these boards for many years now, my impression is that the 'Drzzt sucks' vibe is one that catches. As far as I know he is largely a character from fantasy novels, not a key NPC in important adventures in the table top game (I am aware that he appeared in an adventure in Dragon during the time of 4e, not sure if that constitutes the DM fiat special snowflake you describe). But hey, I could be wrong (I really don't know what a Mary Sue is... so more than likely I'm wrong). I do however believe that people's opinions can often influence other people's opinions, especially if they hold those people in high esteem. And yeah, personally I think a lot of that goes on here. Drzzt hate seems to be a bit more than just Drzzt hate, at least from what I have read. I think it is fine to express that, just as it is fine that we disagree. Your entitled to your opinion, and I to mine.

I do apologise if I said what I said in a condescending manner. There was no need for that.


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, I have no idea of who any of those people are, except I think I've seen Bargle referenced here a few times.  No idea who he (or she) is.




You don't know who Warduke or Morgan Ironwolf are?  

Where were you during the 80's?


----------



## AriochQ (May 6, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Yes, I hear that Graz'zt is a big player in Greyhawk, nice we'll get official stats and possible cross=over ideas into Greyhawk (that would be awesome). I've always been a big fan of Graz'zt and wonder at the similarity in Driz'zt's name (a possible relation?). Maybe someone should start a Rage of Demons speculation thread. Im super jazzed at this, definitely a much better release concept (and more iconic of D&D) than Alice in Wonderland.




He was one of the original Demon Lords.  I used him in my first campaign as a DM in high school back in the early 80's.  All there was then was Greyhawk! lol

I noticed the similarity between Graz'zt and Driz'zt but can't think how they would be related.  Graz'zt is father to Iuz.  Iuz is a sometimes ally of Lolth, but only when their goals coincide.  Their two realms don't overlap so they usually just stay out of each others way.  Maybe there is some lore connecting the Drow and Graz'zt that I missed or forgot.


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> You don't know who Warduke or Morgan Ironwolf are?
> 
> Where were you during the 80's?




Likely not born yet, Wicht. There are at least two generations of gamers behind those of us playing (and playing, as children) in the 80s.

Gods...I just made myself feel older typing this out than I already did conceiving this post. ugh.


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

redkobold said:


> I think many misread that release.  For the tabletop rpg, Drizzt will not be around.  Drizzt is only in the CRPG.
> 
> "Players of the tabletop roleplaying game can descend into the Underdark in Out of the Abyss, a new adventure which provides details on the demon lords rampaging through the Underdark. Partners such as WizKids, GaleForce 9 and Smiteworks will all support Rage of Demons with new products to help bring your tabletop game to life. To really get in the mind of Drizzt, fans will have to check out Archmage, the new novel by R.A. Salvatore, scheduled for release in early September."
> 
> No tabletop group is going to be tagging along with Drizzt or even have him acting offstage in an adventure.




If you are correct, then that paragraph is poorly put together, as one must wonder what the last sentence is doing to support the theme of the paragraph.


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

I find is slightly humorous that the anti-anti-Drizzt posts are starting to come close to matching the anti-Drizzt posts in number and are possibly surpassing them in their passion about being anti-anti-drizzt.


----------



## TwoSix (May 6, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Likely not born yet, Wicht. There are at least two generations of gamers behind those of us playing (and playing, as children) in the 80s.
> 
> Gods...I just made myself feel older typing this out than I already did conceiving this post. ugh.



No, I was born, but the '80s consisted of the period ranging from "learning to potty" to "the onset of puberty".   Unless Warduke was on Transformers or He-Man, I missed him.   

My first RPG product was the 2e PHB, which I purchased in 1990.

As to the larger, more salient, point, I do think it's an issue that D&D is focusing so much on the brand experience, but they don't actually have this library of recognizable characters to market with!  I kind of wonder if they're leveraging Drizz't to broaden the exposure of other classic D&D names, like Orcus and Demogorgon.


----------



## TwoSix (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I find is slightly humorous that the anti-anti-Drizzt posts are starting to come close to matching the anti-Drizzt posts in number and are possibly surpassing them in their passion about being anti-anti-drizzt.



Hater haters gonna hate hate.


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> No, I was born, but the '80s consisted of the period ranging from "learning to potty" to "the onset of puberty".   Unless Warduke was on Transformers or He-Man, I missed him.




Harrumph... Alright - I suppose you are slightly justified in your ignorance then...


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I find is slightly humorous that the anti-anti-Drizzt posts are starting to come close to matching the anti-Drizzt posts in number and are possibly surpassing them in their passion about being anti-anti-drizzt.




Anti-anti-Drizzt posters suck!

Common, let's get the number of anti-anti-anti-Drizzt posts up!


----------



## Larac (May 6, 2015)

"No tabletop group is going to be tagging along with Drizzt or even have him acting offstage in an adventure."

Remains to be seen.

If Marketing thinks it will sell more books it will happen.


----------



## Larac (May 6, 2015)

Talmek said:


> *Speculation Alert*
> 
> Based on 3e and 3.5e release schedules (and my failing memory) didn't they release tons of information on the Forgotten Realms setting prior to going into Eberron and all the associated books? If so I'm wondering if they aren't using that same model again (only releasing books/info in a new setting after reaching market saturation and tapering off releases for the previous one). If so, it doesn't bode well for those groups who enjoy the 5e rule set but don't care for the Forgotten Realms setting. Personally this doesn't matter to my group and I since we just enjoy playing through the adventure paths and make/modify the settings to our own taste anyway.
> 
> In my opinion, (re)building off of the successes of the current releases is a sound (if conservative) business model to use when in the early stages of rebranding/rebuilding.




Eberron was a Contest is memory serves.


----------



## Agamon (May 6, 2015)

Larac said:


> "No tabletop group is going to be tagging along with Drizzt or even have him acting offstage in an adventure."
> 
> Remains to be seen.
> 
> If Marketing thinks it will sell more books it will happen.




Not according to the examples we have to go on so far.  PotA looks to me like it was written by designers and not marketers.  That's just me, though.


----------



## Larac (May 6, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> We haven't seen the text yet, so lets give the writers some leeway here. I am sure they wont fall into the tropes and obvious pitfalls the Internet seems so sure of.




I mean this is not the Avengers.


----------



## jbear (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I find is slightly humorous that the anti-anti-Drizzt posts are starting to come close to matching the anti-Drizzt posts in number and are possibly surpassing them in their passion about being anti-anti-drizzt.




If I expressed passion it is not really stemming from anything to do with Drzzt at all. I am anti-vitriol. I rarely ever post on these sections of the boards anymore because I dislike the toxicity with which many conversations (many of them initially very interesting ones) tend to descend. Instead I use the boards to play by post. No vitriol there. Just roleplaying. The part I love about this hobby.


----------



## Corpsetaker (May 6, 2015)

I don't have any evidence to back this up so this is just my opinion.

I believe using Drizzt as a marketing tool isn't really going to pay off because I think most people who read and like the Drizzt novels don't currently play D&D or any TTRPG for that matter.


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> No, I was born, but the '80s consisted of the period ranging from "learning to potty" to "the onset of puberty".   Unless Warduke was on Transformers or He-Man, I missed him.




Right. Basically the same as me...I was marginally ahead of you. [puberty was "onsetting" in '85  ]

Warduke did have a single episode cameo on the Saturday morning Dungeons & Dragons cartoon...as did Kelek (evil wizard who also had an action figure) and Warduke's nemesis/counterpart, the paladin Strongheart.  

But no. Not on He-man or Transformers. 



TwoSix said:


> My first RPG product was the 2e PHB, which I purchased in 1990.




Right. So there's the one. Then you have the generation of folks who were in that window in the 90's...and then, oh gods...another/anyone born <shudder> 2000-2005 would be ripe "getting into and/or already playing for 5 years" D&D age.

Yeah. So there's 3 generations, 10+ years old, arguably, from people who were already playing in the early-mid-80s.

I'm just gonna go get my afghan and find a rocker, now...need a cane to shake at passerbys.

Git offa my lawn!


----------



## Jan van Leyden (May 6, 2015)

Ghost Matter said:


> No, because Smiteworks actually released the products.




Being quite nitpicky here, but...



			
				Official announcement said:
			
		

> Partners such as WizKids, GaleForce 9 and Smiteworks will all support Rage of Demons with new products to help bring your tabletop game to life.




Smiteworks is three to four products behind (DMG, Tyranny of Dragons, Princes of Apocalypse), so WotC seems to trust them (and their own approval process) a lot. Which is good. Let's hope that this deal lasts longer than the Trapdoor one.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 6, 2015)

hbarsquared said:


> I hope they follow the same model as PotA with the light conversion suggestions.  I did have a cool flash of "inspiration" (as in, nothing new at all but still a cool idea) with Eberron and an expedition to Khyber through the Demon Wastes and battling the daelkyr and/or the Overlords.




I have a small issue with the light conversion in the back PotA. I ran home to grab my copy so that, hopefully, I can explain without being ripped apart by everyone (lol.) My issue is this:

For Dark Sun:
It suggests to set the adventure in The Great Alluvial Sand Wastes. Instead of Red Larch, they suggest Kled. AWESOME!! I've always been curious about Dark Sun, but never bought anything about it .... so what are those places and were are they located?

For Dragonlance:
They suggest thinking about which era of The Lance you want to play in, then suggest the best place would be Abanasinia a couple years after The War of the Lance. A good replacement for Red Larch would be Gateway. Sweet!! Dragonlance has always looked great with all that insanely, lovely dragon artwork and that guy with the red cloak and golden-looking skin on the cover of everything. I've always been curious about Dragonlance, but never bought anything about it .... so what are those place and were are they located?

For Greyhawk:
They suggest using the original Temple of Elemental Evil locations. So the Kron Hills and Hommlet. You know, that sounds just as interesting! I've always been curious about Greyhawk, but never bought anything about it .... so what are those places and were are they located?

For Eberron:
They suggest all kinds of different stuff for Eberron!! YES YES YES!!! I've always wanted to check out Eberron, but never bought anything about it .... so what are all those places about and were are they located?

And that is my main issue with these conversions to other settings. They do not have ANY 5th Edition material to help us with this. They just assume that we have material from older editions to use if we want to run it in Greyhawk or Dark Sun, or Birthright, etc. If you don't ... well .... too bad. I've, (unfortunately,) just accepted the fact that they will probably never give these brilliant settings the updates we all feel they deserve. The one thing that bothers me, is everyone keeps saying how The Forgotten Realms is the only setting that makes them any money, and that is why it's the main setting. Well, (and I'm speaking from experience,) since the release of the original FR grey box set in '87, this is the ONLY setting to get this much attention. They pretty much ignored everything else. The only other setting to get anywhere near this much attention was Ravenloft during 2nd Edition. Of course The Realms are so profitable .... it's the only one available!

It's frustrating that when the core books state that the default setting for 5th Edition is the D&D Multiverse, yet they give us 0 options for Planescape, Spelljammer, etc. What does this have to do with this new adventure?

ToD clearly borrowed from Dragonlance. The foreword from Mike Mearls in PotA says that PotA is the successor to The Temple of Elemental Evil. And as others have stated, I wouldn't be surprised if Out of the Abyss borrows heavily from Queen of Spiders. I think it's kind of rotten to take these iconic stories that help build this hobby, and throw them into The Forgotten Realms because well .... it's The Forgotten Realms.

One of the things I'd like to see, (since WoTC has borrowed so much from Paizo lately,) is for them to release Map Packs like you see for Pathfinder. Release a map pack of Greyhawk. In it, you would get two 24x36 sized maps of eastern and western Oerth. A nice sized 18x24 map of The Free City of Greyhawk, and then maybe some smaller maps of places like Hommlet, Dorakaa, Greyhawk ruins, etc. The sad thing is .... I'd be more than willing to pay $25 for something like this. I'm not even asking for a setting book. I just want to know where everything is and where it sits in it's respected world. They could do this for all those settings that are mentioned in the core books. Then when the adventures are done, and they move onto the next setting ... we have big poster maps of everything, and all the adventures have the region info.

Sadly, as much as I am frustrated with the lack of support for ALL of the D&D Multiverse .... I'll still get this because it will have updated information on The Underdark and The Demon Princes and such.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> If you are correct, then that paragraph is poorly put together, as one must wonder what the last sentence is doing to support the theme of the paragraph.




As someone who's put together press releases for my company, I can take a guess at why that might be - whoever wrote it was given a list of key points to get across. From the looks of it, the tabletop AP probably got only a single one to itself, as did licensed accessory products from partners, as did the new Salvatore novel. The writer either had more information available about, or was instructed to place emphasis on, the broader storyline about Drizzt and Sword Coast Legends / Neverwinter. Also probably given a draft of the quote by Nathan Stewart to clean up. 

The point to take away is that tabletop gamers aren't the target audience for this press release. The actual product description for Out of the Abyss is much more geared towards us, but the broader "Rage of Demons" press release is all about getting the sizeable audience of Drizzt fans out there excited about maybe playing a video game featuring their favorite dark elf ranger.


----------



## Will Doyle (May 6, 2015)

TarionzCousin said:


> When I think of Orcus, Grazz't, Demogorgon, et al., I don't connect them to Lewis Carroll's Alice.
> 
> Where is the connection for Chris Perkins? Is this going to be "Orcus Through the Looking Glass (into the Underdark)"? Is he confused and bewildered by the strange beings he encounters there?




Perhaps a Jabberwocky or two to snicker-snack with our vorpal swords?


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Likely not born yet, Wicht. There are at least two generations of gamers behind those of us playing (and playing, as children) in the 80s.
> 
> Gods...I just made myself feel older typing this out than I already did conceiving this post. ugh.




Sorry guys, most of those are deep cuts of limited release B-sides as far as D&D name recognition goes. I was around in the 80's, so lets please not pretend that any random schlub mentioned once or twice in a book 30+ years ago is being robbed of their rightful spotlight by Drizzt or that only clueless whippersnappers don't know who this legendary D&D powerhouse is. 

She's the D&D equivalent of Muftak. You know, Muftak, the massively popular iconic character of Star Wars! If you're scratching your head trying to remember who he is, he's the Talz who got a nanosecond of screen time in the Star Wars cantina. Actually, I'd rank him above Morgan Ironwolf, as he has an action figure, trading card, bust, etc and more importantly had stories published about him.  

Now Duke Dunderhead... THAT's D&D guy name you can base a billion dollar multimedia franchise around. I'm talking movie quadrilogy, TV spin-off, video-games, maybe a themed family style restaurant.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (May 6, 2015)

To those people complaining about Drizzt being a mary sue. He was nearly killed effortlessly by Old White Death the first dragon you fight in the Rise of Tiamat Adventure. Lots of people did think he was dead and he only just survived due to having had a Cold Resist spell cast on him and he still nearly died. He did not get a single hit on the Dragon. He would not be able to take on a Demon Lord by himself.


----------



## EditorBFG (May 6, 2015)

I was concerned about Drizzt being mentioned, until I saw that Steve Kenson led the team at Green Ronin that wrote the book. Kenson knows his way around keeping established iconic characters from being annoying (DC Adventures, among other games), and is one of the best designers out there. I am much more excited for this book now that I know who was in charge.


----------



## Larac (May 6, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Staff limitations I would guess. They can pay Green Ronin to write it, and publish it themselves. They aren't necessarily stuck with employees they need to manage, provide healthcare for, etc.




GR folks can get out of jury duty.


----------



## steeldragons (May 6, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Sorry guys, most of those are deep cuts of limited release B-sides as far as D&D name recognition goes. I was around in the 80's, so lets please not pretend that any random schlub mentioned once or twice in a book 30+ years ago is being robbed of their rightful spotlight by Drizzt or that only clueless whippersnappers don't know who this legendary D&D powerhouse is.
> 
> She's the D&D equivalent of Muftak. You know, Muftak, the massively popular iconic character of Star Wars! If you're scratching your head trying to remember who he is, he's the Talz who got a nanosecond of screen time in the Star Wars cantina. Actually, I'd rank him above Morgan Ironwolf, as he has an action figure, trading card, bust, etc and more importantly had stories published about him.
> 
> Now Duke Dunderhead... THAT's D&D guy name you can base a billion dollar multimedia franchise around. I'm talking movie quadrilogy, TV spin-off, video-games, maybe a themed family style restaurant.




Per usual, noone's saying anything like that.

Simply that people of a certain age who began with a certain book/box/edition will recognize/remember them. Pretty much anyone else (most likely those that came after) are not going to recognize them.

I was poking fun at myself for being old. Not putting anyone down for when they were born or suggesting that any of those other name/characters should be more popular than Drizz't (though, since you bring it up, certainly could have been had the decades of churning out books been about them instead).

That said, I have always thought that the D&D cartoon, toyline, and wider brand would have been significantly helped had the cartoon been based on the characters (good and bad) that were the action figures (several can be found in the Quest for the Heartstone module, XL1) and the other characters in the merchandise of the day (coloring books, colorforms, etc...) actually going on adventures, instead of those 6 whiny fish-out-of-water kids from a different world...But wutchagunnado? It was the '80s.


----------



## Wicht (May 6, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> She's the D&D equivalent of Muftak. You know, Muftak, the massively popular iconic character of Star Wars! If you're scratching your head trying to remember who he is, he's the Talz who got a nanosecond of screen time in the Star Wars cantina. Actually, I'd rank him above Morgan Ironwolf, as he has an action figure, trading card, bust, etc and more importantly had stories published about him.




So you're admitting you do know who Morgan Ironwolf is then. 

And I suspect that Ms. Ironwolf has had far more fans over the years than some four eyed yeti wannabe, even if he did have his own action figure. She certainly has been mentioned more often on these boards.


----------



## pukunui (May 6, 2015)

The cover for _Out of the Abyss_ has just been posted on Twitter:


----------



## ehren37 (May 6, 2015)

Wicht said:


> So you're admitting you do know who Morgan Ironwolf is then. And I suspect that Ms. Ironwolf has had far more fans over the years than some four eyed yeti wannabe, even if he did have his own action figure. She certainly has been mentioned more often on these boards.



I didn't know the name, but the google image search brought back memories of her other notable.. ahem.. assets.


----------



## Rygar (May 6, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> I have a small issue with the light conversion in the back PotA. I ran home to grab my copy so that, hopefully, I can explain without being ripped apart by everyone (lol.) My issue is this:
> 
> For Dark Sun:
> It suggests to set the adventure in The Great Alluvial Sand Wastes. Instead of Red Larch, they suggest Kled. AWESOME!! I've always been curious about Dark Sun, but never bought anything about it .... so what are those places and were are they located?
> ...




Does it really say that?  Gateway was wiped out completely during the War of the Lance and there's never been any mention of it being rebuilt,  nor does it appear on the later maps.

http://noryl.tripod.com/west_south_central_ansalon.jpg

In Autumn Twilight the companions meet up with Eben who reports that Gateway was destroyed.  They met Eben between Solace and Qualinesti,  which means that it would have to have been located near Solace,  but later maps don't show it.


----------



## HobbitFan (May 6, 2015)

Does it bother anyone else that their hardback adventures so far are all retreads of old modules?

Where's the creativity and originality?


----------



## the Jester (May 6, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Sorry, but no. Drizzt-hate is simply one of the many examples of fan-negativity rampant on these boards and elsewhere on the intertubes. It's tiring for those of us who don't feel the need to bring "hate" into our hobby lives.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying everybody has to "love" Drizzt or that your dislike of a fictional character isn't legit. But Drizzt-hate goes way beyond, "I don't care for that character and how he is used in D&D fiction."
> 
> And, like most irrational hate, the "crimes" attributed to our poor dark elf go beyond truth and rationality. And is equally tiring.




Thanks for clarifying how other people feel.


----------



## Staffan (May 7, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> And that is my main issue with these conversions to other settings. They do not have ANY 5th Edition material to help us with this. They just assume that we have material from older editions to use if we want to run it in Greyhawk or Dark Sun, or Birthright, etc. If you don't ... well .... too bad.



I can't really blame them for not putting full setting descriptions in the adventure which is already full of, well, adventure. It's fairly clear that the "here's how to use PotA in setting X" tips are aimed at DMs who are already fans of setting X. If you're not, why would you want to go to the work of transplanting the adventure?


----------



## Trickster Spirit (May 7, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I don't have any evidence to back this up so this is just my opinion.
> 
> I believe using Drizzt as a marketing tool isn't really going to pay off because I think most people who read and like the Drizzt novels don't currently play D&D or any TTRPG for that matter.




Right, but "Out of the Abyss" got a _single line's mention_ in the press release. They're not trying to get the Drizzt novel fans to play the tabletop game - they're trying to get them to read "The Archmage", and also maybe buy Sword Coast Legends and play the Neverwinter MMO if they want to get the rest of the story. I _do _think people who read and like the Drizzt novels are likely to also be the demographic for a AAA video game featuring Drizzt. 

Sure, they won't complain if some Drizzt fans do end up buying the AP, but that's hardly a lynchpin of their cross-branding strategy.


----------



## Jester David (May 7, 2015)

Finally, at long last, WotC is producing an adventure focused around an extradimensional threat where the PCs have to face the minions and cultists of a powerful evil trying to enter the Forgotten Realms, before repelling the might evil being and closing the portal through which it was trying to enter the world.

Oh wait...


----------



## Jester David (May 7, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> I have a small issue with the light conversion in the back PotA. I ran home to grab my copy so that, hopefully, I can explain without being ripped apart by everyone (lol.) My issue is this:
> 
> And that is my main issue with these conversions to other settings. They do not have ANY 5th Edition material to help us with this. They just assume that we have material from older editions to use if we want to run it in Greyhawk or Dark Sun, or Birthright, etc. If you don't ... well .... too bad.



If you want to run the adventure in those settings, you're likely already a fan and have all the books you will ever need. 
In the unlikely event you want to run a pre-published adventure in the non-default setting AND in a world you know almost nothing about, well... that is harder. 

But WotC can't drop everything to publishing a dozen campaign settings. Especially since sales of each successive setting would be smaller and smaller until they were losing money. 

In in the meantime, you can get PDFs of all the worlds on DnDclassics.com. They have some great 3e Dragonlance books starting to be replaced that are full of fluff. You can get an entire library of great setting resources for the same price you'd pay for a single hardcover setting book.


----------



## EthanSental (May 7, 2015)

Like in the other thread, really looking forward to this. Like more Morrus stated in page 1, I think Drizzt will be in the background ala Gandalf in the Hobbit book.  Shows up from time to time to either give info or quests.  I'm in!


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 7, 2015)

I'm amused that people are still arguing about a heavy Drizzt presence in the actual tabletop adventure despite Morrus updating the post three pages ago with a quote that specifically says there _won't be any_.


----------



## Wicht (May 7, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm amused that people are still arguing about a heavy Drizzt presence in the actual tabletop adventure despite Morrus updating the post three pages ago with a quote that specifically says there _won't be any_.




Nonsense. 
Firstly it was eight pages ago.

Secondly, the actual quote is, "Drizzt's role in the RoD story varies depending on the platform. In the TRPG adventure, the PCs are the stars;" which is not the same as saying Drizzt won't have _any_ presence, but is more saying that they are aware of the need for the PCs to be center stage.

But thirdly, the real debate now is over whether or not Morgan Ironwolf or Warduke should get their own adventure and novel series.


----------



## Wicht (May 7, 2015)

Personally, I've always had a soft spot for the halfling dude Jeff Dee drew, standing up to the human warrior for the sake of his girl.

View attachment 68242


----------



## TerraDave (May 7, 2015)

No Cultist, Yes Madness

And Chris Pramas was right in his bold prediction.

That is pretty impressive actually.

Drizz't who?


Also, I am Morgan Ironwolf.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 7, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Nonsense.
> Firstly it was eight pages ago.




Only for the _amateur_ board-users who haven't modified the number of posts they get per page. 



> Secondly, the actual quote is, "Drizzt's role in the RoD story varies depending on the platform. In the TRPG adventure, the PCs are the stars;" which is not the same as saying Drizzt won't have _any_ presence, but is more saying that they are aware of the need for the PCs to be center stage.




Hence "heavy presence" not "any presence." 



> But thirdly, the real debate now is over whether or not Morgan Ironwolf or Warduke should get their own adventure and novel series.




