# WotC's Chris Perkins Talks About... Everything! Upcoming Storylines, Products, Staffing, Other World



## darjr (Nov 22, 2015)

*Chris Perkins Cryptically Spills the Next Story*

At Game Hole Con Chris Perkins tells us all what the next story for the next season is. Note it's in the middle of a bunch of things he says but it's there.
Also he talks about not being in the Realms, very son now.

He goes a bit in depth about the business model. I think it's brilliant but I know folks don't all agree with me. I will note that it doesn't rule out splats altogether, just that anything released will be part of the story for that season.

Also he hints at a couple of playtests at the con. Cloak and Dagger, one to do with an ancient temple gone bad, and the other with raiding the burial mounds of ancient Barbarian tribes.

And I haven't listed to all of it yet!

I first heard about the talk from Misdirected Marks Down With DND.

Oh and he talks about consulting with folks like Pendleton Ward (and he said it