Both. Duh.


----------



## Wicht (May 7, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Only for the _amateur_ board-users who haven't modified the number of posts they get per page.




I prefer "_old fashioned curmudgeon_" thank you. There's nothing amateurish about it. 




> Hence "heavy presence" not "any presence."




Rereading your quote, I can see that being one possible interpretation of your actual words.


----------



## pukunui (May 7, 2015)

Here's another Chris Perkins tweet: _"R.A. Salvatore and Troy Denning were our consultants on the RAGE OF DEMONS story. It was a joy to work with them."_


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 7, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If you want to run the adventure in those settings, you're likely already a fan and have all the books you will ever need.
> In the unlikely event you want to run a pre-published adventure in the non-default setting AND in a world you know almost nothing about, well... that is harder.
> 
> *But WotC can't drop everything to publishing a dozen campaign settings.* Especially since sales of each successive setting would be smaller and smaller until they were losing money.
> ...




That wasn't what I was asking for. In almost every post where I mention the lack of campaign support, (even though the multiverse is said to be the "default" setting,) I try to give some idea on how WoTC could update the campaigns as cheaply as possible. Everytime though, someone always focuses on the fact that I complained. I said that if they are going to be updating the campaign settings through these adventures piece by piece, than maybe they should come out with a map pack like Pathfinder does so that players and DM's can see ALL of Faerun. In my example I used Greyhawk. I even went as far as to admit that I've come to terms with the fact that they are not going to do a book or box set or anything that resembles a traditional campaign setting .... because well, the truth is, they are WoTC and they know best (because I do not have all the inside information they do.) But I don't think asking for a map pack of all of Faerun is that much. I paid $20 for Pathfinder's Inner Sea Folio, (it only comes with four, highly durable poster maps, that show all of the Inner Sea region,) my wife dropped $15 for X-mas last year and got me the Runelords Folio, and I dropped another $20 on the Jade Regent Folio because WoTC hasn't done ANYTHING with Kara-Tur. This is a money I would gladly give to WoTC for updated maps of the campaign settings. I'm not a PDF guy. I do not own a tablet, or even a cellphone. I'd be willing to live with having an awesome map folio of Krynn, Faerun, Athas, or Oerth .... and then be patient and wait for the updates to come out during the adventures. I'd even be far more excited about the adventures, knowing I'd be getting the campaign updates. I don't think I'm asking for much considering all the other Paizo tactics WoTC has used for this current edition so far.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 7, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> Does it bother anyone else that their hardback adventures so far are all retreads of old modules?
> 
> Where's the creativity and originality?




I mentioned something like this in my post too. I'm actually afraid to see them touch my beloved I6 module and move it to The Forgotten Realms.


----------



## vandaexpress (May 7, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Personally, I've always had a soft spot for the halfling dude Jeff Dee drew, standing up to the human warrior for the sake of his girl.




This drawing is so full of win. From the magnificent hair on the human, who appears to be totally chill, to the overly defensive halfling male wearing pants that are a bastardized cross between bell bottoms and capris (are those canon? please tell me those are canon), to the fact that the halfling woman is cute and then you get to her hobbit feet and it's like _damn._ 

Please tell me where this artwork originally appeared, that I may behold its majesty in person.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 7, 2015)

Rygar said:


> Does it really say that?  Gateway was wiped out completely during the War of the Lance and there's never been any mention of it being rebuilt,  nor does it appear on the later maps.
> 
> http://noryl.tripod.com/west_south_central_ansalon.jpg
> 
> In Autumn Twilight the companions meet up with Eben who reports that Gateway was destroyed.  They met Eben between Solace and Qualinesti,  which means that it would have to have been located near Solace,  but later maps don't show it.




Actually, I was wrong. I just double checked it and said after the Time of Darkness, but a year or two before the War of the Lance.


----------



## EthanSental (May 7, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Nonsense.
> Firstly it was eight pages ago.
> 
> Secondly, the actual quote is, "Drizzt's role in the RoD story varies depending on the platform. In the TRPG adventure, the PCs are the stars;" which is not the same as saying Drizzt won't have _any_ presence, but is more saying that they are aware of the need for the PCs to be center stage.
> ...




I'll take a novel or adventure series on both, Warduke first.


----------



## Iosue (May 7, 2015)

vandaexpress said:


> Please tell me where this artwork originally appeared, that I may behold its majesty in person.




Dave Cook/Steve Marsh Expert Rules.


----------



## Shasarak (May 7, 2015)

The only thing more sweet then WotC producing a Drizzt adventure is reading the reaction about WotC producing a Drizzt adventure.

But in all seriousness, why would any PC group want to save Menzoberranzan from Demons when the Drow can use their own Demons to fight off in a big Lloth vs Demogorgon winner takes all battle royal.


----------



## AriochQ (May 7, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> That wasn't what I was asking for. In almost every post where I mention the lack of campaign support, (even though the multiverse is said to be the "default" setting,) I try to give some idea on how WoTC could update the campaigns as cheaply as possible. Everytime though, someone always focuses on the fact that I complained. I said that if they are going to be updating the campaign settings through these adventures piece by piece, than maybe they should come out with a map pack like Pathfinder does so that players and DM's can see ALL of Faerun. In my example I used Greyhawk. I even went as far as to admit that I've come to terms with the fact that they are not going to do a book or box set or anything that resembles a traditional campaign setting .... because well, the truth is, they are WoTC and they know best (because I do not have all the inside information they do.) But I don't think asking for a map pack of all of Faerun is that much. I paid $20 for Pathfinder's Inner Sea Folio, (it only comes with four, highly durable poster maps, that show all of the Inner Sea region,) my wife dropped $15 for X-mas last year and got me the Runelords Folio, and I dropped another $20 on the Jade Regent Folio because WoTC hasn't done ANYTHING with Kara-Tur. This is a money I would gladly give to WoTC for updated maps of the campaign settings. I'm not a PDF guy. I do not own a tablet, or even a cellphone. I'd be willing to live with having an awesome map folio of Krynn, Faerun, Athas, or Oerth .... and then be patient and wait for the updates to come out during the adventures. I'd even be far more excited about the adventures, knowing I'd be getting the campaign updates. I don't think I'm asking for much considering all the other Paizo tactics WoTC has used for this current edition so far.




Have you seen http://ghmaps.net/greyhawk-maps/ ?

I get one of my fellow players to cut an area out of the high resolution hex map at a 2x3 ratio and put it on a flash drive, then I take it to Sam's Club photo lab and have them print it on a 20"x30" poster for $9.  If Anna ever sold a folio, I would gladly pay her instead.


----------



## CrusaderX (May 7, 2015)

I'm just happy that Morgan Ironwolf and Warduke (and the Jeff Dee Halflings!) are getting so much love in this thread.  

So...who should play Morgan Ironwolf in a new D&D movie or television series?  My vote is for Yvonne Strahovski.


----------



## pukunui (May 7, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> But in all seriousness, why would any PC group want to save Menzoberranzan from Demons when the Drow can use their own Demons to fight off in a big Lloth vs Demogorgon winner takes all battle royal.



I don't think it's meant to be about saving Menzoberranzan so much as stopping the demon lords before they settle themselves into their new home and start thinking about what's up on the surface ...


----------



## Jester David (May 7, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> That wasn't what I was asking for. In almost every post where I mention the lack of campaign support, (even though the multiverse is said to be the "default" setting,)



You're asking for campaign support super quickly. The game hasn't been out for a year yet.

For comparison:

This is the first "campaign setting" product. 
View attachment 68243
It was a few poster maps and a 32-page folio. Each nation received a short paragraph. And it was released in 1980, two years after the 1e Player's Handbook and six years after the game launched.

This is the update for the FR campaign setting for 2e.
View attachment 68244
It was released in 1993, four years after the release of the 2e core rulebooks. Dragonlance was released the year before and Dark Sun premiered in 1991, a full two years after the core rulebooks.

During 3e, the Realms was doing very well and had become the key setting. 
View attachment 68245
This book was released in 2001, the year after the 3e core rulebooks dropped. 

Why does WotC need support right now when it took them longer almost every other edition? Just because they were able to rush things out the door during 4e doesn't mean we should expect that now when they have a third of the staff. It's not like they were able to write a giant 320-page campaign book while also working on the core rulebooks. 
There's two realistic options. Either they outsource the book to a different publisher or they take their time to do a campaign setting in-between other projects. I don't see them effectively giving the Realms to someone else. Writing a campaign setting is a long, long process and they wouldn't have started prior to December. Even if they rushed the job and fired it out in six months they'd *just* be finishing now for a potential GenCon release.



HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> I try to give some idea on how WoTC could update the campaigns as cheaply as possible. Everytime though, someone always focuses on the fact that I complained.



"Updating" through DnDclassics.com and Unearthed Arcana articles seems to be pretty darn cheap. We already have Eberron and the key unique race from Dragonlance. 



HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> I said that if they are going to be updating the campaign settings through these adventures piece by piece, than maybe they should come out with a map pack like Pathfinder does so that players and DM's can see ALL of Faerun. In my example I used Greyhawk. I even went as far as to admit that I've come to terms with the fact that they are not going to do a book or box set or anything that resembles a traditional campaign setting .... because well, the truth is, they are WoTC and they know best (because I do not have all the inside information they do.) But I don't think asking for a map pack of all of Faerun is that much. I paid $20 for Pathfinder's Inner Sea Folio, (it only comes with four, highly durable poster maps, that show all of the Inner Sea region,) my wife dropped $15 for X-mas last year and got me the Runelords Folio, and I dropped another $20 on the Jade Regent Folio because WoTC hasn't done ANYTHING with Kara-Tur. This is a money I would gladly give to WoTC for updated maps of the campaign settings. I'm not a PDF guy. I do not own a tablet, or even a cellphone. I'd be willing to live with having an awesome map folio of Krynn, Faerun, Athas, or Oerth .... and then be patient and wait for the updates to come out during the adventures. I'd even be far more excited about the adventures, knowing I'd be getting the campaign updates. I don't think I'm asking for much considering all the other Paizo tactics WoTC has used for this current edition so far.



Maps are pricey to make. You have to pay a skilled cartographer to spend weeks drawing a region while referencing dozens of source documents. That is super hard, even for settings like the Realms or Dragonlance where most of the work has been done and recently. All for a product only a fraction of your audience will buy. 

Again, if you're a fan of Dark Sun, you likely already have the campaign setting and thus have the maps. There's almost zero appeal to existing fans. For new fans, it's easier to introduce them to a single setting and focus on that. That does require a Realms book, but - as mentioned above - that takes time.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (May 7, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I find is slightly humorous that the anti-anti-Drizzt posts are starting to come close to matching the anti-Drizzt posts in number and are possibly surpassing them in their passion about being anti-anti-drizzt.




Chibi Graz'zt says:
"I <3 Driz'zt!"


----------



## teitan (May 7, 2015)

You all talking about Vecna know he's already a part of realmslore thanks to to three part adventure that went from Ravenloft, the Realms and Plan escape yes?


----------



## Shasarak (May 7, 2015)

pukunui said:


> I don't think it's meant to be about saving Menzoberranzan so much as stopping the demon lords before they settle themselves into their new home and start thinking about what's up on the surface ...




You mean unlike the Drow of Menzoberranzan who already think about what is up on the surface?

I mean, I love Menzoberranzan....but saving it from Demons?  Yeah, nah.


----------



## pukunui (May 7, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> You mean unlike the Drow of Menzoberranzan who already think about what is up on the surface?
> 
> I mean, I love Menzoberranzan....but saving it from Demons?  Yeah, nah.



You're not saving Menzoberranzan from demons. You're saving the surface world from demons before they come a-callin'. At least, that's the impression I got.


----------



## Jester David (May 7, 2015)

I do like how each adventure seems to be an excuse to include stats for a high level NPCs and classic villains.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2015)

pukunui said:


> I don't think it's meant to be about saving Menzoberranzan so much as stopping the demon lords before they settle themselves into their new home and start thinking about what's up on the surface ...




Yeah, a Balrog just moved into the Mine of Moria, it's organizing the orcs and goblins and cave trolls to attack Rivendale, go kill it before that happens.


----------



## Fion (May 7, 2015)

Another 1-15 module? This deals with a demon lord and the underdark. What exactly are low-lvl characters gonna be doing against that? Seems to me this would make much more sense as a 10-20 module.


----------



## Celtavian (May 7, 2015)

Fion said:


> Another 1-15 module? This deals with a demon lord and the underdark. What exactly are low-lvl characters gonna be doing against that? Seems to me this would make much more sense as a 10-20 module.




A level 20 module would be nice or at least level 18. If you don't need to be 18 to 20 to fight Demon Lords, what do you fight at that level?


----------



## Fildrigar (May 7, 2015)

Fion said:


> Another 1-15 module? This deals with a demon lord and the underdark. What exactly are low-lvl characters gonna be doing against that? Seems to me this would make much more sense as a 10-20 module.




I strongly suggest you wait to see it, sir.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 7, 2015)

Oh man oh man!  This sounds so great!  I cannot *wait*to run this!  It may be out of my price range though, considering the inevitable 5 million % greatness tax that will come with it


----------



## Donny Rhye (May 7, 2015)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> Personally, I don't like Drizz't that much, but not doing a FR path where he has an important role is much like doing the Hogwarts adventure path and not featuring Harry Potter as an important NPC for the players to interact with.




Man. Now I want to run a Hogwarts AP with Harry Potter as an NPC.


----------



## pukunui (May 7, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Yeah, a Balrog just moved into the Mine of Moria, it's organizing the orcs and goblins and cave trolls to attack Rivendale, go kill it before that happens.



A better analogy would be if you had Morgoth, Sauron, and a whole bunch of other dudes just like them - along with an army of balrogs and other nasties - running around in the caves under the mountains. Do you think they'd be inclined to stay there, once they'd sated themselves on orcs and goblins and cave trolls? Not likely. Better to send some heroes in to stop them before they come to the surface and destroy the entire world.

Maybe they should've called *this* adventure _Princes of the Apocalypse_.


----------



## Jester David (May 7, 2015)

Fion said:


> Another 1-15 module? This deals with a demon lord and the underdark. What exactly are low-lvl characters gonna be doing against that? Seems to me this would make much more sense as a 10-20 module.



5+ would also be nice assuming players have been through _Lost Mines of Phandelver_​ or something.


----------



## Dargrimm (May 7, 2015)

I'm looking forward to this. Didn't find any of the other adventures specially appealing.
Honestly, I've always liked Drizzt since the first time I read The Crystal Shard like twenty-something years ago. I've read all the novels and even if they are not the best novels in the genre I really enjoy them.
I really don't understand what's all about this Drizzt-hating thing...


----------



## SilverfireSage (May 7, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 5+ would also be nice assuming players have been through _Lost Mines of Phandelver_​ or something.




Technically PotA is 3-15, with extra side missions to do if you start at 1st level. So I could see them doing something similar with this; perhaps a bunch of above ground missions setting up the terrors that lurk beneath the ground before the adventurers have to delve inside at 5th level?


----------



## Celtavian (May 7, 2015)

I'm hoping this one is 3 to 18 or 5 to 20. I can get characters to level five easily. I like adventures built so I can plan the hook the first few levels, since  they are the easiest to plow through.


----------



## steeldragons (May 7, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> I'm hoping this one is 3 to 18 or 5 to 20. I can get characters to level five easily. I like adventures built so I can plan the hook the first few levels, since  they are the easiest to plow through.




I believe it said in the announcement or on the cover or somewhere I saw 1-15.


----------



## MerricB (May 7, 2015)

One of the problems facing adventure design at the moment is the requirement of Organised Play. If you're going to use the beginning section of these adventures to run the D&D Encounters program (levels 1-4), then the adventures have to span those levels or, at least, provide material for it.

Cheers!


----------



## Psikerlord# (May 7, 2015)

I'm cool with the underdark and demon lords - awesome. 

Drizzt will be written out immediately. Uurghh. If Drizzt is around -why does he need the party at all? 

As an earlier poster indicated... we would (try to) kill him and take his stuff.


----------



## Celtavian (May 7, 2015)

MerricB said:


> One of the problems facing adventure design at the moment is the requirement of Organised Play. If you're going to use the beginning section of these adventures to run the D&D Encounters program (levels 1-4), then the adventures have to span those levels or, at least, provide material for it.
> 
> Cheers!




I should be able to modify it to fit my needs. Anything involving demons makes for easy modification for level ranges.


----------



## Shasarak (May 7, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Yeah, a Balrog just moved into the Mine of Moria, it's organizing the orcs and goblins and cave trolls to attack Rivendale, go kill it before that happens.




If the Mines of Moria were currently populated by a bunch of Balrog Summoning, Orc and Goblin and Cave Troll organising, Spider Web wearing, psychotic evil Elves who were being attacked by other Balrogs then yeah it would be exactly the same as that.


----------



## pukunui (May 7, 2015)

I asked Chris on Twitter why the "save the world" adventures always end before you get to the "save the world" tier. His response was _"Because we want evil to win"_ (with a crying face).


----------



## Derren (May 7, 2015)

Fighting Demons in the Underdark with Mary Sue Elf. Sounds like a really innovative storyline...


----------



## Celtavian (May 7, 2015)

Derren said:


> Fighting Demons in the Underdark with Mary Sue Elf. Sounds like a really innovative storyline...




Mary Sue Elf won't be in the module. Fighting demons in the Underdark sounds fun. 

As far as innovation goes, it's all been done, even an adventure path focused on worms, aboleth, demons, dragons, humanoids, etc, etc. Coming up with something new in D&D would be nearly impossible. I care more if it is fun. Only reason I'm not doing PotA is because Elemental Evil has been done too many times and I have yet to see it done better than the original temple.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (May 7, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> I'm cool with the underdark and demon lords - awesome.
> 
> Drizzt will be written out immediately. Uurghh. If Drizzt is around -why does he need the party at all?




He may not be that involved and the reason why he would need the party is because he is not that Special. He can't beat an Adult white dragon by himself why would he be able to beat a Demon Lord by himself. You guys are all vastly overestimating Drizzt's abilities and importance.

Seriously I bet a lot of you guys have no idea about Drizzt his character or his ability. He is not really a Mary Sue, just a decently powerful hero. In all versions of the game that have given him stats he has been around level 15.


----------



## JWO (May 7, 2015)

Does this mean I'll finally have to figure out how I'm supposed to pronounce 'Drizzt'?!


----------



## BoldItalic (May 7, 2015)

Instead of going down into the underdark to fight demons in their lairs (where they are strongest), wouldn't it make more sense to wait until they try to come out onto the surface (where they are weaker) and fight them then? Lure them into a trap?


----------



## delericho (May 7, 2015)

BoldItalic said:


> Instead of going down into the underdark to fight demons in their lairs (where they are strongest), wouldn't it make more sense to wait until they try to come out onto the surface (where they are weaker) and fight them then? Lure them into a trap?




The usual argument is that a demon lord/god/whatever that has entered the Prime Material must have somehow forced their way in and is thus weakened by the experience. Therefore, the strategy is to hit them while they're still weak, because you won't be able to face them when they're at full strength.

Of course, that does somewhat neglect the detail that PCs also gain in power, potentially _very_ quickly.


----------



## Celtavian (May 7, 2015)

BoldItalic said:


> Instead of going down into the underdark to fight demons in their lairs (where they are strongest), wouldn't it make more sense to wait until they try to come out onto the surface (where they are weaker) and fight them then? Lure them into a trap?




You want to stop them before they reach the surface and start killing people. And perhaps they'll work in an angle where you're protecting Underdark races.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 7, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> WOTC Announces X.  Goldomark craps on X, and WOTC, with not much more than a single sentence of crapping.  And you're accusing someone else of having a pattern of laziness?




Heh. If at least you could attack what I said to show how wrong I am. But no. I'm right. So you attack my person instead. As usual.

In other words: [sblock]

View attachment 68252 [/sblock]


----------



## Kramodlog (May 7, 2015)

TarionzCousin said:


> When I think of Orcus, Grazz't, Demogorgon, et al., I don't connect them to Lewis Carroll's Alice.
> 
> Where is the connection for Chris Perkins? Is this going to be "Orcus Through the Looking Glass (into the Underdark)"? Is he confused and bewildered by the strange beings he encounters there?




We do not know exactly what Perkins said about Alice. We have someone who reported what Perkins said. Apparently Alice in wonderland was a "spark". That can mean a lot of things. 

What I do see in the text is the word wonderland. Explore the wonderland that is the Underdark or something. Seems Alice was a weak spark.


----------



## Raunalyn (May 7, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Sorry, but no. Drizzt-hate is simply one of the many examples of fan-negativity rampant on these boards and elsewhere on the intertubes. It's tiring for those of us who don't feel the need to bring "hate" into our hobby lives.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying everybody has to "love" Drizzt or that your dislike of a fictional character isn't legit. But Drizzt-hate goes way beyond, "I don't care for that character and how he is used in D&D fiction."
> 
> And, like most irrational hate, the "crimes" attributed to our poor dark elf go beyond truth and rationality. And is equally tiring.




If you didn't notice, some of those "crimes" are obviously satirical.


----------



## Mephista (May 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> We do not know exactly what Perkins said about Alice. We have someone who reported what Perkins said. Apparently Alice in wonderland was a "spark". That can mean a lot of things.
> 
> What I do see in the text is the word wonderland. Explore the wonderland that is the Underdark or something. Seems Alice was a weak spark.



 We got the whole "see how deep the rabbit hole goes" bits, we have Underdark mushrooms that are giant, sentient, and magical.   There's a bit more going on, I guess.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 7, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> For Dark Sun:
> It suggests to set the adventure in The Great Alluvial Sand Wastes. Instead of Red Larch, they suggest Kled. AWESOME!! I've always been curious about Dark Sun, but never bought anything about it .... so what are those places and were are they located?




Here ya go.



> For Dragonlance:
> They suggest thinking about which era of The Lance you want to play in, then suggest the best place would be Abanasinia a couple years after The War of the Lance. A good replacement for Red Larch would be Gateway. Sweet!! Dragonlance has always looked great with all that insanely, lovely dragon artwork and that guy with the red cloak and golden-looking skin on the cover of everything. I've always been curious about Dragonlance, but never bought anything about it .... so what are those place and were are they located?




This should do nicely.



> For Greyhawk:
> They suggest using the original Temple of Elemental Evil locations. So the Kron Hills and Hommlet. You know, that sounds just as interesting! I've always been curious about Greyhawk, but never bought anything about it .... so what are those places and were are they located?




Try this.



> For Eberron:
> They suggest all kinds of different stuff for Eberron!! YES YES YES!!! I've always wanted to check out Eberron, but never bought anything about it .... so what are all those places about and were are they located?




This should help out.



> They do not have ANY 5th Edition material to help us with this. They just assume that we have material from older editions to use if we want to run it in Greyhawk or Dark Sun, or Birthright, etc. If you don't ... well .... too bad.




They presume that the people who love those setting so much are already familiar with them and are willing to work a bit to use them. Which isn't an unreasonable assumption. 




> ToD clearly borrowed from Dragonlance. The foreword from Mike Mearls in PotA says that PotA is the successor to The Temple of Elemental Evil. And as others have stated, I wouldn't be surprised if Out of the Abyss borrows heavily from Queen of Spiders. I think it's kind of rotten to take these iconic stories that help build this hobby, and throw them into The Forgotten Realms because well .... it's The Forgotten Realms.




Well, it's 'cuz the novel/game lines make the suits at WotC/Hasbro all


----------



## delericho (May 7, 2015)

Mephista said:


> We got the whole "see how deep the rabbit hole goes" bits, we have Underdark mushrooms that are giant, sentient, and magical.   There's a bit more going on, I guess.




Very likely. Actually, this is the aspect of this adventure that I'm most intrigued by - I wonder what they're cooking up?


----------



## James Ray (May 7, 2015)

Corrosive said:


> Where can I get hold of the critically acclaimed version of Tyranny of Dragons?



I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## halfling rogue (May 7, 2015)

So earlier I alluded to the fact that I don't want to purchase a long AP because it doesn't fit my group's needs...but there is something about this adventure that keeps me excited. When I found out that this is the AP inspired by Alice and Wonderland it oddly made sense and I instantly wanted to play/run it. Still not sure if I'll buy it. I might wait for reviews. 

I also find it interesting that some pretty creative minds have all come together to create it. Perkins being the foremost. I am not familiar with anything Green Ronin has done. How are they in adventure writing, anything we might expect coming from them?


----------



## Zaukrie (May 7, 2015)

I like Kenson's work. Looking forward to this.


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> So earlier I alluded to the fact that I don't want to purchase a long AP because it doesn't fit my group's needs...but there is something about this adventure that keeps me excited. When I found out that this is the AP inspired by Alice and Wonderland it oddly made sense and I instantly wanted to play/run it. Still not sure if I'll buy it. I might wait for reviews.
> 
> I also find it interesting that some pretty creative minds have all come together to create it. Perkins being the foremost. I am not familiar with anything Green Ronin has done. How are they in adventure writing, anything we might expect coming from them?




Give credit where it's due, Green Ronin has made some bloody fantastic modules:

http://greenronin.com/freeport/

---------

In other news, the regular crowd has spent it's bile on a product, deliberately misreading announcements to spread misinformation far and wide.  Jeez, it would be nice, if just once, we could have a WOTC announcement without the standard trolls taking a big steaming dump on everyone's good time.  Sheesh.

Howzabout waiting just a few minutes and thinking.  Hrmm, Green Ronin, the guys that gave us Freeport are going to write a module where the PC's are second fiddle to a Marty Stu NPC?  Really?  You honestly think these guys are that bad at adventure design?  Do you honestly think that WOTC is that stupid as to repeat the old 2e style modules?  It's not 1992 anymore.  No one has written a module like that, let alone a major release module, in nearly twenty freaking years.  

Yet the usual crowd jumps to the conclusion that if they make mention of some character, they automatically will ram it down everyone's throats and force them to use WOTC's IP.  Never minding that those self same critics then proceed to claim that we should be using the "good" Mary Sue NPC's like Manshoon or whatever other ridiculously named Forgotten Realms NPC that they can think of.

How about waiting and seeing before revving up the hate engine?  Is that too much to ask?

----------

On the plus side, my ignore list just gets longer and longer.  Threads like this do make it easier to gather all the right names in one place.


----------



## Chocolategravy (May 7, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Oh wow. They are actually going to produce a mega-adventure that features the PCs having to put up with Drizzt as a mary sue.
> 
> That should go over well.....




  I literally stopped reading at Drizzt.  If it had been in paper format I'd have hurled it at something.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (May 7, 2015)

Chocolategravy said:


> I literally stopped reading at Drizzt.  If it had been in paper format I'd have hurled it at something.




Then keep reading because you have no idea.


----------



## Greg K (May 7, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> So earlier I alluded to the fact that I don't want to purchase a long AP because it doesn't fit my group's needs...but there is something about this adventure that keeps me excited. When I found out that this is the AP inspired by Alice and Wonderland it oddly made sense and I instantly wanted to play/run it. Still not sure if I'll buy it. I might wait for reviews.
> 
> I also find it interesting that some pretty creative minds have all come together to create it. Perkins being the foremost. I am not familiar with anything Green Ronin has done. How are they in adventure writing, anything we might expect coming from them?




Green Ronin, in my opinion, produced far better supplements for 3e than WOTC. The Advanced Bestiary was better than Savage Species.  Psychic's Handbook was not only better than XPH , it was also compatible with d20Modern and a better Mental Power system for that game as well . Shaman's Handbook and Witch's Handbook were the two best takes on the classes for any edition of D&D and, in my opinion, how new class supplements should be done (as was the Psychic's Handbook).  They also published True20 and the superhero game Mutants and Masterminds.

(edit) Honestly, the only WOTC non-setting book on par with a Green Ronin book, in my opinion, was Fiendish Codex I.  I liked it as much as Green Ronin's  Book of Fiends 1: Armies of the Abyss, Book of Fiends 2: Legions of Hell,  and 3.5 Book of Fiends which combined the two books and added a third (end edit).

Steve Kenson  wrote the Psychic's Handbook, Shaman's Handbook, Witch's Handbook, True 20 and Mutants and Masterminds mentioned above. He also created another popular superhero game called Icons and is well known for his work on early versions of Shadowrun- especially expanding and revising the stuff related to magic casters. A list of his gaming work can be  found on his website


----------



## Mephista (May 7, 2015)

The funny thing about all the Drizz't hate?    In all my time playing, I have never once had an issue with someone wanting to play a drow TWF ranger - its never come up before.   I've seen people accuse me of doing it once when I wanted to play a wood elf ranger before (which I thought was odd, since its kind of iconic for wood elves).  I've seen accusations flying over playing drow in general, even though we're talking about assassins or warlocks.  

Its like people want to fight over Drizz't, even when his clone doesn't come up in play.


----------



## mflayermonk (May 7, 2015)

I get the feeling Chris Perkins' tweets are what's not coming next.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 7, 2015)

It's really hard to take anyone's concern about this seriously.  For all the complaints we hear about this being the third adventure path book (rather than independent modules), with the third lowish-to-15 level span (with no "epic tier" support), involving a bunch of "cultist" people trying to bring Big Bad Evil Things into the world for the third time, in a Forgotten Realms for the third time that shouldn't have the adventure in the first place (rather than a different setting)... those self-same people who complain repeatedly never seem to just move on to a different game-- one that doesn't bother their sensibilities.

Instead, they still just hang around waiting for Wizards to do... something?... that they're going to like?... eventually?... maybe?  But that just tells me that what Wizards is doing isn't really as big of a problem as the complaints make it out to be, since apparently it isn't actually driving anybody away.  I keep waiting for people to put their money where their mouths are, but it ain't happening.  The same people who had problems with Tyranny have had problems with Princes and now problems with Abyss.  And yet despite their resentment, they just can't bear to leave.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 7, 2015)

I agree with the poster above, his work on those 3e books was some of my favorite RPG work.


----------



## SkidAce (May 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Give credit where it's due, Green Ronin has made some bloody fantastic modules:
> 
> http://greenronin.com/freeport/
> 
> ---------




+exp for Green Ronin love...


----------



## Wicht (May 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Never minding that those self same critics then proceed to claim that we should be using the "good" Mary Sue NPC's like *Manshoon *or whatever other ridiculously named Forgotten Realms NPC that they can think of.




You misspelled Morgan Ironwolf.

And I would have pegged her for a Mystara NPC myself.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Heh. If at least you could attack what I said to show how wrong I am.




You didn't say anything! You appear to think your statement was self-evidence when it was not.  You appear to think that whatever it was you were thinking about the topic was conveyed through your single sentence.  It was not. All we know is you don't like it, and think WOTC is lazy.  No substance beyond that.  Nobody can prove you right or wrong, because there was nothing to support your claim other than an assertion.  We all agree you don't like it.  Did you want me to dispute the assertion and claim you secretly like it?


----------



## Chimpy (May 7, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Luckily, it's highly unlikely that Drizzt, or anything, will be "stuffed down your throat" should you make the CHOICE to purchase this adventure.
> 
> Drizzt hate mystifies me just like all the hate Ben Affleck used to get. If you don't like the character (or the actor), that's fine . . . but why the unending vitriol and frothing? Never understood it.




Actually I quite like Drizzt. I just want to keep the character special - when the players meet him I want it to be cherished rather than get mundane.


----------



## Greg K (May 7, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Instead, they still just hang around waiting for Wizards to do... something?... that they're going to like?... eventually?... maybe?  But that just tells me that what Wizards is doing isn't really as big of a problem as the complaints make it out to be, since apparently it isn't actually driving anybody away.  I keep waiting for people to put their money where their mouths are, but it ain't happening.  The same people who had problems with Tyranny have had problems with Princes and now problems with Abyss.  And yet despite their resentment, they just can't bear to leave.
> 
> Methinks thou dost protest too much.




As one of the people,  they don't, currently, have my monetary support. I didn't purchase a single 4e book and have not purchased a single 5e book. It does not mean that I don't like to talk about the game. I will discuss what I feel an edition does right, what it does wrong, and what they can do if they want my money.  I will also help people like in my post above and look for ideas to steal for my 3e game. 
  Hell, for 3e, I owned the 3.0 core books from the beginning and participated in discussions, but only ran it for one session until Unearthed Arcana was released.  The kernel of interest was always there, but WOTCs supporting material were turn-offs and not addressing my issues (e.g., the design of the cleric). It was UA along with Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook, Psychic's Handbook, and Witch's Handbook that made me want to run 3e.  5e is in a similar position to that of 3e for me (except that i am not purchasing the core books).


----------



## Kramodlog (May 7, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> We all agree you don't like it.



Whoa there. Watch the language. Only nobility can use the royal we. 

...


...


Or people with multiple personalities.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> On the plus side, my ignore list just gets longer and longer.  Threads like this do make it easier to gather all the right names in one place.




Preach it! These types of threads keep getting shorter and shorter for me to read, as my ignore list gets longer and longer.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 7, 2015)

Mephista said:


> Its like people want to fight over Drizz't, even when his clone doesn't come up in play.



They cloned Drizzle? Nooooooooooooooo!


----------



## mflayermonk (May 7, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Preach it! These types of threads keep getting shorter and shorter for me to read, as my ignore list gets longer and longer.




What's the point of using an ignore function to create an echo chamber? Or Wave Echo Cave 

Anyone see these designs Perkins tweeted yet?
They look pretty good and it looks like the supermod has a sense of humor as well.
http://tribality.com/2015/05/06/rage-of-demons-storyline-art/


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2015)

mflayermonk said:


> What's the point of using an ignore function to create an echo chamber? Or Wave Echo Cave




The ignore function is there to tune out the constant, never ending, never changing, always repeating drone.  If new arguments were being brought up, or even if new ideas were forthcoming, I'd not bother.  I disagree with lots of people.  It's only when I can 99% predict what someone is going to post, and that post will virtually always be negative, that I stick people in the ignore box.  I'll engage with anyone.  But, after a certain point, it's just not worth my time anymore.


----------



## halfling rogue (May 7, 2015)

mflayermonk said:


> Anyone see these designs Perkins tweeted yet?
> They look pretty good and it looks like the supermod has a sense of humor as well.
> http://tribality.com/2015/05/06/rage-of-demons-storyline-art/




Actually that's why I came back to comment my newfound interest. It seems these characters are definitely inspired by Alice in Wonderland and it looks like they'd be really really fun to "play" as NPCs or monsters


----------



## TwoSix (May 7, 2015)

mflayermonk said:


> What's the point of using an ignore function to create an echo chamber? Or Wave Echo Cave
> 
> Anyone see these designs Perkins tweeted yet?
> They look pretty good and it looks like the supermod has a sense of humor as well.
> http://tribality.com/2015/05/06/rage-of-demons-storyline-art/



Ok, I have to admit, those look pretty nice.  The awakened gelatinous cube made me laugh.


----------



## Derren (May 7, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> As far as innovation goes, it's all been done, even an adventure path focused on worms, aboleth, demons, dragons, humanoids, etc, etc. Coming up with something new in D&D would be nearly impossible. I care more if it is fun. Only reason I'm not doing PotA is because Elemental Evil has been done too many times and I have yet to see it done better than the original temple.




Yes, thats why for D&D "innovative" would mean something a lot more down to earth than the next world threatening plot by the next big ugly creatures they find in the MM.
A simple war between nations or a succession crisis like the "War of the Roses" with all the politics that entails would be a nice change of pace.


----------



## steeldragons (May 7, 2015)

Derren said:


> Yes, thats why for D&D "innovative" would mean something a lot more down to earth than the next world threatening plot by the next big ugly creatures they find in the MM.
> A simple war between nations or a succession crisis like the "War of the Roses" with all the politics that entails would be a nice change of pace.




Agreed.

Still looking forward to the demon-lord invasion though. Never had that before! It's always 1 particular lord or high-tiered demon and their flunkies. Not throwing the doors of the Abyss wide open for everyone. Granted, variation on a theme. But should be, dare I use the "kids' these days" vernacular, "epic."


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Whoa there. Watch the language. Only nobility can use the royal we.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Are you saying you do like it? Because if so, that didn't come through in your post, in any way shape or form.  So if that's what you're trying to communicate, you're failing.  But if you're saying you do not like it - then that's the message that came through, and yes we all agree that is the message that came through.  I don't generally speak for anyone else, but when you're saying the sky is blue, I think the thing speaks for itself - yes, we agree you said the sky is blue, we understand you think the sky is blue, it's a safe assumption everyone sees the same statement.  I can say "we" in that instance - it's a rare universal observation.  You said X, "we" all saw you say X if we don't have you on ignore and are actually reading your messages.

So, do you like it?


----------



## Staffan (May 7, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> This is the update for the FR campaign setting for 2e.
> View attachment 68244
> It was released in 1993, four years after the release of the 2e core rulebooks. Dragonlance was released the year before and Dark Sun premiered in 1991, a full two years after the core rulebooks.



While I appreciate the points made in your post, the 1e to 2e change is a bit different than most later edition changes, for two reasons:

1. The rules didn't really change all that much. 1e stuff was like 95% compatible with 2e - particularly something like the 1e FRCS which wasn't all that rules-heavy to begin with.

2. They did release an update book for FR _very_ early in 2e's run, named Forgotten Realms Adventures. It had some pages on what had changed, some rules on wild and dead magic areas, a bunch of stuff about specialty priests for FR (nowhere near as broken as the ones that came later in Faiths & Avatars), and 2-page descriptions of many of the cities of the Heartlands.

Given that they have talked a lot about this "Sundering" that's supposed to revert a lot of the changes to the Realms, much of the most recent FR stuff has been invalidated, so some kind of setting book wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## Shasarak (May 7, 2015)

Mephista said:


> The funny thing about all the Drizz't hate?    In all my time playing, I have never once had an issue with someone wanting to play a drow TWF ranger - its never come up before.   I've seen people accuse me of doing it once when I wanted to play a wood elf ranger before (which I thought was odd, since its kind of iconic for wood elves).  I've seen accusations flying over playing drow in general, even though we're talking about assassins or warlocks.
> 
> Its like people want to fight over Drizz't, even when his clone doesn't come up in play.





I have a player with a "Drizzt" clone in my current game - even down to the character picture (except he is a normal Elf) - and it is great.  The character kicks so much ass that we do not even need to take names now.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> The ignore function is there to tune out the constant, never ending, never changing, always repeating drone.  If new arguments were being brought up, or even if new ideas were forthcoming, I'd not bother.  I disagree with lots of people.  It's only when I can 99% predict what someone is going to post, and that post will virtually always be negative, that I stick people in the ignore box.  I'll engage with anyone.  But, after a certain point, it's just not worth my time anymore.




Yup.

I don't "ignore" folks who's opinions differ from my own. I "ignore" folks who are incessantly negative and really don't bring anything useful or positive to the discussion. It does wonders for my blood pressure!


----------



## Jester David (May 7, 2015)

Staffan said:


> While I appreciate the points made in your post, the 1e to 2e change is a bit different than most later edition changes, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. The rules didn't really change all that much. 1e stuff was like 95% compatible with 2e - particularly something like the 1e FRCS which wasn't all that rules-heavy to begin with.



Almost no settings really _need_ rules updates beyond a couple races. 98% of a setting is effectively edition neutral. You don't buy a campaign setting for new rules and character options, you buy it for the nations, characters, factions, culture, history, plotlines, etc. 
There are some exceptions (Dark Sun with defiling and its wealth of unique monsters) but for the most part you can run Greyhawk or Mystara or Dragonlance with 1e or 2e products. 



Staffan said:


> 2. They did release an update book for FR _very_ early in 2e's run, named Forgotten Realms Adventures. It had some pages on what had changed, some rules on wild and dead magic areas, a bunch of stuff about specialty priests for FR (nowhere near as broken as the ones that came later in Faiths & Avatars), and 2-page descriptions of many of the cities of the Heartlands.



I totally forgot about that book. Mostly because it followed _Dragonlance Adventures_ and _Greyhawk Adventures_ as a setting hardcover. It felt like it belonged to that same series but wasn't finished prior to the 1e -> 2e edition transition. 
That said, that book was also released in 1990, a year after the 2e core rulebooks. So it continues to follow the pattern of setting books some time after the rulebooks. 



Staffan said:


> Given that they have talked a lot about this "Sundering" that's supposed to revert a lot of the changes to the Realms, much of the most recent FR stuff has been invalidated, so some kind of setting book wouldn't go amiss.



And I'm am very, very confident we'll see some kind of setting book in the not too distant future. The world has changed and even fans with old material do need a sourcebook for the modern Realms. However, it's not like WotC could have gotten their staff to write it in the evenings and weekends and/or added an extra day to the week to have it ready for release right now. 
So some patience is required for them to write the 250,000 words of a 320-page campaign setting product. 

Comparison time. Ever hear of National Novel Writing Month (aka NaNoWriMo)? Where you write a short novel in just 30 days? It's not easy and at that rate the product is seldom quality. That's _only _a 50,000 word novel. At that breakneck rate of writing, it would still take five months to write a campaign setting. Even with a couple people sharing the load it's two-and-a-half months. Plus it needs to be edited, the changes to the setting need to be considered and planned. And the book needs to be laid out, art needs to be added, and more.

Given how unpopular the changes for the 4th Edition Realms were, people should be happy they're taking their time and not rushing through the creation of the campaign guide to crank it out in six months. Even getting it out for GenCon (late August) would be a somewhat rush job. I'd rather a _good_ book than a _quick_ book.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 7, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> So, do you like it?




Heh. If you actually did care about my likes and dislikes, and not the spectacle you are desperately trying to create, you would have PMed me when the mods put a stop to your little number in that last thread. Your obsession with me has taken over your posting once again. 

Look, it isn't that I'm not flattered. It is just that _this_, whatever you are trying to do, isn't my thing. No hard feelings. Really. Nothing is hard on my side of the web. Let it be, dude.


----------



## Celtavian (May 7, 2015)

Greg K said:


> As one of the people,  they don't, currently, have my monetary support. I didn't purchase a single 4e book and have not purchased a single 5e book. It does not mean that I don't like to talk about the game. I will discuss what I feel an edition does right, what it does wrong, and what they can do if they want my money.  I will also help people like in my post above and look for ideas to steal for my 3e game.
> Hell, for 3e, I owned the 3.0 core books from the beginning and participated in discussions, but only ran it for one session until Unearthed Arcana was released.  The kernel of interest was always there, but WOTCs supporting material were turn-offs and not addressing my issues (e.g., the design of the cleric). It was UA along with Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook, Psychic's Handbook, and Witch's Handbook that made me want to run 3e.  5e is in a similar position to that of 3e for me (except that i am not purchasing the core books).




Why do you post this as though it means something? If you're not supporting WotC monetarily, they have zero reason to listen to you.  WotC knows there will always be a segment of the player base that doesn't like what they do and won't spend money on their game. You proclaiming you don't won't make them change at all. It seems like grandstanding by someone that thinks their tastes matter more than others. How could you have an opinion on an edition you don't play? I at least bought 4E and played it before I decided I didn't like it and what I didn't like about it. Just seems an unnecessary statement about your preferences. You don't support the game and it's hard to take the opinion of someone that doesn't at least try the game as valid. You posting on a thread about a book you'll never buy seems strange. Oh well, to each his own I guess. Everyone has different levels of self-importance.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (May 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Heh. If you actually did care about my likes and dislikes, and not the spectacle you are desperately trying to create, you would have PMed me when the mods put a stop to your little number in that last thread. Your obsession with me has taken over your posting once again.
> 
> Look, it isn't that I'm not flattered. It is just that _this_, whatever you are trying to do, isn't my thing. No hard feelings. Really. Nothing is hard on my side of the web. Let it be, dude.




Could you still answer the question? I myself would like to know your opinion.


----------



## darjr (May 7, 2015)

Pramas says that the players can encounter Drizzt but the PCs are the hero's.



> You can encounter Drizzt but he's not an integral part of the adventure. The PCs are the heroes of Out of the Abyss.



https://plus.google.com/u/0/103429477748751205104/posts/NYd3o154Nnc


Oh and Green Ronin did it? Consider it bought.


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2015)

darjr said:


> Pramas says that the players can encounter Drizzt but the PCs are the hero's.
> 
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/103429477748751205104/posts/NYd3o154Nnc
> ...




So, what?  A day after the official announcement, it's now known that Drizz't isn't an integral part of the module.  I think i'll stand by my call for people to show just a smidgeon of patience.

I wonder how many will now stop threadcrapping every single thread about the module to repeat that they hate Drizz't.  Or, if we'll now spend the next six months seeing endless threadcrapping with everyone else being forced to endlessly repeat that the threadcrapper is factually wrong.  Oh, the joys.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 8, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Could you still answer the question? I myself would like to know your opinion.




Life if full of disappointements.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (May 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Life if full of disappointements.




So you're just going to be a jackass. I was not even the guy you first replied to.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 8, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> So you're just going to be a jackass. I was not even the guy you first replied to.




It is about making a statement. Nothing against you personally. It is just that an comment's validity is not relevant to who said it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2015)

Yup. First time I've added to my ignore list since Razz, back in the mists of time. This thread has certainly been... illuminating.


----------



## Greg K (May 8, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> Why do you post this as though it means something? If you're not supporting WotC monetarily, they have zero reason to listen to you.  WotC knows there will always be a segment of the player base that doesn't like what they do and won't spend money on their game. You proclaiming you don't won't make them change at all. It seems like grandstanding by someone that thinks their tastes matter more than others. How could you have an opinion on an edition you don't play? I at least bought 4E and played it before I decided I didn't like it and what I didn't like about it. Just seems an unnecessary statement about your preferences. You don't support the game and it's hard to take the opinion of someone that doesn't at least try the game as valid. You posting on a thread about a book you'll never buy seems strange. Oh well, to each his own I guess. Everyone has different levels of self-importance.




Someone asked why people stay and talk about the game. I don't care about changing WOTCs minds (if I did, I would be posting on their site).  However, I pay attention to 5e, because it is possible for them to release things that will change my mind. 3e Unearthed Arcana played a big part in my switching my take on 3e.  I became a big supporter of 3e.  I got about two dozen people into it. That was people buying player handbooks, dungeon master's guides, and monster manuals.  A few people went and bought Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer.  
As for trying the game, my not trying 5e has nothing to do with perceived lack of the quality. I have stated elsewhere on this site that I think, out of the box, 5e is a better game than 3e and most of my issues can be fixed with Unearthed Arcana articles, third party support, and house rules.  I don't need to play the game to know this.  I have played over a 100 different rpgs and know what mechanical elements work for me and what do not.  One of my sticking points is  the cleric which is irrelevant to this discussion. The other is the current release format to get write-ups that I do care about (demon princes, Tiamat) as I don't care about published adventures, drow, or the Underdark.  As the Demon Princes, Arch-Devils, and Tiamat are the IP monsters whose stats I care about, the format for acquiring is an important factor in whether or not I support the game.

  I am not saying others should not get the adventure with them. I want them to have it. However, I do want an additional format to purchase the demon prince write-ups and any other demons (e.g., a Fiendish Codex book) for people like myself that have no use for the adventures and not a format like 4e which tried to milk their customer's wallets by spreading them out over multiple products.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (May 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> If you enjoyed the Icewind Dale trilogy, then the Dark Elf trilogy is probably worth a read. Though I wouldn't go beyond that.
> 
> (Of course, if you didn't enjoy IWD, or your tastes have moved on, then don't bother.)




I thought Exile was quite good, better than the IWD trilogy.

I confess to not having read beyond Starless Night.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It's really hard to take anyone's concern about this seriously.  For all the complaints we hear about this being the third adventure path book (rather than independent modules), with the third lowish-to-15 level span (with no "epic tier" support), involving a bunch of "cultist" people trying to bring Big Bad Evil Things into the world for the third time, in a Forgotten Realms for the third time that shouldn't have the adventure in the first place (rather than a different setting)... those self-same people who complain repeatedly never seem to just move on to a different game-- one that doesn't bother their sensibilities.
> 
> Instead, they still just hang around waiting for Wizards to do... something?... that they're going to like?... eventually?... maybe?  But that just tells me that what Wizards is doing isn't really as big of a problem as the complaints make it out to be, since apparently it isn't actually driving anybody away.  *I keep waiting for people to put their money where their mouths are, but it ain't happening. *




If by "put their money where their mouths are" you mean, you know, _not buy these modules,_ then, yes, it is happening. If you mean something else (like "stop playing D&D" or something), then you're completely misunderstanding what the complaints are about.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Those pictures of the characters from this look pretty awesome. You can't go wrong with an awakened gelatinous cube. 



darjr said:


> Pramas says that the players can encounter Drizzt but the PCs are the hero's.
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/103429477748751205104/posts/NYd3o154Nnc




That's very good to hear. I'm disappointed that every adventure so far for 5e is set in the FR, but especially if this is mostly in the Underdark, it should be relatively easy to adapt. Despite my FR hate, I don't know if I'll be able to resist those sweet, sweet demon princes.


----------



## darjr (May 8, 2015)

I was about to start a campaign to get WotC to do a 'dungeon crawl' adventure. It's like they've read my mind.

?They've READ MY MIND?


----------



## Hussar (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> If by "put their money where their mouths are" you mean, you know, _not buy these modules,_ then, yes, it is happening. If you mean something else (like "stop playing D&D" or something), then you're completely misunderstanding what the complaints are about.




These complaints have a point?  What possible point could actually be made that hasn't been bludgeoned to death over the past ten years?


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Hussar said:


> These complaints have a point?  What possible point could actually be made that hasn't been bludgeoned to death over the past ten years?




For me, the point is, "Dear WotC, you would get more of my money if you had some adventures that weren't set in the FR".


----------



## Jhaelen (May 8, 2015)

Yuck!


----------



## Hussar (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> For me, the point is, "Dear WotC, you would get more of my money if you had some adventures that weren't set in the FR".




Yeah, well, see if that was the only complaint, I'd be right there with you. But I believe, and I might be wrong, that what is being referred to is the unrelenting cacophony of negativity that drip constantly from some posters. 

Like was said before, there's a difference between engaging in discussion and what some people are doing.


----------



## sirgaric (May 8, 2015)

Poor Drizzt, so much hate.


----------



## Remathilis (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> For me, the point is, "Dear WotC, you would get more of my money if you had some adventures that weren't set in the FR".



Where would you like the AP's set? Dark Sun? Ravenloft? Spelljammer? Nentir Vale? Generic Mapvania untied to any world? Please, where would you like these adventures set?


----------



## HobbitFan (May 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Where would you like the AP's set? Dark Sun? Ravenloft? Spelljammer? Nentir Vale? Generic Mapvania untied to any world? Please, where would you like these adventures set?




They don't HAVE to set the adventure paths in the Realms and they certainly don't have to set them all in the same region.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (May 8, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> They don't HAVE to set the adventure paths in the Realms and they certainly don't have to set them all in the same region.




Actually, I imagine that many buyers are very happy, that the APs are all set in the same world and region. That means that they don't have to learn a completely new pantheon for each AP they play and they can tie them together quite easily, not with the same characters perhaps, but hear rumors and stories of their own former PCs in the later games.

That older players of D&D has a fairly good grasp of the different campaign worlds and pantheons that has been published in the last couple of decades, doesn't mean much to newer players. Personally I couldn't care less if they are set in FR or Greyhawk, but it would be quite a gamble to set them in a less kitchen sink setting (like Dark Sun) and I think it is very smart to tie them together by placing them all in the same campaign world.


----------



## Paraxis (May 8, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> They don't HAVE to set the adventure paths in the Realms and they certainly don't have to set them all in the same region.




They do if they want to keep tying them into the Neverwinter MMO that is well set in Neverwinter and the swordcoast region of of the Forgotten Realms.

But it does look like Greyhawk might be getting some love.  http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/08/greyhawk-coming-soon/


----------



## JeffB (May 8, 2015)

These cliche "save the world" APs are probably best fit in modern day (real world) Faerun, but the subject matter of the first two seemed to fit into Krynn, and Oerth beter,respectively.


This new one , from what what we have read so far seems the most Realmsy,though I personally have always  felt the Demon Princes are shoe-horned into anything other than GH.


----------



## Remathilis (May 8, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> They don't HAVE to set the adventure paths in the Realms and they certainly don't have to set them all in the same region.




Ignoring the disparity of numbers, I wonder how Paizo avoids such complaints with setting all their APs on Golarion (and a fair amount walking distance from Sandport).


----------



## madrivi (May 8, 2015)

Another adventure...meh.

Underdark + Fiends + Green Ronin = COOL.

Drizzt...meh.

And please, please WOTC, if FR is going to be the offcial setting, update it!


----------



## Paraxis (May 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Ignoring the disparity of numbers, I wonder how Paizo avoids such complaints with setting all their APs on Golarion (and a fair amount walking distance from Sandport).




Golarion is a huge kitchen sink setting, and most of the AP's are set in vastly different locations and environments.

The only two I know of that are anywhere near Sandpoint is the first Rise of the Runelords and the Jade Regent one starts in Sandpoint but very quickly leaves the area and travels to their version of the orient.

But yeah, there is a dessert one (or two), a jungle one, a hell on earth one, a ravenloft like one, and so on.

Oh there is another one in the Sandpoint area I forgot about but it was the spiritual successor to the first one, trying to capitalize on the success of Rise of the Runelords, but it was a couple years later not 6 months.


----------



## Mercule (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> For me, the point is, "Dear WotC, you would get more of my money if you had some adventures that weren't set in the FR".



This thread gives me a small glimmer of hope that there is a growing, general fatigue with the Realms. Maybe this relentless focus from Wizards will finally kill the setting. I'm sure that's a pipe dream, but I'd be just tickled to have FR receive the same level of support that Grayhawk did in 2E.

That said, I'm having a tough time deciding what I think about this adventure. I've always loved demons (as a DM). But, I've always hated the Underdark, dark elves, and aberrations. I could probably handle setting this in Khyber (which isn't quite the same as the Underdark, IMO) and a few aberrations. Drow are a tough pill to swallow, though.

Also, I think Drizzt is an immediate penalty flag for anyone with any animosity towards the Realms. Even if he's not featured in the TT adventure, pointing out that he's somewhere in the same hemisphere is annoying.


----------



## Remathilis (May 8, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> Golarion is a huge kitchen sink setting, and most of the AP's are set in vastly different locations and environments.
> 
> The only two I know of that are anywhere near Sandpoint is the first Rise of the Runelords and the Jade Regent one starts in Sandpoint but very quickly leaves the area and travels to their version of the orient.
> 
> ...




This is something I hope WotC will eventually do; APs that take PCs to other areas (you can argue this one could well be; the Underdark isn't quite the same as Neverwinter, even if you do start in the Sword Coast). An AP that take you to Kara Tur, to Zakhara, to Thay and Cormyr and the Dalelands and beyond. Sure, the first few need to be in the same area (for marketing purposes) but I hope to soon see more diversity coming soon from WotC's regional choices.


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Hater haters gonna hate hate.




I just wonder if hate haters complaining about complainers and hating on hateful haters realize they project the same hateful hate as those they hate for hating.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2015)

Mercule said:


> This thread gives me a small glimmer of hope that there is a growing, general fatigue with the Realms. Maybe this relentless focus from Wizards will finally kill the setting. I'm sure that's a pipe dream, but I'd be just tickled to have FR receive the same level of support that Grayhawk did in 2E.



Almost assuredly not going to happen, at least for the big transmedia storylines.  No other setting has anywhere close to the presence of the Realms in the video game D&D universe.  

That doesn't mean we can't have adventures that aren't FR, just that the big adventures that are tied to other products probably will be FR for a while.  Maybe in a few years, if this relaunch of the brand works out and they want to expand the IP.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I just wonder if hate haters complaining about complainers and hating on hateful haters realize they project the same hateful hate as those they hate for hating.



How much hate could a hater hate if hater hated hate?


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I just wonder if hate haters complaining about complainers and hating on hateful haters realize they project the same hateful hate as those they hate for hating.




Oh like the ones that are the second or third post of a news thread saying (not this one specifically, nor quoting specifically) 'Great news! Now the complainers will start posting their negative posts' not realizing that they have just become that complainer posting that negative post by posting that post. They amuse me.

Yes I'm a hater hater hater.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Mercule said:


> This thread gives me a small glimmer of hope that there is a growing, general fatigue with the Realms. Maybe this relentless focus from Wizards will finally kill the setting. I'm sure that's a pipe dream, but I'd be just tickled to have FR receive the same level of support that Grayhawk did in 2E.




I doubt it, but for the record I'm not buying any APs because they are FR. If they were even generic I'd consider buying them. If they were Greyhawk I'd have it pre-ordered.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 8, 2015)

Who cares if it's set in FR? Port it to wherever you want. Easy peezy.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

cmad1977 said:


> Who cares if it's set in FR? Port it to wherever you want. Easy peezy.




I care. They say vote with your dollars. So I'm voting by not buying.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> _Almost assuredly not going to happen, at least for the big transmedia storylines.  No other setting has anywhere close to the presence of the Realms in the video game D&D universe. _
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't have adventures that aren't FR, just that the big adventures that are tied to other products probably will be FR for a while.  Maybe in a few years, if this relaunch of the brand works out and they want to expand the IP.




Just to counter this, as I said earlier, the only reason why The Realms has the presence is because since the debut of the grey box set in '87 .... this is the ONLY setting to receive this much attention. 2nd Edition Ravenloft did have a ton of support, but still not as close as The Forgotten Realms.

Once Gygax left TSR, there was 0 new Greyhawk material released. There was pretty much nothing until the Queen of Spiders mega-adventure ... which wasn't new, it was just reprinted older adventures all put into one nice, shiny, package. The only new one to come out, was 1st edition's lackluster Castle Greyhawk (which IMO was a dig at Gygax.) 2nd Edition Greyhawk only went to about 1995 until it was cancelled before WoTC purchased TSR, (which is why the supplement Ivid The Undying is a free download .... it was completed. It just needed the maps put in it, but the line was cancelled before that could happen.) When they brought back Greyhawk after the WoTC purchase in 1997, (again ... IMO) it was only because 3rd edition had Greyhawk as it's default setting (according to my 3.5 Player's Handbook.) The last big adventure for 2nd Edition was Die, Vecna Die ... so they need to get people familiar with Greyhawk again. But look how well that was supported in 3rd edition. Granted, everything was pretty much through the RPGA Network, but most of that material is now impossible to get your hands on. Basically, 3rd edition Greyhawk only had 4, (well 5) books for it .... and it was the DEFAULT setting for that edition. Living Greyhawk Folio, Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, The Fright at Tristor, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk. That's it. Look at everything that came out for The Realms in 3rd edition.

It's now really easy to say that The Realms is the only setting to make any money .... when it's the ONLY setting WoTC puts out on the market.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> It's now really easy to say that The Realms is the only setting to make any money .... when it's the ONLY setting WoTC puts out on the market.



But that's what happened.  It's in the past. And now things like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter are known IPs, and the other settings simply aren't.  Why would WotC spend the effort to make Greyhawk become a recognizable name when they already have other better-known names that they've barely begun to leverage?


----------



## shadowdemon (May 8, 2015)

I personally don't mind the releasing of various campaigns for D&D 5e,but it would be nice to see actual supplements for the new edition.
Perhaps the FR campaign setting or a Psionic's handbook.Something is better than nothing. Don't get me wrong,the campaigns look really good and all,and i understand WOTC not wanting to release books for the sake of releasing books,but really.Not every DM has time to design their own setting or such.As much as i enjoy 5e,i feel like we have a defective bag of holding.A lot goes into it,but very little comes out.Until then,i'll enjoy the campaigns as they release.Other than Tyranny of Dragons,i'll eventually get to them at some point.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Where would you like the AP's set? Dark Sun? Ravenloft? Spelljammer? Nentir Vale? Generic Mapvania untied to any world? Please, where would you like these adventures set?




I would like it if each adventure was set in a generic fantasy environment easily inserted into any given milieu, preferably without a lot of things that tie to the existing world. Better still would be simply not setting every adventure in the FR- I have no issue with FR fans getting stuff aimed at them, but give us FR-haters something, too. Princes of the Apocalypse was chock full of Greyhawk themes shoehorned into FR; it could have been set in WoG. And yes, I recognize that the ties to the FR can be snipped with a little work. But the reverse is true- give us a Mystara module, and it's just as easy to insert it into the Realms.

I realize that there are practical reasons that WotC is mostly sticking to the FR, but it doesn't make me happy.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Ignoring the disparity of numbers, I wonder how Paizo avoids such complaints with setting all their APs on Golarion (and a fair amount walking distance from Sandport).




Well, it's different in that Pathfinder has built Golarion as its only setting since day one- since BEFORE day one, actually! Of course nobody is clamoring at Paizo to release stuff set in its other settings; to the best of my knowledge, they don't have any. (And if they do, well, then obviously they've set something there, since otherwise it wouldn't exist.)


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

justinj3x3 said:


> I care. They say vote with your dollars. So I'm voting by not buying.




Exactly what I was saying. 

Though, as I posted upthread a bit, I don't know if I'll be able to resist those sweet, sweet demon prince stat blocks.


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Once Gygax left TSR, there was 0 new Greyhawk material released. There was pretty much nothing until the Queen of Spiders mega-adventure ... which wasn't new, it was just reprinted older adventures all put into one nice, shiny, package. The only new one to come out, was 1st edition's lackluster Castle Greyhawk (which IMO was a dig at Gygax.) 2nd Edition Greyhawk only went to about 1995 until it was cancelled before WoTC purchased TSR, (which is why the supplement Ivid The Undying is a free download .... it was completed. It just needed the maps put in it, but the line was cancelled before that could happen.) When they brought back Greyhawk after the WoTC purchase in 1997, (again ... IMO) it was only because 3rd edition had Greyhawk as it's default setting (according to my 3.5 Player's Handbook.) The last big adventure for 2nd Edition was Die, Vecna Die ... so they need to get people familiar with Greyhawk again. But look how well that was supported in 3rd edition. Granted, everything was pretty much through the RPGA Network, but most of that material is now impossible to get your hands on. Basically, 3rd edition Greyhawk only had 4, (well 5) books for it .... and it was the DEFAULT setting for that edition. Living Greyhawk Folio, Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, The Fright at Tristor, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk. That's it.




Both true and depressing. I've been wanting more Greyhawk material since first buying the old yellow and red campaign setting box way back when, and its been a long, dry wait... When 3e was first published, and they had the little Greyhawk folio they released, I thought - "this is it, they're going to rerelease Greyhawk!" and then... well... nothing...


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Exactly what I was saying.
> 
> Though, as I posted upthread a bit, I don't know if I'll be able to resist those sweet, sweet demon prince stat blocks.




Yeah I hear that. I'm still resisting Princes because it is clearly Greyhawk based material. But I'm sticking to my guns because I'm stubborn like that.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

The best post-1e Greyhawk support was in 3e... in Dungeon Magazine. 

Which is pretty sad, especially since it wasn't even WotC producing it at the time. (Sad that there wasn't more actual GH stuff published, not that the Dungeon stuff was sad- it was, almost entirely, excellent!)


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Just to counter this, as I said earlier, the only reason why The Realms has the presence is because since the debut of the grey box set in '87 .... this is the ONLY setting to receive this much attention. 2nd Edition Ravenloft did have a ton of support, but still not as close as The Forgotten Realms.
> 
> Once Gygax left TSR, there was 0 new Greyhawk material released. There was pretty much nothing until the Queen of Spiders mega-adventure ... which wasn't new, it was just reprinted older adventures all put into one nice, shiny, package. The only new one to come out, was 1st edition's lackluster Castle Greyhawk (which IMO was a dig at Gygax.) 2nd Edition Greyhawk only went to about 1995 until it was cancelled before WoTC purchased TSR, (which is why the supplement Ivid The Undying is a free download .... it was completed. It just needed the maps put in it, but the line was cancelled before that could happen.) When they brought back Greyhawk after the WoTC purchase in 1997, (again ... IMO) it was only because 3rd edition had Greyhawk as it's default setting (according to my 3.5 Player's Handbook.) The last big adventure for 2nd Edition was Die, Vecna Die ... so they need to get people familiar with Greyhawk again. But look how well that was supported in 3rd edition. Granted, everything was pretty much through the RPGA Network, but most of that material is now impossible to get your hands on. Basically, 3rd edition Greyhawk only had 4, (well 5) books for it .... and it was the DEFAULT setting for that edition. Living Greyhawk Folio, Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, The Fright at Tristor, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk. That's it. Look at everything that came out for The Realms in 3rd edition.
> 
> It's now really easy to say that The Realms is the only setting to make any money .... when it's the ONLY setting WoTC puts out on the market.




It's like you are ignoring the facts in your own post in order to make a point.

WotC did try to put Greyhawk forward as THE core D&D setting at the beginning of 3rd edition, as a part of the first nostalgia wave of design and marketing. It didn't work out. By the end of the 3rd edition line, Greyhawk really wasn't the default setting anymore, as many of the RPG products and novels were set in Generistan rather than Oerth. Greyhawk doesn't sell. Sorry.

WotC pushes the Forgotten Realms for one simple reason . . . IT SELLS! It is the most popular and beloved D&D setting despite the constant negativity and whining of the "FR-haters" who just can't accept that their own favorite setting isn't also the most popular. Get over it.

If you don't care for the Realms, fine. If you have another setting you prefer, fine. Just stop the constant whining that WotC has ONCE AGAIN (oh noes) used the Realms as the setting for a new product. Jeesh!


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> The best post-1e Greyhawk support was in 3e... in Dungeon Magazine.
> 
> Which is pretty sad, especially since it wasn't even WotC producing it at the time. (Sad that there wasn't more actual GH stuff published, not that the Dungeon stuff was sad- it was, almost entirely, excellent!)




Seriously. If it wasn't for Mona and Dungeon Magazine Greyhawk would have been a pitiful default setting. Well it was still a pitiful default setting because of the lack of support, but Mona did his part for the Greyhawk fans.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Well, it's different in that Pathfinder has built Golarion as its only setting since day one- since BEFORE day one, actually! Of course nobody is clamoring at Paizo to release stuff set in its other settings; to the best of my knowledge, they don't have any. (And if they do, well, then obviously they've set something there, since otherwise it wouldn't exist.)




Why then is it a problem that WotC keeps to one setting? Does the existence of Birthright, Mystara, Dark Sun, etc. mean, that we shouldn't be satisfied before at least one AP has been set in each of them?


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I realize that there are practical reasons that WotC is mostly sticking to the FR, but it doesn't make me happy.




The thing is, it doesn't really get much more generic than FR.  FR is pretty much default D&D.  Unfortunately, they can't make everyone 100% happy, but it doesn't get much easier or user-friendly than this.  And it still lets them make money off the IP.


----------



## Mercule (May 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Almost assuredly not going to happen, at least for the big transmedia storylines.  No other setting has anywhere close to the presence of the Realms in the video game D&D universe.
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't have adventures that aren't FR, just that the big adventures that are tied to other products probably will be FR for a while.  Maybe in a few years, if this relaunch of the brand works out and they want to expand the IP.



Agreed. I really don't care about the video games, though, except as they lock in the TTRPG stories. I've generally been unimpressed by the D&D branded video games. They don't suck, but they don't really grab me, either. It's entirely possible, though, that's just because they're all set in FR and I'm hopelessly biased, regardless of how much I try to not be.

The hope I was addressing is that the TTRPG consumers might be getting fatigued by the Realms as the focus of the TTRPG.



cmad1977 said:


> Who cares if it's set in FR? Port it to wherever you want. Easy peezy.



That worked for Phandelver and PotA. Not so much for ToD. If the Realms was really transparent and easy to exorcise, it's just like the implied Greyhawk in 1E, and I agree with you in principle. So far, it seems like Richard Baker is the only author who can do that well and most of the talk from WotC implies that to be the exception to the rule. 



justinj3x3 said:


> I care. They say vote with your dollars. So I'm voting by not buying.



I'm not quite there, yet. Given the choice between the D&D brand becoming synonymous with the Forgotten Realms or it dying entirely, I'll choose the latter. I've said before that I don't mind the Realms in that they help pay for the rest of D&D, whether that's home brew or another published setting. If non-Realms table-top D&D becomes the exception, that's the tail wagging the dog. Likewise, my only interest in D&D branded video games, books, movies, etc. is if they drive more people towards the TTRPG. Sure, it'd be nice if those were fun for me, too. Really, though, there are enough "brands" in those spaces that my needs are already met.

Almost everything the current "Brand Manager" has been saying is a big turn-off. Unless he can tell me how it helps me with my decidedly non-Realms table-top game, he isn't discussing a product I give a rat's hind-end about. He may as well be discussing applying the D&D "brand" to feminine hygiene products for all the relevance it has.

Note that even having a Realms-heavy catalog wouldn't be that big of an issue if I had any clue when I could expect to see support for something else. It's the exclusivity that chafes. Even an announcement of "We're doing a one-and-done release for Spelljammer in 2017," (to pick something I wouldn't buy) would be less annoying than the "What is this 'D&D' of which you speak? We're only doing Forgotten Realms, right now."


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I would like it if each adventure was set in a generic fantasy environment easily inserted into any given milieu . . . <snip>




Like, the, ah, Forgotten Realms?!?!

If you can't see the Realms for what it is, a generic fantasy setting that is easily ported to similar generic fantasy settings . . . I can't help you!

Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Mystara . . . all have their own slight variances and flavors, but are all very generic high fantasy settings. Dragonlance could probably be included in that list as well, although it does stand out from the pack a bit. WotC could wisely choose ANY of those to use for their RPG releases, but choose the Realms because it has proven to be the most popular setting with the fans . . . they'd be crazy NOT to use the Realms, IMO!

Dark Sun, Birthright, Eberron are all a bit more varied and stray from the "core" D&D idea to various degrees and don't make sense for core releases. They are all awesome settings, but it doesn't really make sense to use them in place of the Realms when you are rebooting the RPG. Perhaps down the road a Dark Sun AP would be a good idea, but not now.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> It's like you are ignoring the facts in your own post in order to make a point.
> 
> WotC did try to put Greyhawk forward as THE core D&D setting at the beginning of 3rd edition, as a part of the first nostalgia wave of design and marketing. It didn't work out. By the end of the 3rd edition line, Greyhawk really wasn't the default setting anymore, as many of the RPG products and novels were set in Generistan rather than Oerth. Greyhawk doesn't sell. Sorry.
> 
> ...




Dude why are you always so aggresive towards people who voice complaints? They have a right to. And your point about Greyhawk not working out isn't the best point since they didn't support Greyhawk for it TO work out. Just saying Greyhawk is core and anything in the core books is Greyhawk is not supporting the campaign setting. They simply made the core generic rather than Greyhawk specific (besides a few nods here and there).

If you don't like the whining then don't read forums... or the internet for that matter. Otherwise stop whining about the whining.


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

Would I be showing my age if I said that I always think of Mystara as the default Dungeons and Dragons setting.


----------



## Goemoe (May 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> How much hate could a hater hate if hater hated hate?



A hate hater could hate any amount of hate, since a hate hater hates haters who hate. 

Not much interested in another realms book, even though it might even fit to Eberron as the last book offered much useful help to integrate princes into your Eberron campaign. But as this could well be the last book this year perhaps it is the last for the realms for some time as well.

We'll see. Drizzt should stay in his novels, I don't like the idea of getting him out and around. But after all, my players don't even know him, so no damage done. Breath! Yes, they don't know him.   No hate intended and I don't hate haters who hate haters just to hate. Promised!


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Both true and depressing. I've been wanting more Greyhawk material since first buying the old yellow and red campaign setting box way back when, and its been a long, dry wait... When 3e was first published, and they had the little Greyhawk folio they released, I thought - "this is it, they're going to rerelease Greyhawk!" and then... well... nothing...




I'm a huge Greyhawk fan. The first time I rolled dice, I was 11 and my future brother-in-law and his friends let me join their table that was going through the original Temple of Elemental Evil. I was hooked, is an understatement!! But my complaint isn't just no Greyhawk. The core books say that the "default" setting for this edition is the D&D Multi-verse. Yet we do not have any support for that, and haven't for almost 15 years. It would be nice if they would just give us something along those lines or at least not be so secretive and say .... "be patient, it's all coming ...... or nope, because of past failures (from us and TSR) we will only work with The Realms because it's the only one that makes money, since it's the only one we ever put out on the market and advertise. We just don't want to take a chance on anything else. So we are just going to sit on the other settings and not let you have updates to them, unless you do it yourself. If not ... well, too bad for you."

At least then I'd know to stop wasting my time, or have some patience because the multi-verse is indeed coming back.


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Would I be showing my age if I said that I always think of Mystara as the default Dungeons and Dragons setting.




It wasn't called Mystara until the 90's, so no, you're just a young pup.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I would like it if each adventure was set in a generic fantasy environment easily inserted into any given milieu <snip>




An alternate reply to your same post here . . .

WotC did try creating a new generic fantasy setting to use as the core very, very recently, and that didn't work out either!

Have we already forgotten 4E and the Nentir Vale? That seems to be what you are asking for, and WotC did give it a go and have decided to move in a different direction this time. Probably wisely.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Would I be showing my age if I said that I always think of Mystara as the default Dungeons and Dragons setting.




No .... not at all. Actually, one of my old gaming buddies has gotten that dice rolling twitch again, and asked me if we could adventure using the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia book like we did when we were 13. I picked that up again, The Creature Catalog, and the Wrath of the Immortals box set and reading up on The Known World (Mystara) felt like coming home.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Yet we do not have any support for that, and haven't for almost 15 years.




Not even remotely true.


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

Agamon said:


> It wasn't called Mystara until the 90's, so no, you're just a young pup.




Yeah, but I was exploring it when it was still called "The Known World."


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare did you read my post on page 37? Post #366? A bunch of people posted at once so you might have missed it. Or are you ignoring it?


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Yeah, but I was exploring it when it was still called "The Known World."




True, back in the early 80's, when all we knew about it was some tidbits in B/E and a few adventures.

I still remember the mobs at the FLGS clamoring for support of the setting.  I mean how can you actually play there knowing so little about it?


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> An alternate reply to your same post here . . .
> 
> WotC did try creating a new generic fantasy setting to use as the core very, very recently, and that didn't work out either!
> 
> Have we already forgotten 4E and the Nentir Vale? That seems to be what you are asking for, and WotC did give it a go and have decided to move in a different direction this time. Probably wisely.




Meh Nentir Vale wasn't exactly a real setting (more like an amalgamation of settings or D&D concepts), nor was it handled like one. With that said it was going strong for a non-setting until WOTC stopped producing products altogether. They even canceled the setting gazateer before it had a chance to become a concrete setting.


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

Agamon said:


> True, back in the early 80's, when all we knew about it was some tidbits in B/E and a few adventures.
> 
> I still remember the mobs at the FLGS clamoring for support of the setting.  I mean how can you actually play there knowing so little about it?




I remember buying Gaz 3, The Principalities of Giantri in Toys'R'Us and thinking - "No way, they actually produced books telling you about the world..." I think it was the only Gazeteer I bought for that setting, as I then moved onto Greyhawk as it was the ADnD world, and of course I wanted to play the Advanced version of the game, but I shoulda stuck with The Known World as Greyhawk soon dried up... 

Edit: I think it was the massive Greyhawk map which really sold me...


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

S_Dalsgaard said:


> Why then is it a problem that WotC keeps to one setting? Does the existence of Birthright, Mystara, Dark Sun, etc. mean, that we shouldn't be satisfied before at least one AP has been set in each of them?




The problem is for me and other FR-haters alone, and that problem is that WotC has chosen a setting that we hate for all their adventures. It's not a problem from Realms-lovers or people indifferent to the setting an adventure is set in. But for me, if I spend a dollar on a product set in a world that I despise, the message I am sending is "Give me more FR!!" (At least, unless I buy it used and my money doesn't feed WotC... but I _want_ to send them my cash.)


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Like, the, ah, Forgotten Realms?!?!
> 
> If you can't see the Realms for what it is, a generic fantasy setting that is easily ported to similar generic fantasy settings . . . I can't help you!




I'll start by disputing the assertion that FR, GH and Mystara are all that similar. FR is very Renaissance-style high fantasy. GH is much more gritty Dark Ages in style, and Mystara is supposed to be a pastiche of our world in D&D terms. Sure, there are similarities, but to me (and maybe not to anyone else), the differences are glaring. 

That said, LMoP was the first FR product I've purchased in a long, long time, and I don't have any problems with it. They did a great job of making it pretty generic. But, as I posted above, the $20 I spent on that sends the message that I want more FR to WotC; that's not a message that I want to send.



Dire Bare said:


> WotC could wisely choose ANY of those to use for their RPG releases, but choose the Realms because it has proven to be the most popular setting with the fans . . . they'd be crazy NOT to use the Realms, IMO!




It has been proven to be the most popular setting because, when they started publishing it, they spent the next decade actively promoting the heck out of it while actively neglecting, or sometimes even consciously undermining, other settings (hello, Castle Greyhawk). I've made this point before in other threads, but of course Greyhawk doesn't have half the popularity of the FR; it hasn't had anywhere close to half the support in, like, almost 30 years!

That said, I agree that the FR is the most popular setting, and that it makes sense for WotC to set their adventures there. But it doesn't make sense for me to buy them unless what they offer is a far stronger temptation than my Realms-aversion.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> The problem is for me and other FR-haters alone, and that problem is that WotC has chosen a setting that we hate for all their adventures. It's not a problem from Realms-lovers or people indifferent to the setting an adventure is set in. But for me, if I spend a dollar on a product set in a world that I despise, the message I am sending is "Give me more FR!!" (At least, unless I buy it used and my money doesn't feed WotC... but I _want_ to send them my cash.)




Can you give a few examples of why you hate FR (as opposed to for example Greyhawk or Golarion if you like those)? I can understand not liking a setting (I am not in the least interested in Dark Sun), but I am curious what you (and other FR "dislikers") are so opposed to.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> An alternate reply to your same post here . . .
> 
> WotC did try creating a new generic fantasy setting to use as the core very, very recently, and that didn't work out either!
> 
> Have we already forgotten 4E and the Nentir Vale? That seems to be what you are asking for, and WotC did give it a go and have decided to move in a different direction this time. Probably wisely.




The setting was some of the best stuff in 4e and is widely lauded. The problems with 4e had pretty much nothing at all to do with the setting. 

That said, I own almost all the 4e-era adventures that WotC published, in part because there was really nothing that couldn't insert smoothly and easily into my game- the setting really didn't intrude (unless you count the planar stuff in the Shadowfell and Feywild- which, personally, I think are excellent additions to the D&D multiverse anyhow).


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

Since I am reminiscing, I'll mention Forgotten Realms. I bought the Forgotten Realms grey box campaign setting probably about 89 or so, and it was my campaign world of choice for several years. I loved the look of the books, and the setting had a lot of mystery and potential to it. It also had support and I lapped up the Waterdeep supplement and a couple of others also (though Waterdeep was always my favorite of the supplements.) However, the problem with Forgotten Realms and gaming for me was that it was a living world, meaning the supplements and the novels kept advancing the timeline. Rather than producing a static world that you could invest in and then use, they produced a world you had to keep rebuying. That soured me* on the setting as an RPG setting. And is, actually, one of the reasons I like Golarion as a setting is because, other that the results produced at my game table, the world remains the same. Which means that when my kid's character establishes and builds a temple of Erastil near Sandpoint, I don't have to worry about other supplements coming along and putting something else there. Static settings easily become more personal as you use them, compared to living, fluid settings which keep resetting themselves.

*Soured on the setting is not the same as hating the setting. I just don't think its actually a good investment, at this point, for a table-top role playing gamer.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> WotC did try creating a new generic fantasy setting to use as the core very, very recently, and that didn't work out either!
> 
> Have we already forgotten 4E and the Nentir Vale? That seems to be what you are asking for, and WotC did give it a go and have decided to move in a different direction this time. Probably wisely.




Yeah, FR is _pretty_ generic. Like, there's nothing about the world inherently that's non-generic. That's an advantage if you're trying to sell to folks who want generic fantasy - which is probably most D&D players/DMs. Even if your own world isn't generic, generic stuff is the easiest to export. The trade off a new "generic fantasy" setting would face is between (a) not putting off Realms haters, and (b) not automatically attracting Realms loyalists.

And if your choice is between appeasing haters and appeasing loyalists, you're almost always better to go with the people who love you already and who are primed to buy. 

It does mean these "generic" adventures are not very FR-specific in tone or feel, but WotC does'nt seem to think that's much of a big deal.


----------



## Mercule (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Like, the, ah, Forgotten Realms?!?!



There are two ways to use the Realms: specific case and general case.

In the general case, I tend to agree. Who cares. File the serial numbers off and move on. Phandelver (especially) and PotA both fell into this category. Please do more of this. It would be even better if they didn't have agents of the Harpers, Zhentarim, etc. called out in ever module; those have been easy enough to ignore, but they're still a constant emphasis of it being set in the Realms and I have to read the whole module before I'm sure it isn't actually important to the plot.

In the specific case, enough dependencies on the Realms are in place that it doesn't neatly fit into another setting. HotDQ was this way. I tried to convert it to both my home brew and Eberron and was really surprised at how hard it was, mostly because of the geography. It would have been more of an "inspired by" thing. I get modules to reduce the amount of work I have to do. Frankly, the general story line wasn't good enough to be worth the effort, IMO.

There isn't a clear line between the two. How much can you include the Harpers before it becomes tightly coupled to the Realms? Is the way goods flow through Baldur's Gate and/or Waterdeep important to the plot or is it window-dressing? If the author is grabbing names just to fill in blanks, groovy. If I would have to have the FRCS to understand, please exclude it. Also, including historic/political/etc. stuff that would have been in a 5E FRCS (like pages 15-16 of PotA) is exactly what I don't want. That should have been in a web supplement.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2015)

Goemoe said:


> A hate hater could hate any amount of hate, since a hate hater hates haters who hate.



View attachment 68285


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

S_Dalsgaard said:


> Can you give a few examples of why you hate FR (as opposed to for example Greyhawk or Golarion if you like those)? I can understand not liking a setting (I am not in the least interested in Dark Sun), but I am curious what you (and other FR "dislikers") are so opposed to.




Sure! Speaking only for myself, and fully acknowledging that these aren't insurmountable issues, my hate stems from a number of things.

EDIT: Oh, duh, added a big one. Well, two.


*Appropriation.* The FR have appropriated a lot of stuff that was not FR material to begin with. Why on earth were perytons and leucrotta relegated to the Monsters of Faerun supplement in 3e? Or how about Kara-Tur? In 1e's OA hardback, it's explicitly set in the World of Greyhawk. The recent elemental-themed adventure (PotA) was perfectly themed for GH, but now it seems as though FR is appropriating the Elemental Evil theme, too.
*Super-uber-Mary-Sue npcs.* This is probably the most common FR complaint- the setting is about npcs, not the pcs. Of course Elminster never needs to show up in your game, but what the hell is he doing when the demon princes crawl out into Waterdeep? If not him, what about any of the dozens of other epic npcs that are sprinkled throughout the landscape? This may be less true now post-3e, I don't know, but given that Salvatore just raised, like, all his characters from the dead in a recent novel, I think we know how long death sticks in the FR... at least, for npcs.
*The cheapening of formerly awesome elements in D&D.* I'm specifically thinking of the contrast between the Drow as originally presented and the FR treatment of them. In all fairness, 1e UA allowed Drow as a pc race, but they were incredibly overpowered. Turning them into a 'legit' pc race, probably due to the popularity of Driz'zt, made them extremely flaccid lettuce instead of stiff, spiny artichokes.
*Dominance of the setting market.* I've stated my opinion upthread a couple of times that FR is the most popular 'standard' setting largely because it gets thirty times as much support as any other standard setting (by which I exclude things like Dark Sun, Eberron and other worlds with a very different tone). This results directly in other settings not getting support, which leads to them falling in popularity because what's this Greyhawk you speak of?, and this leads to more support for the popular setting- FR- all over again. It's a vicious feedback loop. If I want to purchase an adventure from WotC that I can fit into my game easily (by which I mean a not-weird-setting adventure), then it's pretty much FR or nothing right now. 
*Ridiculous amount of canon and backstory.* Another issue is the amount of backstory and canon built up in the FR. This is the result of too many sourcebooks about everything. There was even the equivalent of a Sears catalog at one point! The weight of all that canon is one of the main reasons why the Realms is periodically rebooted... which reminds me a lot of Crisis on Infinite Earths; it was supposed to help but it just made the mess messier. Which leads me directly to...
*Realms-shaking events.* Holy cow are these awful. I mean, yes, Time of Troubles was the worst, and it epitomized much of what I hate about the FR- driven by npcs, etc- but the subsequent various RSEs have been only a little better. Shake up the world? Sure, why not? Oh, it was unpopular? Let's backpedal! RSEs don't seem to shake much in the real long term; the status quo always seems to return. But meanwhile, these terrible stories dominate the setting, and if you don't acknowledge them in your game, it really affects the usability of a lot of later-published material. The problem with RSEs is that they attempt to dictate the nature of the setting to the DM rather than enabling or following the DM's path.

There are probably more, but those are what immediately came to mind.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> It's like you are ignoring the facts in your own post in order to make a point.
> 
> WotC did try to put Greyhawk forward as THE core D&D setting at the beginning of 3rd edition, as a part of the first nostalgia wave of design and marketing. It didn't work out. By the end of the 3rd edition line, Greyhawk really wasn't the default setting anymore, as many of the RPG products and novels were set in Generistan rather than Oerth. Greyhawk doesn't sell. Sorry.
> 
> ...




I'm not ignoring anything. I'm showing that even though they claimed Greyhawk was the default setting for that edition, they did not support it. Technically, Fright at Tristor was originally only available through the RPGA Network so it wasn't even a book that was readily available at your local book store or a Barnes & Nobles, etc. As was mentioned, if you were not a subscriber to Dungeon Magazine, you really got 0 updates to Greyhawk during that edition. Where by comparison .... The Realms had TONS of 3rd edition support even though it was not stated it was the default setting for that edition.

Again I point out, this is all a similar pattern with WoTC/Hasbro. And as I have said, it is the only setting to make money, because it's the ONLY setting that has really gotten any support since it first launched.

Greyhawk didn't sell, because many didn't know that there was Greyhawk material out there to be had. Where as by comparison, The Realms are everywhere. If you enjoy D&D, you really can't get away from it.

I apologize for my "whining" as you put it. But I guess that's what I've been reduced to, because even when I bring up ideas on how to update the settings, everyone rips them apart and tells me none of them are good ideas anyway instead of discussing it and expanding on the idea. And to roll me into the category of "FR-hater" is completely unnecessary. If you saw how much Forgotten Realms products I have on my gaming shelf, you'd probably explode. My shelf is proof that if WoTC/Hasbro updated these settings, I would gladly hand over whole paychecks to them.


----------



## ehren37 (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> The problem is for me and other FR-haters alone, and that problem is that WotC has chosen a setting that we hate for all their adventures. It's not a problem from Realms-lovers or people indifferent to the setting an adventure is set in. But for me, if I spend a dollar on a product set in a world that I despise, the message I am sending is "Give me more FR!!" (At least, unless I buy it used and my money doesn't feed WotC... but I _want_ to send them my cash.)




This I don't get. If you're running it in your homebrew setting, you're going to have to file off names and organizations anyways. Say there's an evil church involved. Regardless of whether they use Bane from the realms or St.  Baddicus from Genericville, neither are going to match your game. 

There's plenty I dislike about the realms, namely that the good guys are disgustingly overpowered compared to the forces of evil, so success seems a foregone conclusion. If you pooch it, hey,  Elminster could just solve everything in between his scheduled three ways with Mysta and the jillion other good mega mage sisters. But, please correct me if I'm wrong, none of them really factor in to the published adventures so far. It's more a problem for people actually running the game in the realms, because players might want to call in the uber NPC's to help.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Sure! Speaking only for myself, and fully acknowledging that these aren't insurmountable issues, my hate stems from a number of things.
> 
> 
> *Appropriation.* The FR have appropriated a lot of stuff that was not FR material to begin with. Why on earth were perytons and leucrotta relegated to the Monsters of Faerun supplement in 3e? Or how about Kara-Tur? In 1e's OA hardback, it's explicitly set in the World of Greyhawk. The recent elemental-themed adventure (PotA) was perfectly themed for GH, but now it seems as though FR is appropriating the Elemental Evil theme, too.
> ...




Thank-you. In a round about way, you have just backed up everything I've been trying to say. Your Dominance of the setting market explanation is everything I have been trying to say, just done so more intelligently than I could have said. Thank-you again.


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I remember buying Gaz 3, The Principalities of Giantri in Toys'R'Us and thinking - "No way, they actually produced books telling you about the world..." I think it was the only Gazeteer I bought for that setting, as I then moved onto Greyhawk as it was the ADnD world, and of course I wanted to play the Advanced version of the game, but I shoulda stuck with The Known World as Greyhawk soon dried up...
> 
> Edit: I think it was the massive Greyhawk map which really sold me...




Yeah, I think I only bought Gaz1, and followed the same path.  But when I wasn't playing in my own homebrew, the one time I played FR, or the one Spelljammer/Planescape multi-world game, it was always Greyhawk, and the lack of support never really phased me.  There's lots to work with, just with the AD&D stuff.


----------



## Mercule (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> The problem is for me and other FR-haters alone, and that problem is that WotC has chosen a setting that we hate for all their adventures. It's not a problem from Realms-lovers or people indifferent to the setting an adventure is set in. But for me, if I spend a dollar on a product set in a world that I despise, the message I am sending is "Give me more FR!!" (At least, unless I buy it used and my money doesn't feed WotC... but I _want_ to send them my cash.)



This is just a double-whammy. Yes, I'd probably do a little happy dance if the Realms was officially sacked -- in the same way I'd be happy when the screaming baby finally falls asleep.

Really, though, I'd be unhappy about any setting that had taken over like the Realms has, even Greyhawk or Eberron, both of which I love. At its core, D&D should remain world agnostic. Go ahead and publish settings and setting-specific adventures. Core products shouldn't do more than use names to fill in blanks. If an adventure requires me to do more than sub out a name for a faction, place, or major NPC, it's not generic. Maps are a compromise because a truly generic map isn't any easier to add to a structured world than borrowing one, but things like the Stone Bridge (in PotA) are jarring unless they're important to the adventure (and if they are, it ceases to be generic). 

The idea that they plan to use non-setting books to detail the Realms vexes me. I don't want to buy crap for the Realms. I accept that most source books have something I'm not going to use, but it's usually at least a thematic match -- I didn't use Wu Jen, but it made sense to have it in the Complete Arcane. What do the Harpers have to do with PotA?


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Sure! Speaking only for myself, and fully acknowledging that these aren't insurmountable issues, my hate stems from a number of things.
> 
> 
> *Appropriation.* The FR have appropriated a lot of stuff that was not FR material to begin with. Why on earth were perytons and leucrotta relegated to the Monsters of Faerun supplement in 3e? Or how about Kara-Tur? In 1e's OA hardback, it's explicitly set in the World of Greyhawk. The recent elemental-themed adventure (PotA) was perfectly themed for GH, but now it seems as though FR is appropriating the Elemental Evil theme, too.
> ...




Thanks for your response. I can surely understand your concerns and I somewhat agree with your qualms about super-NPCs (although that can be said about most older campaign settings, especially Greyhawk), although it IMHO is easily solved by nerfing them.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> It has been proven to be the most popular setting because, when they started publishing it, they spent the next decade actively promoting the heck out of it while actively neglecting, or sometimes even consciously undermining, other settings (hello, Castle Greyhawk). I've made this point before in other threads, but of course Greyhawk doesn't have half the popularity of the FR; it hasn't had anywhere close to half the support in, like, almost 30 years!




Again, thank-you. This is the exact thing I've been saying.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Again, thank-you. This is the exact thing I've been saying.




Yup


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Since I am reminiscing, I'll mention Forgotten Realms. I bought the Forgotten Realms grey box campaign setting probably about 89 or so, and it was my campaign world of choice for several years. I loved the look of the books, and the setting had a lot of mystery and potential to it. It also had support and I lapped up the Waterdeep supplement and a couple of others also (though Waterdeep was always my favorite of the supplements.) However, the problem with Forgotten Realms and gaming for me was that it was a living world, meaning the supplements and the novels kept advancing the timeline. Rather than producing a static world that you could invest in and then use, they produced a world you had to keep rebuying. That soured me* on the setting as an RPG setting. And is, actually, one of the reasons I like Golarion as a setting is because, other that the results produced at my game table, the world remains the same. Which means that when my kid's character establishes and builds a temple of Erastil near Sandpoint, I don't have to worry about other supplements coming along and putting something else there. Static settings easily become more personal as you use them, compared to living, fluid settings which keep resetting themselves.
> 
> *Soured on the setting is not the same as hating the setting. I just don't think its actually a good investment, at this point, for a table-top role playing gamer.




The problem is, in order to continually support a setting, it needs to move along, not stay static.  Otherwise, you're going to see a book about mannerisms and fashion in Verbobonc.  Because, if it's static, new books are only going to include more detail.  What color are the Viscount's socks, I wonder? 

The cool thing is, if you liked a setting at a certain time, it's pretty easy to just use the material from that time and ignore everything else.  They're even making it easy for non-grognard collectors with pdfs at DTRPG.

I'm running my 5e game in 3e FR.  It could have easily been in 1e or 2e FR, or even 1e Greyhawk or Mystara, but I wanted use the cool Silver Marches book I've had for years and never used.


----------



## Staffan (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I'll start by disputing the assertion that FR, GH and Mystara are all that similar. FR is very Renaissance-style high fantasy. GH is much more gritty Dark Ages in style, and Mystara is supposed to be a pastiche of our world in D&D terms. Sure, there are similarities, but to me (and maybe not to anyone else), the differences are glaring.



Sure, there are differences. But here's basically how I view the various settings' proximity to "generica":





Basically, it's like saying that two different dry red wines taste differently. Sure, they do, but neither of them tastes like beer, and if you're going to be offering two different drinks you're probably better served by offering one type of wine and one type of beer than you are offering two types of red wine. And if you're adding a third, how about coke instead of another type of beer or wine?


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

The pushing of FR over Greyhawk stems from the Lorraine Williams days at TSR.  Promote the stuff not created by the guy you just ousted.  So, from that, FR snowballed into the D&D's biggest setting, especially after the video games, like Baldur's Gate, and the novels.  It became the most popular setting by a large margin, and nothing has come along to uproot that.

You can complain about the good ol' days of Settingpalooza, but the fact is, FR is the money maker, even back in the heady 2e days.  Going against something tried and true is a big risk.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Agamon said:


> The pushing of FR over Greyhawk stems from the Lorraine Williams days at TSR.  Promote the stuff not created by the guy you just ousted.  So, from that, FR snowballed into the D&D's biggest setting, especially after the video games, like Baldur's Gate, and the novels.  It became the most popular setting by a large margin, and nothing has come along to uproot that.
> 
> You can complain about the good ol' days of Settingpalooza, but the fact is, FR is the money maker, even back in the heady 2e days.  Going against something tried and true is a big risk.




Which is a shame because Greyhawk is the home to much of the games lore and deserves to be the primary D&D setting IMO. That does not mean I don't agree that at this point WOTC would be fools not to use FR. It's just too bad for us Greyhawk fans...


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

justinj3x3 said:


> Which is a shame because Greyhawk is the home to much of the games lore and deserves to be the primary D&D setting IMO. That does not mean I don't agree that at this point WOTC would be fools not to use FR. It's just too bad for us Greyhawk fans...




The day the Blumes and Williams screwed Gary out of his company was a sad one, for sure.

The way Greyhawk is, though, I think the fans should be happy it's been mostly hands-off.  It was meant to be a skeleton setting to be fleshed out by DMs, not every nook and cranny detailed, like they did with FR.


----------



## JeffB (May 8, 2015)

I am agreeing with many here regarding the Realms in general. When 3.0 released, I re-wrote a bunch of high level overview history of the Realms because I could not stand alot of what happened during the 2E  transition and the 3E transition.  I think I even posted it here years ago. 

Eventually I just gave up,  and when I have run realms games, just kept using the OGB, and the first few FRx books. I sometimes pick and choose from post ToT, 3E, 4E lore/books as I need (I get some mileage out the Volos guides, FRA, and the recent Elminsters guide, for example). Its made me much happier and I just handwave stuff like some of the fluff in Phandelver.

At any rate, I would love to see GH, TKW products, and would prefer D&D to be setting light/free at its core too, but no "story" means no money for a corporation like Hasbro. They cannot make enough money on rules without the story, the SRD/OGL showed them that. So they stick with what they can cal their own. GI Joe, Transformers,MLP, whatever, its about characters and stories/movies/setting, and now D&D is in the same corporate boat.  Thus they go with their best known "story setting" in D&D (thanks to novels, and video games), and jam every trope since 1974 into it (Demogorgon, fwiw,, was my first exposure to a demon prince when I bought EW in 1977). 

I love 5E rules, but the TTRPG is a second class citizen these days in the grand scheme of things. It stinks. I am used to (as a D&D fan/customer since 1977) a certain type and level of support.  Those days are over. Unless D&D starts to see the worldwide fad success of the late 70s, early 80s.

But hoping they are going to focus on settings that are even lower on the popularity scale in the TT world than FR is futile. My guess is we will see some lip service...like GH in the 3.0/3.5 era, or in the new 5E books, and that's about it.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

JeffB said:


> But hoping they are going to focus on settings that are even lower on the popularity scale in the TT world than FR is futile. My guess is we will see some lip service...like GH in the 3.0/3.5 era, or in the new 5E books, and that's about it.




Pretty much.


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

Agamon said:


> The problem is, in order to continually support a setting, it needs to move along, not stay static.  Otherwise, you're going to see a book about mannerisms and fashion in Verbobonc.  Because, if it's static, new books are only going to include more detail.  What color are the Viscount's socks, I wonder?
> 
> The cool thing is, if you liked a setting at a certain time, it's pretty easy to just use the material from that time and ignore everything else.  They're even making it easy for non-grognard collectors with pdfs at DTRPG.
> 
> I'm running my 5e game in 3e FR.  It could have easily been in 1e or 2e FR, or even 1e Greyhawk or Mystara, but I wanted use the cool Silver Marches book I've had for years and never used.




The problem with this is when the new adventures make assumptions about events along the timeline. The astute DM can remove it, I am sure, but it becomes more and more work the further the setting gets removed from the base assumptions.

I much prefer the Paizo model where the adventures can change the world, but by and large the adventures are independent of one another. Might they need to do another setting book at some point? Sure, but they are years into their setting and the campaign books first put out are still pretty valid. A new campaign book every ten-fifteen years I can live with. But a new one every two or three becomes problematic. (I think that the Golarion model seems largely in response to perceived problems with the Forgotten Realms model, so I appreciate them noting the same issues I have.)


----------



## Celtavian (May 8, 2015)

Agamon said:


> The pushing of FR over Greyhawk stems from the Lorraine Williams days at TSR.  Promote the stuff not created by the guy you just ousted.  So, from that, FR snowballed into the D&D's biggest setting, especially after the video games, like Baldur's Gate, and the novels.  It became the most popular setting by a large margin, and nothing has come along to uproot that.
> 
> You can complain about the good ol' days of Settingpalooza, but the fact is, FR is the money maker, even back in the heady 2e days.  Going against something tried and true is a big risk.




Agree.

I enjoyed the hell out of the video games. I loved Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights. 

I know people that love Drizz't that don't even play D&D. He was the first D&D character I heard people talk about that didn't even play or know anything about D&D other than it was some strange game.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> It has been proven to be the most popular setting because, when they started publishing it, they spent the next decade actively promoting the heck out of it while actively neglecting, or sometimes even consciously undermining, other settings (hello, Castle Greyhawk). I've made this point before in other threads, but of course Greyhawk doesn't have half the popularity of the FR; it hasn't had anywhere close to half the support in, like, almost 30 years!




I think this is a chicken-or-egg argument. Is Forgotten Realms the most popular D&D setting BECAUSE WotC puts more resources behind it? Or, does WotC put more resources behind the Forgotten Realms because it is their most popular setting?

I'm sure it's not that black-or-white either, that good setting support has a snowball effect of increasing popularity, even if the setting was already popular.

The closest we can compare is WotC's effort to use Greyhawk as the default setting for early 3rd edition. Classic D&D with a strong fanbase . . . but ultimately not popular enough to survive even until the end of the 3rd edition cycle. Some argue that's because WotC _didn't try hard enough_ (put out tons of amazing products), but I think that's wishful thinking.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> The setting was some of the best stuff in 4e and is widely lauded. The problems with 4e had pretty much nothing at all to do with the setting.
> 
> That said, I own almost all the 4e-era adventures that WotC published, in part because there was really nothing that couldn't insert smoothly and easily into my game- the setting really didn't intrude (unless you count the planar stuff in the Shadowfell and Feywild- which, personally, I think are excellent additions to the D&D multiverse anyhow).




I enjoyed the Nentir Vale setting, although I enjoyed the larger "World Axis" cosmology even more! It was a quality setting that was coherent and a lot of fun . . . and very generic D&D. But I think it is telling that WotC did not bring the Nentir Vale forward into 5th edition (at least, not yet), did not create a *new* generic fantasy world for 5th, but instead put the focus of the core books on both *all* and *none* of the classic D&D settings and have chosen the Realms for their initial focus.


----------



## AriochQ (May 8, 2015)

Greyhawk was Gygax's vision of a fantasy setting.  FR is more in line with the commonly accepted idea of a fantasy setting.

Gygax was into dramatic histories, mass migrations, wars, and cataclysmic events.  FR seems more like a world pulled out of any of the numerous high fantasy novels that followed the introduction of D&D.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I think this is a chicken-or-egg argument. Is Forgotten Realms the most popular D&D setting BECAUSE WotC puts more resources behind it? Or, does WotC put more resources behind the Forgotten Realms because it is their most popular setting?
> 
> I'm sure it's not that black-or-white either, that good setting support has a snowball effect of increasing popularity, even if the setting was already popular.
> 
> The closest we can compare is WotC's effort to use Greyhawk as the default setting for early 3rd edition. Classic D&D with a strong fanbase . . . but ultimately not popular enough to survive even until the end of the 3rd edition cycle. Some argue that's because WotC _didn't try hard enough_ (put out tons of amazing products), but I think that's wishful thinking.




I can agree with the first part of what you said (to an extent), but I'll reiterate what I said before about this (still not sure if you chose to ignore me before, but in case you missed it....). WOTC saying the core world is Greyhawk and then proceeding to put out generic information (minus the occasional nod) is not supporting the setting. Greyhawk specific information is setting support and that was lacking in 3rd edition. So to say Greyhawk fans stating WOTC didn't try hard enough is wishful thinking is actually the wishful thinking. If you want to see Greyhawk support during 3e look at Dungeon magazine because it wasn't in WOTC's products. WOTC even told Mona to chill on the Greyhawk support from what I've read from him.


----------



## Celtavian (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I think this is a chicken-or-egg argument. Is Forgotten Realms the most popular D&D setting BECAUSE WotC puts more resources behind it? Or, does WotC put more resources behind the Forgotten Realms because it is their most popular setting?
> 
> I'm sure it's not that black-or-white either, that good setting support has a snowball effect of increasing popularity, even if the setting was already popular.
> 
> The closest we can compare is WotC's effort to use Greyhawk as the default setting for early 3rd edition. Classic D&D with a strong fanbase . . . but ultimately not popular enough to survive even until the end of the 3rd edition cycle. Some argue that's because WotC _didn't try hard enough_ (put out tons of amazing products), but I think that's wishful thinking.




You have to give some credit to Ed Greenwood as well. He put a lot of work into the setting. I know it's derivative and has a lot Mary Sue's, but Ed put his heart and soul into the setting. He did some fun, creative things with it. He helped promote and develop it. He seemed to have a lot of fun doing so. It was his fantasy land he shared with the D&D community. Ed Greenwood's enthusiasm for The Realms was infectious and seemed to inspire a lot of fluff and crunch development for D&D. When people are hating on The Realms, they seem to forget that it was created by fellow gamer geek Ed Greenwood, a man passionate about fantasy, D&D, and world creation.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> You have to give some credit to Ed Greenwood as well. He put a lot of work into the setting. I know it's derivative and has a lot Mary Sue's, but Ed put his heart and soul into the setting. He did some fun, creative things with it. He helped promote and develop it. He seemed to have a lot of fun doing so. It was his fantasy land he shared with the D&D community. Ed Greenwood's enthusiasm for The Realms was infectious and seemed to inspire a lot of fluff and crunch development for D&D. When people are hating on The Realms, they seem to forget that it was created by fellow gamer geek Ed Greenwood, a man passionate about fantasy, D&D, and world creation.




Great post and great point. For the record when I'm sticking up for Greyhawk I'm not hating on the realms. I have no opinion of the realms either way because I'm ignorant of most details. I don't think any setting is a bad setting and every setting has it's shining examples of why fans love them.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Really, though, I'd be unhappy about any setting that had taken over like the Realms has, even Greyhawk or Eberron, both of which I love. At its core, D&D should remain world agnostic.




Oh God yes. I totally agree. Give me an adventure I can insert into my own game _without_ having to rejigger who the damn Harpers, Cult of the Dragon, Red Wizards et. al. are.




Mercule said:


> The idea that they plan to use non-setting books to detail the Realms vexes me. I don't want to buy crap for the Realms. I accept that most source books have something I'm not going to use, but it's usually at least a thematic match -- I didn't use Wu Jen, but it made sense to have it in the Complete Arcane. What do the Harpers have to do with PotA?




I agree with this so hard that it could break a diamond.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> I'm not ignoring anything. I'm showing that even though they claimed Greyhawk was the default setting for that edition, they did not support it. Technically, Fright at Tristor was originally only available through the RPGA Network so it wasn't even a book that was readily available at your local book store or a Barnes & Nobles, etc. As was mentioned, if you were not a subscriber to Dungeon Magazine, you really got 0 updates to Greyhawk during that edition. Where by comparison .... The Realms had TONS of 3rd edition support even though it was not stated it was the default setting for that edition.




You and I have different ideas of what adequate support means, I think. I feel Greyhawk got plenty of support during the initial launch of 3rd edition, and I very much count the Dragon and Dungeon magazines as they were official D&D products.

Overall, the Realms most certainly did get *more* support than Greyhawk did, but I don't see that as a lack of effort or care on WotC's part. See my "chicken-or-egg" comment a few posts up.

I really, honestly don't feel the Realms supremacy is one of quality products, amount of products, care and attention of the designers, or any sort of judgment call from fans or designers other than . . . more folks simply prefer the Realms as their "go-to" setting. I have some serious love for all of the older settings, including Greyhawk, but I don't begrudge WotC making the smart move with the Realms . . . of course, I love the Realms too!


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> The closest we can compare is WotC's effort to use Greyhawk as the default setting for early 3rd edition. Classic D&D with a strong fanbase . . . but ultimately not popular enough to survive even until the end of the 3rd edition cycle. Some argue that's because WotC _didn't try hard enough_ (put out tons of amazing products), but I think that's wishful thinking.




I'm sorry, I'm unclear- are you saying that WotC put out tons of amazing GH material in 3e, or that the notion that they would is wishful thinking? 

I disagree with the first, but sadly, I agree with the second. But honestly, I'd settle for _one or two_ awesome products that were set in Greyhawk; I'm not even really asking for that, since I run a homebrewed setting these days anyhow. I'm not asking for more GH support, so much as for _even one_ adventure that is NOT set in the FR.


----------



## Agamon (May 8, 2015)

Wicht said:


> The problem with this is when the new adventures make assumptions about events along the timeline. The astute DM can remove it, I am sure, but it becomes more and more work the further the setting gets removed from the base assumptions.




That could be a problem, in theory.  But so far it isn't in practice.  The adventures they've released so far have don't delve deep enough into setting details to make the timeline an issue.  I'm sure that's purposeful.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Yup Dire Bare is ignoring me so there's no point in responding to him....... (Greyhawk got crap support during 3e and the support it got in the mags are thanks to Mona NOT WOTC.)


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I enjoyed the Nentir Vale setting, although I enjoyed the larger "World Axis" cosmology even more! It was a quality setting that was coherent and a lot of fun . . . and very generic D&D. But I think it is telling that WotC did not bring the Nentir Vale forward into 5th edition (at least, not yet), did not create a *new* generic fantasy world for 5th, but instead put the focus of the core books on both *all* and *none* of the classic D&D settings and have chosen the Realms for their initial focus.




Well, there's the 4e tiefling and dragonborn, as well as the eladrin in the DMG. And the SF and FW made it in. So elements of the Nentir Vale made it, although not the setting itself. 

On that subject, one thing that I thought was amazing in 4e and that I really hope gets brought forward officially (it's totally in my game) is Torog and the whole story of how he created the Underdark. OMFG, that's awesome.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> On that subject, one thing that I thought was amazing in 4e and that I really hope gets brought forward officially (it's totally in my game) is Torog and the whole story of how he created the Underdark. OMFG, that's awesome.




I forgot about that. That was some good lore!


----------



## Mercule (May 8, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> You have to give some credit to Ed Greenwood as well. He put a lot of work into the setting. I know it's derivative and has a lot Mary Sue's, but Ed put his heart and soul into the setting. He did some fun, creative things with it. He helped promote and develop it. He seemed to have a lot of fun doing so. It was his fantasy land he shared with the D&D community. Ed Greenwood's enthusiasm for The Realms was infectious and seemed to inspire a lot of fluff and crunch development for D&D. When people are hating on The Realms, they seem to forget that it was created by fellow gamer geek Ed Greenwood, a man passionate about fantasy, D&D, and world creation.



Yeah. I try not to cross the line to "FR suxxors" because I do get that Ed was/is very passionate about it. I only wish my home brew was half as richly detailed as the Realms.

Nothing is truly generic. Mystara comes closest, but even that has a personality. So do Greyhawk and the Realms. Some of it is very hard to verbalize, but it's there. I didn't really care for Mystara or the Realms. I like Greyhawk, but probably wouldn't have cared if I'd started with the "From the Ashes" instead of the gold and red box. My home setting could be considered generic, but it's different than those three. Sometimes, the devil really is in the details:

When I opened the original grey box, I found the maps to be aesthetically displeasing. The only thing I really remember is something about the giant glacier being next to the desert. My buddy said "that's the thing, this world is that magic-rich," and I think that one line, as much as anything turned me off the setting. And, yeah, I know he didn't know any more than I did.

I like elves, but I hate the physical description of the Realms elves. (Like I said, details.)

Caves, even stupidly large ones big enough to hold a city, are fine. The idea of the Underdark being a fully connected, fully realized subterranean "continent" turns me off.

Drow as long-lost, little known, evil cousins to the elves is kinda cool. Drow as the go-to boogy-man, not so much. Part of that is probably related to the whole Underdark thing, though.

Major, named NPCs are almost required for a setting to come alive. Generally they are regional or reclusive, though. Drizzt wasn't bad until every game I started had one (or more) players who wanted to clone him -- even if it was a sci-fi game. Also, Elminster was kinda cool when he was just an old wizard who penned articles for Dragon magazine.


----------



## Wicht (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> You and I have different ideas of what adequate support means, I think. I feel Greyhawk got plenty of support during the initial launch of 3rd edition, and I very much count the Dragon and Dungeon magazines as they were official D&D products.




You and I have different ideas of what "plenty of support" means, I think.


----------



## JeffB (May 8, 2015)

justinj3x3 said:


> Yup Dire Bare is ignoring me so there's no point in responding to him....... (Greyhawk got crap support during 3e and the support it got in the mags are thanks to Mona NOT WOTC.)




Lately it seems if you don't toe the Company line around here, several posters will B&M about years of whiners and whining, throw you into that camp, and eventually ignore you. You are better off, don't sweat it


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Sure! Speaking only for myself, and fully acknowledging that these aren't insurmountable issues, my hate stems from a number of things.
> 
> 
> *Appropriation.*






This bothers me not at all. In fact, I see it as a strength. Forgotten Realms is Ed Greenwood's home D&D campaign (yes, I know it predates D&D), and adding cool story elements from other sources is classic D&D. I do it in my own homebrew, and I enjoy seeing it (when done well), in the Realms. And besides, if you don't care for the Realms anyway, why do you care if it "appropriates" elements from other settings? Do you assume that if the Elemental Evil adventure path had not been set in the Realms, that WotC would have developed it for Greyhawk? Where it's been done at least twice before?



> [*]*Super-uber-Mary-Sue npcs.*.




This complaint, IMO, is valid, but overwrought (in general, not specific to Jester). Certainly, the Realms is rife with powerful NPCs.  I agree it is one of the weaker elements of the setting. However, the NPCs did not dominate the RPG products for 3rd, 4th, or 5th editions (some of the novels are another thing), and even so, they are easily ignored.



> [*]*The cheapening of formerly awesome elements in D&D.*




I agree to a point that drow went from a terrifying villainous race to relatively common PCs. But I don't blame the Realms, Drizzt's contribution notwithstanding. It's the "Klingon Effect". Super cool evil race migrates to "fights-againt-evil-nature/culture" hero type. I still think drow are cool, just a very different kind of cool . . . but something has been lost, that's for sure.

I suppose what frustrates me is not that some folks don't care for the Realms. All of your reasons for not liking the setting are, of course, totally valid even if others don't agree or even see some of them as strengths of the setting. What frustrates me is the word "hate". Hate? Really? If you truly hate a fictional setting, then we don't understand each other at all. And there is a very loud contingent of Realms-hate that infests this board and others . . . it's not the opinions that bother me, but the overwhelming negativity whenever the topic of the Realms comes up.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2015)

So, others have already explained why there's no functional difference, in play, between an FR adventure and a "generic" one; that it's exactly the same filing off of serial numbers. I want to address the whole "voting with your wallet" thing.

Obviously, you have that right. I would never suggest otherwise. I'm not remotely a fan of having all the adventures set in FR either. I want other worlds.

But...

Let's be honest with ourselves. The accounting department? Isn't going to interpret lost sales as being about FR. They're going to interpret it _at best_ as "adventures don't sell," and quite possibly as "D&D beyond the core books doesn't sell."

I'm not telling anyone to buy something they don't want. But I _am_ saying, "Be aware of what message you're actually sending. It's not necessarily the one you intend."


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> You and I have different ideas of what adequate support means, I think. I feel Greyhawk got plenty of support during the initial launch of 3rd edition, and I very much count the Dragon and Dungeon magazines as they were official D&D products.
> 
> Overall, the Realms most certainly did get *more* support than Greyhawk did, but I don't see that as a lack of effort or care on WotC's part. See my "chicken-or-egg" comment a few posts up.
> 
> I really, honestly don't feel the Realms supremacy is one of quality products, amount of products, care and attention of the designers, or any sort of judgment call from fans or designers other than . . . more folks simply prefer the Realms as their "go-to" setting. I have some serious love for all of the older settings, including Greyhawk, but I don't begrudge WotC making the smart move with the Realms . . . of course, I love the Realms too!




And I have to agree with you. I believe Dragon and Dungeon Magazine contained official material for Greyhawk, (and other settings,) because those 2 magazines are/were official D&D product. Just sometimes it was hard to come by those mags unless you had a subscription (at least in the area I live.)So with that being said, now would be a wonderful time to just admit that you and I do not see the "support" issue the same, and that is cool. We respectfully agree to disagree. (that doesn't mean I still wouldn't have a good time sitting at a table with you rolling dice and skinning a dead dragon for some sweet dragonplate armor!)


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

Mercule said:


> At its core, D&D should remain world agnostic. Go ahead and publish settings and setting-specific adventures. Core products shouldn't do more than use names to fill in blanks. If an adventure requires me to do more than sub out a name for a faction, place, or major NPC, it's not generic. Maps are a compromise because a truly generic map isn't any easier to add to a structured world than borrowing one, but things like the Stone Bridge (in PotA) are jarring unless they're important to the adventure (and if they are, it ceases to be generic).




Huh? From my perspective, this is EXACTLY what they are doing! The core books ARE setting agnostic! The only setting products are the three existing or announced adventure paths . . . are you upset that they don't have the Forgotten Realms logo on the front cover? I don't understand . . . .

For the adventures paths, they had three options for settings:

1) go with a classic, but less popular setting to launch our new edition
2) invent a new, generic fantasy setting rather than use the existing, popular generic fantasy setting we already have
3) use the Realms, because it's what most of our fans want, and it's generic enough that it can be easily ported to other settings without much fuss.

They went with #3 of course, and I can't imagine a world where that was the wrong choice.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

JeffB said:


> Lately it seems if you don't toe the Company line around here, several posters will B&M about years of whiners and whining, throw you into that camp, and eventually ignore you. You are better off, don't sweat it




Yes, you called it. We are WotC apologists, rather than gamers who are tired of the whining and negativity so rampant in our fandom online. Actually, we all get paid the big bucks to "toe the company line".


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> On that subject, one thing that I thought was amazing in 4e and that I really hope gets brought forward officially (it's totally in my game) is Torog and the whole story of how he created the Underdark. OMFG, that's awesome.




Oh yeah, I'm with you on that one for sure! Torog was an awesome addition to the D&D cosmology!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I'm sorry, I'm unclear- are you saying that WotC put out tons of amazing GH material in 3e, or that the notion that they would is wishful thinking?
> 
> I disagree with the first, but sadly, I agree with the second. But honestly, I'd settle for _one or two_ awesome products that were set in Greyhawk; I'm not even really asking for that, since I run a homebrewed setting these days anyhow. I'm not asking for more GH support, so much as for _even one_ adventure that is NOT set in the FR.




Sorry I was unclear. Greyhawk, IMO, got *good* support, but it did not get *tons* of support. And I think that the idea that Greyhawk could be just as popular as the Realms if WotC would only put more resources into it is the "wishful thinking" part.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

JeffB said:


> Lately it seems if you don't toe the Company line around here, several posters will B&M about years of whiners and whining, throw you into that camp, and eventually ignore you. You are better off, don't sweat it




Oh I'm not worried about it at all lol. I assume they must come from the WOTC forums!


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Yes, you called it. We are WotC apologists, rather than gamers who are tired of the whining and negativity so rampant in our fandom online. Actually, we all get paid the big bucks to "toe the company line".




See the bitterness is just unnecessary. Can someone else tell him if you don't like whining and complaints stop going on the internet for me... since he is ignoring me.

I'll add I do agree that there are some overly negative people, but that doesn't mean a negative opinion or complaint is instantly one of these people! 

But then again he will never read this....

I think he put me on ignore when I pointed out someone was simply asking what the release date of something was when he attacked them for being 'entitled' on another thread one time. Not sure what I said that was so offensive though.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> So, others have already explained why there's no functional difference, in play, between an FR adventure and a "generic" one; that it's exactly the same filing off of serial numbers. I want to address the whole "voting with your wallet" thing.
> 
> Obviously, you have that right. I would never suggest otherwise. I'm not remotely a fan of having all the adventures set in FR either. I want other worlds.
> 
> ...




I agree. I don't think my not buying something will sway any decisions. But I will know I stuck to my principles and voted with my wallet anyways. I'm stubborn like that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2015)

justinj3x3 said:


> I agree. I don't think my not buying something will sway any decisions. But I will know I stuck to my principles and voted with my wallet anyways. I'm stubborn like that.




I... don't know that I agree that choosing whether or not to support a D&D setting qualifies as a matter of "principle" one way or the other, but hey, whatever works.


----------



## Mercule (May 8, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Let's be honest with ourselves. The accounting department? Isn't going to interpret lost sales as being about FR. They're going to interpret it _at best_ as "adventures don't sell," and quite possibly as "D&D beyond the core books doesn't sell."
> 
> I'm not telling anyone to buy something they don't want. But I _am_ saying, "Be aware of what message you're actually sending. It's not necessarily the one you intend."



Agreed. That's why I bought PotA. It's generic enough and promises to be a darn fun ride. I'd rather they not have Harpers, Zhents, etc. sprinkled about because I can't always tell when they're placeholder names used for a plot-important, but overall non-specific group vs. thrown in because some Realms fans might want to see names they know. I'm totally down with the former as an "implied setting" tool where I can scrub the serial numbers off. The latter makes me spend time figuring out whether it's important that that NPC is a member of the group and is going to show up in Act 4.

The line is very gray. I can't give you specific criteria. What I can tell you is that "Tyranny of Dragons" was on one side and "Princes of the Apocalypse" is on the other.


----------



## Remathilis (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I would like it if each adventure was set in a generic fantasy environment easily inserted into any given milieu, preferably without a lot of things that tie to the existing world. Better still would be simply not setting every adventure in the FR- I have no issue with FR fans getting stuff aimed at them, but give us FR-haters something, too. Princes of the Apocalypse was chock full of Greyhawk themes shoehorned into FR; it could have been set in WoG. And yes, I recognize that the ties to the FR can be snipped with a little work. But the reverse is true- give us a Mystara module, and it's just as easy to insert it into the Realms.
> 
> I realize that there are practical reasons that WotC is mostly sticking to the FR, but it doesn't make me happy.




I find this kind of self-defeating. A generic adventure (say, akin to Red Hand of Doom, which uses the PHB deities but nothing Greyhawk or Realms-based) is just that; it doesn't fit in anything. I can't find more information on the people, factions, or what is beyond the edge of the Elsir Vale map* in RHoD. And as a "generic" module; it still sucks; it doesn't work in Eberron (No Tiamat, very different take on Goblinoids), Mystara (no Tiamat, very different dragons), Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc. I MIGHT work ok in Dragonlance (assuming Tahkisis is using hobgoblins instead of draconians) but really, "generic" is code for "ok in Greyhawk and the Realms, your milage may very elsewhere." 

At that point, you're just as well off if you HAD placed in Oerth or Toril; at least now I don't have to scour the map to find a location for it on one of those worlds...

Second, Your criticism of PotA defeats the idea of genericism. You claim PotA has "Greyhawk themes" in it; well, aside from the fact the original ToEE was on Oerth first, I fail to see the themes. So if PotA had been a generic module (say, put in a generic vale with generic stand-in deities) would you still be mad that the "Greyhawk themes" were being used on a non-Greyhawk world? The only major difference would be the Red Larch info would be a generic place nobody heard of and that the Realms would have gotten a section in the back with the other conversion notes. ("Place near Sword Coast...")



the Jester said:


> Well, it's different in that Pathfinder has built Golarion as its only setting since day one- since BEFORE day one, actually! Of course nobody is clamoring at Paizo to release stuff set in its other settings; to the best of my knowledge, they don't have any. (And if they do, well, then obviously they've set something there, since otherwise it wouldn't exist.)




People have clamored for a new Pathfinder setting since 2009. Golarion is nice and a lot of people love its Greyhawk expy/Kitchen sink flavor, but people wanted them to make an "Eberron" or a "Ravenloft" or a "Planescape" setting. Paizo has resisted, and Golarion today is as dense in background as Toril or Oerth is today. 

I think there is a wise advantage to this; D&D (to my knowledge) is the only RPG (not labeled generic) that doesn't have a default setting. D&D has 7-15, depending on how you categorize them. Great for variety, but the brand is diluted by the fact that you and I don't speak of the same shared world they way a WoD or Pathfinder player does. (Ignoring for a moment homebrews; those exist for everything). So most players end up in their camps (Realmsians, Greyhawkers, Eberronites) and don't branch out. That divided the fanbase in a way Pathfinder has craft-fully avoided (so far).


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> I... don't know that I agree that choosing whether or not to support a D&D setting qualifies as a matter of "principle" one way or the other, but hey, whatever works.




For lack of a better term. You get what I'm saying.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (May 8, 2015)

I am doing the same thing (voting with my wallet, that is). So far I have bought every single thing WotC has released for 5e, whether I had a use for it or not. This edition is so damn good, I want them to keep doing what they are doing. Unless they crank up their release schedule to where I can't keep up anymore, the only thing I see myself not buying is a hypothetical psionics supplement (psionics don't really fit my D&D world view).


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

My point being I'm not going to buy something just because it's there. If I want RP material there are plenty of other books to mine. The 'buy something because it's available' mentality is what turned the US into a nation of debtors.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

S_Dalsgaard said:


> I am doing the same thing (voting with my wallet, that is). So far I have bought every single thing WotC has released for 5e, whether I had a use for it or not. This edition is so damn good, I want them to keep doing what they are doing. Unless they crank up their release schedule to where I can't keep up anymore, the only thing I see myself not buying is a hypothetical psionics supplement (psionics don't really fit my D&D world view).




 A very valid point.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 8, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> So, others have already explained why there's no functional difference, in play, between an FR adventure and a "generic" one; that it's exactly the same filing off of serial numbers. I want to address the whole "voting with your wallet" thing.
> 
> Obviously, you have that right. I would never suggest otherwise. I'm not remotely a fan of having all the adventures set in FR either. I want other worlds.
> 
> ...




If it gets them to move away from APs and produce source and splatbooks, I'm fine with it. 

If it gets them to say the PnP RPG market is not worth it and just move on, I'm fine with it too. Ryan Dancey did a great thing when he made the OGL. D&D can live on without the brand name.

It isn't like I'll buy D&D books just to make sure D&D survives. I want to buy them because I want them.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2015)

justinj3x3 said:


> My point being I'm not going to buy something just because it's there. If I want RP material there are plenty of other books to mine. The 'buy something because it's available' mentality is what turned the US into a nation of debtors.




Oh, absolutely. By no means should anyone buy something just because it's there.

All I'm saying is, make sure you (not _you_-you, but generic-you) are sending the message you mean to send, and are aware of any unintentional meaning.


----------



## justinj3x3 (May 8, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Oh, absolutely. By no means should anyone buy something just because it's there.
> 
> All I'm saying is, make sure you (not _you_-you, but generic-you) are sending the message you mean to send, and are aware of any unintentional meaning.




That's the catch 22! Ashttp://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?6785541-S_Dalsgaard S Dalsgaard stated above I want WOTC to get the message that 5e is being well received. They just need to put out a book on Greyhawk (for myself, replace Greyhawk for your own favorite campaign... and a book with more backgrounds while I'm being selfish.)


----------



## Corpsetaker (May 8, 2015)

I would like to go back to the Forgotten Realms discussion.

The thing about FR, or any setting for that matter, is that you can make it into whatever you want. Forgotten Realms can be a living breathing world where events take place all over the world that can have ever lasting effects that you get to take part in or read about, or it can be whatever you make of it. Unless you are running a game that involves the entire world, you don't have to worry about what Storm is doing over here, or Alustriel, or Elminster. They may not even exist in your games and if you don't like them, why would you keep them around? If you want to stick with running a canon Realms then yes, but if you had that much dislike then you wouldn't run a canon Realms in the first place. 

All you have to do is pick and area and go with it. You can pick the High Forest and be set from levels 1 through 20. The reason the Realms is used is because it has gotten the most attention from various authors through the years and it has some very iconic characters. 

The problem right now is the fact that the Realms are being mishandled. What makes that campaign setting special is all the deep and rich lore that encompasses the world. It is not the type of campaign setting you decide to go book lite with because it really defeats the purpose and magic of the setting. They should have created their own generic setting and used these AP's to introduce it bit by bit.


----------



## Mercule (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Huh? From my perspective, this is EXACTLY what they are doing! The core books ARE setting agnostic! The only setting products are the three existing or announced adventure paths . . . are you upset that they don't have the Forgotten Realms logo on the front cover? I don't understand . . . .



If you weren't selectively reading/quoting, it would probably help. Immediately prior to what you quoted, I said that I was concerned about their statements about the way the Realms would receive setting updates/support and that I wouldn't like that model regardless of what world was used. I have to assume that you're being intentionally obtuse, now.



> For the adventures paths, they had three options for settings:
> 
> 1) go with a classic, but less popular setting to launch our new edition
> 2) invent a new, generic fantasy setting rather than use the existing, popular generic fantasy setting we already have
> 3) use the Realms, because it's what most of our fans want, and it's generic enough that it can be easily ported to other settings without much fuss.



4) Give it a rest and support something, anything else along side the Realms.

I'm not actually convinced that "most ... fans want" everything set in the Realms. I'd guess that a plurality of fans do actually want that. I'd also expect that the majority either want it or are willing to accept it. There is a non-trivial subset that actively want something other than the Realms, though. If they announced anything that wasn't set in the Realms, it would appease the third group and not bother the middle.

What I'd like to see:
Year One: Support the Realms. Set the "Starter Set" in the Realms and do another AP or two there. Release a Campaign Setting or just a Gazetteer to put all the setting material in one spot. The Realms is the biggest seller, so it makes sense.

Year Two: Support Eberron (the #2 AFAIK). Set an AP there and release another Gazetteer or hardcover. If the Realms is that big of a machine, then make the autumn AP (assuming two a year is going to be standard) set in the Realms.

Year Three: Move on to Ravenloft (no clue what the #3 setting is). Release an AP and a setting book. Go ahead and use the autumn AP to support the Realms.

Year Four+: Rinse and repeat through at least a couple more settings (Greyhawk & Dark Sun would be my picks, YMMV). Continue as long as these publications pay for themselves.

Long term: Publish one AP per year in whatever the top dog setting is. Use the alternate AP to support one of the others.

That is how you build the D&D brand, rather than the Forgotten Realms brand. A savvy Brand Manager would know that he's sitting on a ton of separate brands. The D&D brand is only good for TTRPG and (maybe) video games. The published settings are where he could really suck people in. Of course, that could be what he's doing, just focusing on the Realms until it shows real fruit (say, a movie). To which I'd just ask that they toss us a bone.

FWIW, I'd totally buy every AP and setting book, if they followed my model, even those that I've traditionally disliked (Planescape, Realms). Knowing that there's a buffet being set, with each dish being expertly prepared to showcase the subject, I'm much more inclined to sample heavily. One of the reasons I rarely bought campaign settings is that I couldn't see myself using them, long term. Spending the time to be expert enough to run a setting in a non-generic way isn't a great ROI for one-off games. On the other hand, being able to pick up a full campaign for a setting would be awesome and make each one totally worthwhile. I'm sure some would call to me and I'd eventually loop back around, but that's what the annual FR repeat season would be for (for me).

Again, I don't hate-hate-hate the Realms. It has elements that I don't love and don't want to use, long term. I also don't want the D&D TTRPG brand to become synonymous with the transmedia Forgotten Realms brand (or that of any setting).


----------



## Staffan (May 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I find this kind of self-defeating. A generic adventure (say, akin to Red Hand of Doom, which uses the PHB deities but nothing Greyhawk or Realms-based) is just that; it doesn't fit in anything. I can't find more information on the people, factions, or what is beyond the edge of the Elsir Vale map* in RHoD. And as a "generic" module; it still sucks; it doesn't work in Eberron (No Tiamat, very different take on Goblinoids),



Tiamat is definitely a thing in Eberron - she's an Overlord with power over dragons who got kind of adopted into the draconic pantheon. She gets a sidebar in Dragons of Eberron. And Eberron hobgoblins are already fairly militaristic, so that part would fit as well. The main thing about RHOD that doesn't work all that well with Eberron is that it's shock-full of dragons, who are supposed to be aloof and mostly dwell on Argonessen, rather than act as enforcers for a hobgoblin army.


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> This bothers me not at all. In fact, I see it as a strength. Forgotten Realms is Ed Greenwood's home D&D campaign (yes, I know it predates D&D), and adding cool story elements from other sources is classic D&D. I do it in my own homebrew, and I enjoy seeing it (when done well), in the Realms.




I just want to clarify what I meant by "appropriating" things here, because I don't think I was clear.

I've no problem with the FR using generic D&D elements, or elements native to other campaign settings. What I dislike is when that generic or other-campaign element suddenly becomes a FR thing; in other words, instead of being in the Monster Manual it's in a book full of other, actual-FR-specific monsters that are too tied to the setting, contrived or goofy for me to use (e.g. tyrantfog zombies, beast of Xvim, weird FR-specific goblin types that are pretty much, you know, goblins, etc). I'm not too interested in those; I would rather buy an actual generic MM2 that includes my generic monsters, but they have been sucked into the Realms vortex, possibly never to return (? who knows- the peryton made it back from Faerun to 'generic' D&D, so there's hope!). I don't want to spend my money on a monster book that is 30% to 50% monsters I can't imagine using. (I'm using the 3e Monsters of Faerun as my unspoken example here; it included the firenewt, giant strider, leucrotta and a couple of other great monsters, all of which are originally generic D&D monsters).


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> For the adventures paths, they had three options for settings:
> 
> 1) go with a classic, but less popular setting to launch our new edition
> 2) invent a new, generic fantasy setting rather than use the existing, popular generic fantasy setting we already have
> ...




I'd add a fourth option- make an adventure that doesn't use any existing setting information; that is, something akin to the 'minisetting' that Red Hand of Doom used. 




Mercule said:


> Agreed. That's why I bought PotA. It's generic enough and promises to be a darn fun ride. I'd rather they not have Harpers, Zhents, etc. sprinkled about because I can't always tell when they're placeholder names used for a plot-important, but overall non-specific group vs. thrown in because some Realms fans might want to see names they know. I'm totally down with the former as an "implied setting" tool where I can scrub the serial numbers off. The latter makes me spend time figuring out whether it's important that that NPC is a member of the group and is going to show up in Act 4.
> 
> The line is very gray. I can't give you specific criteria. What I can tell you is that "Tyranny of Dragons" was on one side and "Princes of the Apocalypse" is on the other.




Interesting. I take it that PotA is on the "more generic, less FR" side of the line (at least as you perceive it)? Would you say that there are any FR elements that are vital enough to the adventure that it's hard to scrub 'em out?


----------



## the Jester (May 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I find this kind of self-defeating. A generic adventure (say, akin to Red Hand of Doom, which uses the PHB deities but nothing Greyhawk or Realms-based) is just that; it doesn't fit in anything. I can't find more information on the people, factions, or what is beyond the edge of the Elsir Vale map* in RHoD. And as a "generic" module; it still sucks; it doesn't work in Eberron (No Tiamat, very different take on Goblinoids), Mystara (no Tiamat, very different dragons), Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc. I MIGHT work ok in Dragonlance (assuming Tahkisis is using hobgoblins instead of draconians) but really, "generic" is code for "ok in Greyhawk and the Realms, your milage may very elsewhere."




Very good point, and one I hadn't much considered. Though, to be honest, I imagine that a Dark Sun DM is under no illusions about how easily she can convert, say, one of the early AD&D modules for her setting; with a few exceptions, generic modules have never been well-suited to the campaign settings that are more 'out there'.  



Remathilis said:


> Second, Your criticism of PotA defeats the idea of genericism. You claim PotA has "Greyhawk themes" in it; well, aside from the fact the original ToEE was on Oerth first, I fail to see the themes. So if PotA had been a generic module (say, put in a generic vale with generic stand-in deities) would you still be mad that the "Greyhawk themes" were being used on a non-Greyhawk world?




Nope! I would prefer a generic setting with suggestions for where to place it in the FR, GH, etc.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (May 8, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I'd add a fourth option- make an adventure that doesn't use any existing setting information; that is, something akin to the 'minisetting' that Red Hand of Doom used.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Names is pretty much the extent.


----------



## Agamon (May 9, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Interesting. I take it that PotA is on the "more generic, less FR" side of the line (at least as you perceive it)? Would you say that there are any FR elements that are vital enough to the adventure that it's hard to scrub 'em out?




I hope I don't sound like a broken record, but I can restate my opinion on this.  "Scrub" or "file" are the wrong words.  "Wipe with a clean cloth" maybe.  Perhaps, "sweep under the rug" is a better analogy.  It's as easy as ignoring the few times the words "Harper, Zhent, etc" are used (and yes, just completely ignore them, pretend they aren't there) and change the names of gods and towns/cities, if you're so inclined.  Bingo, no more FR.


----------



## Agamon (May 9, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Names is pretty much the extent.




Not only a ninja, but much more succinct.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 9, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I just want to clarify what I meant by "appropriating" things here, because I don't think I was clear.
> 
> I've no problem with the FR using generic D&D elements, or elements native to other campaign settings. What I dislike is when that generic or other-campaign element suddenly becomes a FR thing; in other words, instead of being in the Monster Manual it's in a book full of other, actual-FR-specific monsters that are too tied to the setting, contrived or goofy for me to use (e.g. tyrantfog zombies, beast of Xvim, weird FR-specific goblin types that are pretty much, you know, goblins, etc). I'm not too interested in those; I would rather buy an actual generic MM2 that includes my generic monsters, but they have been sucked into the Realms vortex, possibly never to return (? who knows- the peryton made it back from Faerun to 'generic' D&D, so there's hope!). I don't want to spend my money on a monster book that is 30% to 50% monsters I can't imagine using. (I'm using the 3e Monsters of Faerun as my unspoken example here; it included the firenewt, giant strider, leucrotta and a couple of other great monsters, all of which are originally generic D&D monsters).




I was both (slightly) annoyed and (greatly) loved Monsters of Faerun, and I although I don't look at it the same way you do, I agree it would have been better to fold those monsters into one of the hardback Monster Manual releases. The handful of truly FR-specific monsters really aren't all that tied to the Realms and work fine as "standard" D&D monsters, i.e. the "Beast of Xvim" could just as easily drop the association with Xvim and be called the "Beast of Random Evil God". And of course, most of the monsters in that book WERE "standard" D&D creatures!

But trade dress, logos, and titles don't bother me, and I never wasted much energy on bemoaning FR's "appropriation" of many classic D&D baddies. The monsters in the book were fun, the artwork was great, the print quality was superb . . . only downside was the skinny page count and softcover, but I didn't let those get me down (much) either. I was happy to add Monsters of Faerun to my Monster Manual collection!

Really, monster book or adventure path . . . all you gotta do is ignore the FR names (or repurpose them) and you're good to go!


----------



## Dire Bare (May 9, 2015)

the Jester said:


> I'd add a fourth option- make an adventure that doesn't use any existing setting information; that is, something akin to the 'minisetting' that Red Hand of Doom used.




How is that different from creating a brand new generic fantasy setting? How is the Elsir Vale of Red Hand of Doom all that different from the Nentir Vale of the 4th edition? Level of detail over time is about it as far as I'm concerned.

And really, how is that all that different from using the Realms with a light touch as in Princes of Apocalypse? How truly different is using Elsir Vale over using the Dessarin Valley?

I just don't get it. Still. Without trying to trivialize the opinions of those who don't care for the Realms, it really seems to me like a mental block rather than a real issue. Just seeing the words "Forgotten Realms" or "Drizzt Do'Urden" in print seems to set some folks into a tizzy before they really have any information about a new product.


----------



## Shasarak (May 9, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> So, others have already explained why there's no functional difference, in play, between an FR adventure and a "generic" one; that it's exactly the same filing off of serial numbers. I want to address the whole "voting with your wallet" thing.
> 
> Obviously, you have that right. I would never suggest otherwise. I'm not remotely a fan of having all the adventures set in FR either. I want other worlds.
> 
> ...




That is why you should always combine "voting with your wallet" together with "complaining on the internet" so that accounting can tell exactly why the latest adventure only earned enough for one gold plated hot tub.


----------



## Mistwell (May 9, 2015)

the Jester said:


> For me, the point is, "Dear WotC, you would get more of my money if you had some adventures that weren't set in the FR".




This is not a good method of communicating that sort of thing to WOTC.  Twitter, email, customer service message, etc. are all much better than posting complaints to this message board.


----------



## HobbitFan (May 9, 2015)

I don't mind WOTC focusing on the Realms.  
My thing is that shouldn't be the only thing they are doing.  It shouldn't monopolize all rpg products, as well as organized play.  
And if they are going to focus on the realms they should utilize the Realms and UPDATE.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 9, 2015)

They are doing two APs a year. Why not have one in the FR and the other in a different setting? The hyper focus on the FR for many years to come is disappointing. 

Right now Rage of Drizzt looks like a lot of effort to import Planescape to the FR, well the Sword Coast, instead of letting PCs explore the planes. There was talk of Strahd earlier in this thread. If he is ever used, he'll be imported to the FR.


----------



## Quickleaf (May 9, 2015)

I'm not sure if anyone posted this info about Green Ronin's Rage of Demons book yet, but from Dragon+



> The Underdark is a subterranean wonderland, a vast and twisted labyrinth where fear reigns. It is the home of horrific monsters that have never seen the light of day. It is here that the dark elf Gromph Baenre, Archmage of Menzoberranzan, casts a foul spell meant to ignite a magical energy that suffuses the Underdark and tears open portals to the demonic Abyss. What steps through surprises even him, and from that moment on, the insanity that pervades the Underdark escalates and threatens to shake the Forgotten Realms to its foundations. Stop the madness before it consumes you!
> 
> A Dungeons & Dragons adventure for characters of levels 1–15


----------



## MonsterEnvy (May 9, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They are doing two APs a year. Why not have one in the FR and the other in a different setting? The hyper focus on the FR for many years to come is disappointing.
> 
> Right now Rage of Drizzt looks like a lot of effort to import Planescape to the FR, well the Sword Coast, instead of letting PCs explore the planes. There was talk of Strahd earlier in this thread. If he is ever used, he'll be imported to the FR.




No. Demons have always shown up in the FR this has nothing to do even slightly with Planescape. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Shasarak (May 9, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Right now Rage of Drizzt looks like a lot of effort to import Planescape to the FR, well the Sword Coast, instead of letting PCs explore the planes. There was talk of Strahd earlier in this thread. If he is ever used, he'll be imported to the FR.




Manshoon is still a Vampire, right?

I mean he is almost identical to Strahd except in Cormyr which is almost identical to Barovia!

Nobody would notice the difference.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (May 9, 2015)

I am currently trying to port both Red Hand of Doom and PotA into my own setting for a sort of mega campaign thingie and I would say that both are about equal in terms of how much I have to change to make it fit. It is more or less just names of gods and organizations that has to be changed. I am using the map from Red Hand of Doom as the Elsir Vale fit rather nicely into my campaign map, so I also have to fit PotA into that map, but that is fairly easy too. If I had ported the PotA map instead, it would have been Red Hand of Doom that took a little more effort.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 9, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> No. Demons have always shown up in the FR this has nothing to do even slightly with Planescape. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.




Gromph opens portals to the Abyss and the Abyss comes to the Realms. Pretty straight foreward Planescape importation.

Rise of Tiamat is considered to be Krynn inspire. PotA Greyhawk inspired. Here it is Planescape. Just a continuation of the formula WotC is using with its APs.


----------



## teitan (May 9, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Gromph opens portals to the Abyss and the Abyss comes to the Realms. Pretty straight foreward Planescape importation.
> 
> Rise of Tiamat is considered to be Krynn inspire. PotA Greyhawk inspired. Here it is Planescape. Just a continuation of the formula WotC is using with its APs.




That doesn't make it Planescape inspired because by that logic anything having to do with abyssal demons and portals etc. IS Planescape inspired. Now had it mentioned Sigil and factions or the Blood War, I'd give it to you but you're reaching like a fat kid for a nonexistent cup cake. Planescape had a certain style, a certain way things were done and this doesn't appear to pay any lip service to any of that. I also think people who say the Tiamat AP was Dragonlance are reaching just as much.


----------



## Wicht (May 9, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> No. Demons have always shown up in the FR this has nothing to do even slightly with Planescape. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.




In fairness to Goldomark, in the thread showcasing the art, it has been observed that it is reminiscent of planescapes art; and the whole Alice in Wonderland vibe coupled with the references to madness and insanity make it sound like it is meant to be a blend of whimsy and darkness,  which is, I think something of a Planecape vibe.


----------



## Henry (May 9, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> That is why you should always combine "voting with your wallet" together with "complaining on the internet" so that accounting can tell exactly why the latest adventure only earned enough for one gold plated hot tub.



I think you meant "only one tin-bound wooden wash tub, and a $4.99 special from McDonald's." Based on what they charge for this stuff, we have a pretty good idea of the profits they bring in.


----------



## Iosue (May 9, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Agreed. That's why I bought PotA. It's generic enough and promises to be a darn fun ride. I'd rather they not have Harpers, Zhents, etc. sprinkled about because I can't always tell when they're placeholder names used for a plot-important, but overall non-specific group vs. thrown in because some Realms fans might want to see names they know. I'm totally down with the former as an "implied setting" tool where I can scrub the serial numbers off. The latter makes me spend time figuring out whether it's important that that NPC is a member of the group and is going to show up in Act 4.
> 
> The line is very gray. I can't give you specific criteria. What I can tell you is that "Tyranny of Dragons" was on one side and "Princes of the Apocalypse" is on the other.




I know exactly what you mean.  I've been running Tyranny of Dragons converted to run in Krynn, and there's just a lot of grunt work involved.  The adventure goes up and down the Sword Coast, so you have to essentially "location scout" to find roughly comparable regions and cities.  It heavily involves the factions -- one of the PCs' jobs is to unite the factions -- so you have to find rough equivalents for them.  It involves famous landmarks of the Realms, like Baldur's Gate, so there's adjusting for that, and a lot of description and flavor that you just can't use.  You have NPCs that are, for example, Red Wizards of Thay, and the reasons they do things that they do are because they are Red Wizards of Thay.  Or Harpers, or whatever.

Conversely, Princes of the Apocalypse (and Lost Mine of Phandelver, for that matter) revolve around very local, small scale settings, so they calque quite easily into any other setting, published or homebrewed.  You don't even really _have_ to change many of the names.  We're not talking Realms trademarks like Waterdeep here.  The factions are there, but they are just hooks for the characters, not integral parts of the adventure, so they are real easy to convert as needed, or ignore altogether.  It's just altogether a much painless conversion.


----------



## Mephista (May 9, 2015)

teitan said:


> That doesn't make it Planescape inspired because by that logic anything having to do with abyssal demons and portals etc. IS Planescape inspired. Now had it mentioned Sigil and factions or the Blood War, I'd give it to you but you're reaching like a fat kid for a nonexistent cup cake. Planescape had a certain style, a certain way things were done and this doesn't appear to pay any lip service to any of that. I also think people who say the Tiamat AP was Dragonlance are reaching just as much.



 While I agree that its a very large stretch to say that this is pulling in Planescape (the Abyss has been around in settings long before Planescape was made), Tiamat / Takhesis entering a world and wrecking havoc via magical ritual/portal has been a huge plot point of the Dragonlance setting.   So many of the novels in that setting revolve around it.    And Temple of Elemental Evil kind of did originate in Greyhawk...

So, the latter two really do have a bit of basis, if a bit of understandable exaggeration to them.   Abyssal monsters crawling into the Underdark automatically equating to Planescape?  Yeah, not seeing it.   The Underdark doesn't transfer to Planescape very well, and the Abyss has been very madness-and-insanity inducing for years now.    Planescape does not have a monopoly on the Outer Planes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 9, 2015)

Wicht said:


> In fairness to Goldomark, in the thread showcasing the art, it has been observed that it is reminiscent of planescapes art; and the whole Alice in Wonderland vibe coupled with the references to madness and insanity make it sound like it is meant to be a blend of whimsy and darkness,  which is, I think something of a Planecape vibe.




It remains to be seen if this AP is truly in a PS vein or not, I think. The basics of the plot (demons invade the underdark and spread madness) isn't inherently PS-y. It's a pretty generic setup. But the art certainly has that "dark whimsy" that DiTerlizzi did well. A PSy vibe is more than that dark whimsy, but that is certainly a part of it. 

I suppose if you can persuade Demogorgon to reconsider his invasion by making him realize that his invasion will just trigger an exodus of people fleeing to the Lawful Good bastions of hope and will ultimately weaken the cause of Chaos and Evil in the area, I might confess to it being PS-y.


----------



## Wicht (May 9, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It remains to be seen if this AP is truly in a PS vein or not, I think. )




Sure, and I'm agnostic on whether it will be or not.


----------



## teitan (May 9, 2015)

Mephista said:


> While I agree that its a very large stretch to say that this is pulling in Planescape (the Abyss has been around in settings long before Planescape was made), Tiamat / Takhesis entering a world and wrecking havoc via magical ritual/portal has been a huge plot point of the Dragonlance setting.   So many of the novels in that setting revolve around it.    And Temple of Elemental Evil kind of did originate in Greyhawk...
> 
> So, the latter two really do have a bit of basis, if a bit of understandable exaggeration to them.   Abyssal monsters crawling into the Underdark automatically equating to Planescape?  Yeah, not seeing it.   The Underdark doesn't transfer to Planescape very well, and the Abyss has been very madness-and-insanity inducing for years now.    Planescape does not have a monopoly on the Outer Planes.




I didn't say anything about PotA did I? Lol and no, the dragon hoard stuff and Tiamat has been a plot hook in FR since the beginning with the Cult of the Dragon and well, its a pretty generic idea. It's a GOD trying to come through to the material plane. The cult is trying to pull that off... Sounds like Tharizdun or Bane or a lot of fantasy novels. The Tiamat series, omg is a rip off of Conan the Destroyer! Holy Snikeys! Burn WOTC!

It's been the stated goal of the Cult of the Dragon for decades. Now had Tiamat created five dragon armies and wreaked havoc in the Realms, while fighting a war with Bahamut etc. Then you'd all be onto something.a god trying to manifest on the prime using her cult is pretty generic. Oh and takhisis wasn't trying to COME to Krynn. Fat kids, invisible cup cake. Superman and Shazam must be the same characte!


----------



## Irennan (May 9, 2015)

teitan said:


> Lol and no, the dragon hoard stuff and Tiamat has been a plot hook in FR since the beginning with the Cult of the Dragon and well




Actually, WotC changed the Cult of Dragon by pointing it towards a completely new direction and had Tiamat all of sudden trapped in Hell, when that wasn't the case in FR, in order to make the ToD plot fit (and Ed Greenwood had to spin _how_ that came to happen, since WotC's official answer didn't really exist, so this: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19841&whichpage=7#464818 is the current canon about it). 

I agree that it is a pretty generic plot (on the other hand, all these plots are very generic), but one thematically iconic to DL, rather than FR IMHO.


----------



## Mephista (May 9, 2015)

teitan said:


> Oh and takhisis wasn't trying to COME to Krynn. Fat kids, invisible cup cake.



 Stop being insulting - it does you no favors.  Takhesis was trying to manifest in her full glory on Krynn, and she needed her people to do it.  Its a major plot point in the second trilogy, making it a traditional Dragonlance plot.  That's pretty much undeniable.   The comparison is there, irregardless if you like it or not.

Further, the Cult of the Dragon has always had a laser focus on dracoliches and undead dragons, not living.   Their actions in Rise of Tiamat is a direct departure from their usual role, repurposed for the sake of the plot.


----------



## Jeff Albertson (May 9, 2015)

Mephista said:


> irregardless





Just so you know, that is not a word.


----------



## Mercule (May 9, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Interesting. I take it that PotA is on the "more generic, less FR" side of the line (at least as you perceive it)? Would you say that there are any FR elements that are vital enough to the adventure that it's hard to scrub 'em out?



Considerably more generic. Not quite so much as Phandelver, but I'm ascribing that to it simply being bigger and that a "campaign in a box" needs a bit of flavor. After reading through the whole thing once, and the "home base" a few times, I haven't found anything that can't be separated.

Several Realms-specific organizations (Harpers, Zhentarim, Order of the Gauntlet, etc.) are called out and have agents in the area. So far, I see no reason why any of them couldn't be either ignored or converted to "local thieves' guild", "random order of knights errant", etc. That's the big concern, though, isn't it? Missing a single sentence somewhere that the key to moving forward depends on some sort of tie between two NPCs or the PCs having to belong to any of the groups or something similar. 

Over all, though, it seems like you could just pull it out and use it as a starting place for a brand new campaign setting, like most of us did way back when. The biggest-scale map measures about 250 x 370 miles. If my math and Wikipedia are correct, is just shy of the size of the UK (92,500 sq. mi. vs 94,060 sq. mi). That's pretty darn big, but it's a frontier with the population density (and governance) of South Dakota, circa 1870. Actually, the area is only a little bigger than SD. If you annexed about 50 miles of N. Dakota and turned the whole thing 90 degrees, it'd be about right, including climate and terrain. The spacing of the towns is probably about right, too. 

That size, of course, may be a negative to inserting it into an existing setting. Even Eberron, which is generally considered pretty vast and underpopulated, struggles to fit it in the suggested locations, while retaining scale. For a Greyhawk reference, it's roughly the size of the entire kingdom of Veluna. I'm actually looking at redrawing the map, entirely, and combining a couple of the outlying towns that have little info about them. I've heard there may be a misprint on the map scale, but I have nothing to confirm it against.

While both Waterdeep and Neverwinter are mentioned, it's vague enough that they may as well have said "There're a couple of big cities within a seriously inconvenient, but not-absurd ride." That's about the level of intrusion of most things. I'm not entirely sure what to do with the "Stone Bridge", which is a fairly unique landmark that I wouldn't want to export to another setting. It's not directly important to the adventure, but it does impact travel in the area and makes some of the back-road discovery unlikely. Maybe just replacing it with a washed out bridge or treacherous fjord would be enough, though.

Short form: It's reasonably easy to scrub. The two biggest issues are 1) double-checking whether the specific organizations are important and 2) the shear size of the map, even though specific places aren't important. Hope that helps. Who knows; maybe that even helps some of the folks saying "the Realms are generic" to see why it isn't so simple.


----------



## Parmandur (May 9, 2015)

Appendix C is somewhat revealing; for Dragonlance, it replaces the Harpers with "Benevolent locals." The factions are flavorful hooks, bit easily altered.


----------



## Selvarin (May 11, 2015)

Just ignore the Drizzt bit and create a character that's just iconic for your setting and more interesting. (Yes, throwing Drizzt in there was calculated and 'hammy', so get rid of the pork.)

As far as somewhat more interesting believable characters, I'd just as soon 'port Aral Kingslayer (a non-FR holy mage/assassin type from the Fallen Blades series by Kelly McCullough) and replace Drizzt. He does have a 'whiff of Drizzt' in him--those insipid vocal inner doubts that get boring/annoying, etc.--but he isn't iconic drow ranger. Come to think of it, Aral is the perfect middle ground between Drizzt and Artemis...

Unlike assassins in most D&D worlds, Aral has a shadow familiar named Triss who aids him in gliding between buildings, hiding, advantage against crits, etc., but it comes at a price: HP and spells can be drained when Triss is hurt. So it has a few drawbacks as well.

It may not be a FR fix but then again...the Realms connect to various places.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (May 12, 2015)

Mercule said:


> What I'd like to see:
> Year One: Support the Realms. Set the "Starter Set" in the Realms and do another AP or two there. Release a Campaign Setting or just a Gazetteer to put all the setting material in one spot. The Realms is the biggest seller, so it makes sense.
> 
> Year Two: Support Eberron (the #2 AFAIK). Set an AP there and release another Gazetteer or hardcover. If the Realms is that big of a machine, then make the autumn AP (assuming two a year is going to be standard) set in the Realms.
> ...




THIS is the best idea I have ever read for updating all the D&D campaigns!! I would probably put aside money from every paycheck just to get each and every single book if WoTC did this. I love it!! This would be awesome!!


----------



## Trickster Spirit (May 12, 2015)

Mercule said:


> What I'd like to see:
> Year One: Support the Realms. Set the "Starter Set" in the Realms and do another AP or two there. Release a Campaign Setting or just a Gazetteer to put all the setting material in one spot. The Realms is the biggest seller, so it makes sense.
> 
> Year Two: Support Eberron (the #2 AFAIK). Set an AP there and release another Gazetteer or hardcover. If the Realms is that big of a machine, then make the autumn AP (assuming two a year is going to be standard) set in the Realms.
> ...




Would you be happy with this plan if the time scale were doubled? I.e. instead of Forgotten Realms in Year 1, Eberron in Year 2, etc. etc., it's Forgotten Realms for Years 1-2, Eberron for Years 2-3, and so on. 

Because "Year 1" technically ends in July with the anniversary of the Starter Set's release, and we know that Out of the Abyss will be "officially" set in the Forgotten Realms (but likely be easily portable to any setting's Underdark). So they're not on track to hit your annual changeover, but it's possible that you're describing the exact model they're looking to go with, just slightly off on the timing of it.

What if it were tripled, but they overlapped setting releases? I.e. in Year 3 they continued to release Forgotten Realms APs and capped it off with a big FRCS book, but also started releasing Eberron (or Greyhawk, or Ravenloft, or what-have-you) APs concurrently that year as well?


----------



## Mercule (May 12, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Would you be happy with this plan if the time scale were doubled? I.e. instead of Forgotten Realms in Year 1, Eberron in Year 2, etc. etc., it's Forgotten Realms for Years 1-2, Eberron for Years 2-3, and so on.
> 
> Because "Year 1" technically ends in July with the anniversary of the Starter Set's release, and we know that Out of the Abyss will be "officially" set in the Forgotten Realms (but likely be easily portable to any setting's Underdark). So they're not on track to hit your annual changeover, but it's possible that you're describing the exact model they're looking to go with, just slightly off on the timing of it.
> 
> What if it were tripled, but they overlapped setting releases? I.e. in Year 3 they continued to release Forgotten Realms APs and capped it off with a big FRCS book, but also started releasing Eberron (or Greyhawk, or Ravenloft, or what-have-you) APs concurrently that year as well?



You have a really good point about the year starting in July. However you want to slice it, I'm assuming two APs per year with one of them being not FR. Even though I said "autumn", it was semi-arbitrary because I was counting the alternate setting as being the marquee with the Realms support as less important to the discussion. I'm also not too partial to whether the setting guide comes first or last in a cycle; I can see an argument both ways.

The first paragraph you cut has an acknowledgement that they could be doing what I was suggesting, just more slowly. If that's two years of the Realms, then Eberron gets marquee treatment for a couple years, and so on, it wouldn't be bad -- assuming Eberron really does get half the attention or better. The point of FR getting the "autumn" release, though was that it would get one support AP for each cycle, while everything else (the other AP, a setting book) would be focused on something else. That means that Eberron would get 3 out of the 4 APs for that cycle. The next cycle, Greyhawk would get 3 APs and a setting book, while FR got 1.

If, as so many folks have asserted in this thread, those three settings are all reasonably "generic" and anything written for one is easy to port, there should be no objection to that. Eberron gets one AP that really hits things like the Dragonmarked houses and/or the Mournland hard. It gets released between two APs that are set in the Realms. The next year, two generally vanilla APs are set in Eberron, but they have conversion guides akin to PotA. The next release is a full Greyhawk AP, then a Realms AP, then 2 more, vanilla APs set in Greyhawk.

One of the big reason why there's heartburn among fans of other settings (or foes of the Realms, if you prefer) is that what's been said about other settings has been somewhere between "yeah, someday" and "don't hold your breath". Having some idea on scope would be nice. While the Eberron doc that Mearls put together was a nice bone, I sure hope that's not all we get for support. Even "We expect to stay with Forgotten Realms for 5 years," would have been better than "foreseeable future", or whatever the wording was. 

A three-year cycle would please me less, but it'd be something, especially if there was overlap. Assuming Eberron is second, I think five to six years is a long time to ask fans of the #3 setting to wait to get any real love. And 7-9 years for #4? Ouch. Based on history, that's practically the same thing as saying "not this edition". Realistically, I get that some settings just don't have the existing fan base to justify publishing much, if anything, and don't look like they have anything that would cause a new fan base to develop. I just have a hard time believing the Realms is the only thing that does have the fan base. If that's the case, then I'd still like to see several "settingless" adventures published so that it's clear D&D and Forgotten Realms aren't synonymous. If the Realms are a bigger brand than even D&D, then either find a way to extract the FR brand from D&D and sell D&D or let third parties give them a try. Keith Baker has said (IIRC) that he'd be up for taking a shot at a 5E conversion of Eberron.

I'd be fine, even well-disposed, towards an overlapping schedule, especially if it allowed for settings beyond FR to receive ongoing support. I like the annual cycle is because I know there are some settings that don't have enough interest to support more than one book. One of the things that excited me about the annual cycle was that I realized that I'd play almost any setting for a single AP, but anything more than that feels too "locked in"; that's one of the reasons why I didn't buy most of the 2E settings. 

If we could get a third AP each year, it would make overlapping grand, as you'd be able to have two APs dedicated to money makers, with one of those being tightly coupled and flavorful. The third could be for one-off products. I wouldn't think you'd need the third slot for a couple years, though, unless people are really going through two APs in a year.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (May 13, 2015)

Mercule said:


> One of the big reason why there's heartburn among fans of other settings (or foes of the Realms, if you prefer) is that what's been said about other settings has been somewhere between "yeah, someday" and "don't hold your breath". Having some idea on scope would be nice. While the Eberron doc that Mearls put together was a nice bone, I sure hope that's not all we get for support. Even "We expect to stay with Forgotten Realms for 5 years," would have been better than "foreseeable future", or whatever the wording was.
> 
> A three-year cycle would please me less, but it'd be something, especially if there was overlap. Assuming Eberron is second, I think five to six years is a long time to ask fans of the #3 setting to wait to get any real love. And 7-9 years for #4? Ouch. Based on history, that's practically the same thing as saying "not this edition".




On the other hand, if WotC's intention is for 5E to last twice or thrice as long as previous editions, that could be the reason they're not rushing to put out material for multiple settings at once - it could be that 5E will see exactly the same amount of setting products as the last two editions, just over a longer timeframe.

It would make sense that if they spaced out their releases more, two things would happen: A) peoples wallets would have time to recover between products, and B) people's appetite for another D&D setting product would recover as well. Sure, we hardcore fans will always want more, more, more, but I bet you that they're seeing a larger percentage of the player base buy each release just because they've not saturated the market with other releases. If you're at a restaurant, sure it's great at first if they keep bringing out more food for you to try, but eventually you're going to get full, even if you're a gourmand who loves all of the dishes. Wizards might just be giving everyone time to digest between courses. 

Of course, some folks are getting hungry and threatening to go to another restaurant. Time will tell if Wizards is misjudging the window of time it takes to "digest" but I'd expect they've nailed the amount of time the average player waits between purchases. We're all probably outliers as we're big enough fans to go out of our way talking about D&D in our spare time on online forums.  

Right now it's APs they're limiting themselves to, but the same logic would apply to campaign settings and player's option books. They might come out with plenty of those over the lifetime of the edition, but if they're planning a 20 year edition instead of a 4 year edition, we'll see 5x the amount of time between those books as we all originally expected.



Mercule said:


> If we could get a third AP each year, it would make overlapping grand, as you'd be able to have two APs dedicated to money makers, with one of those being tightly coupled and flavorful. The third could be for one-off products. I wouldn't think you'd need the third slot for a couple years, though, unless people are really going through two APs in a year.




I think we may eventually get a third AP after another year or two, as I think it's less about people going through two or more APs in a year, and more about having a library of campaigns for newcomers and time-crunched DMs to jump into. I think the prep-time requirements are one of the hobby's weakest points, and that the APs are their solution to that. TTRPGs have so many advantages over video games and other forms of entertainment but the one area they'll never compete in is ease of use. APs at least minimize the work a DM has to put in to get a campaign off the ground. I'm fairly positive the casual audience is an order of magnitude or two larger than the hardcore fanbase, so it's likely smartest for them to focus on making it easy for them to remain in the hobby as customers / brand ambassadors.

(I also think somewhat paradoxically that prep-work can also be one of the hobby's greatest strengths, as a skilled DM can tailor make a campaign that evolves with the players' choices and is 1000x more interesting than a canned AP could ever be.)


----------



## Mercule (May 13, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> On the other hand, if WotC's intention is for 5E to last twice or thrice as long as previous editions, that could be the reason they're not rushing to put out material for multiple settings at once - it could be that 5E will see exactly the same amount of setting products as the last two editions, just over a longer timeframe.
> 
> It would make sense that if they spaced out their releases more, two things would happen: A) peoples wallets would have time to recover between products, and B) people's appetite for another D&D setting product would recover as well. Sure, we hardcore fans will always want more, more, more, but I bet you that they're seeing a larger percentage of the player base buy each release just because they've not saturated the market with other releases. If you're at a restaurant, sure it's great at first if they keep bringing out more food for you to try, but eventually you're going to get full, even if you're a gourmand who loves all of the dishes. Wizards might just be giving everyone time to digest between courses.
> 
> ...



I agree with the general thoughts behind most of the above. As I've said, though, my problems are two-fold: 1) I don't want any setting to become synonymous with the D&D brand, 2) I especially don't like FR being the only supported setting.

While I'm partial to Eberron being the second supported setting, the truth is that it would make me almost as happy for them to publish a module for Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or Dark Sun. That holds true even if they then ignored everything not FR for two years. The ideal is first class support for a non-Realms setting, but the real critical piece, IMO, is to clearly telegraph that FR does not have a publication monopoly at WotC.

My two AP per year schedule speaks to me, personally. It also seems to make other "anti-Realms" folks happy. I think it strikes a balance between supporting their "money maker" and giving other brands some love and a chance to grow. Some variation on that theme would be a lot more "hobby-friendly" than the current model, IMO. Regardless, Realms exclusivity seems like it'd be a self-perpetuating policy: The Realms gets the love because it's the most recognized brand; because it gets all the love, no one recognizes other brands.

The (fairly small) conspiracy theorist in me suspects that the "selling of 5E to Hasbro" that Mearls did included selling FR as a transmedia brand. So, Hasbro green-lit 5E, specifically as a nostalgia system that feels "old school" and is gives a sense of continuity for video games, etc. FR gets published because it can make some money. The design/development team would like to support other settings, in some form, but Hasbro wants to maximize their ROI so the direction is to stick with the Realms. The D&D team is hoping to show enough competency with FR that they can make a case for doing the same with another setting brand, as well. They don't know how long that'll take (or, probably, what the measure of success actually is), so they have to play it coy. In truth, Hasbro may well keep moving that measure out, because the TTRPG will always be seen as a token to make the video game and book business "authentic".



> I think we may eventually get a third AP after another year or two, as I think it's less about people going through two or more APs in a year, and more about having a library of campaigns for newcomers and time-crunched DMs to jump into. I think the prep-time requirements are one of the hobby's weakest points, and that the APs are their solution to that. TTRPGs have so many advantages over video games and other forms of entertainment but the one area they'll never compete in is ease of use. APs at least minimize the work a DM has to put in to get a campaign off the ground. I'm fairly positive the casual audience is an order of magnitude or two larger than the hardcore fanbase, so it's likely smartest for them to focus on making it easy for them to remain in the hobby as customers / brand ambassadors.
> 
> (I also think somewhat paradoxically that prep-work can also be one of the hobby's greatest strengths, as a skilled DM can tailor make a campaign that evolves with the players' choices and is 1000x more interesting than a canned AP could ever be.)



I can agree with this, too. When I was younger, I spent dozens of hours, every week, doing prep work. I built an entire game world and advanced it with what the players did as part of the adventures I created. Now that I have a 40+ hour job, four kids, and volunteer time, I need the published adventures and appreciate the published settings. I also have appreciably more cash to throw at my hobby.

I'm in the demographic that would happily drop $500 a year on D&D goods, possibly more if it was really good stuff. I'd love to be able to throw money at WotC/Hasbro. I'm not so much interested in bashing or squashing FR (or anything else) as I am in letting Hasbro know how to take my money. Part of that is in being open about what's going to drive me to go elsewhere for a meal and not check for when they add pizza back onto the menu. If I knew what was up next, I might settle in and try FR again; tastes change.

IMO, 5E is the best version of D&D, to date. They did an amazing job. I'd really like to be able to continue to patronize them. Please stop using so much garlic, though.


----------



## mouselim (May 13, 2015)

*Oh man... *



Corrosive said:


> Where can I get hold of the critically acclaimed version of Tyranny of Dragons?




I'm totally with you on this...haha!!


----------



## Sunsword (May 16, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> If it's in the current Drizzt novel timeline that remains to be seen. The last Drizzt novels happened before ToD and I don't think that the drow will sit idle for years




Don't think he'll sit idle either.  I'm just relaying the date of the next book.


----------

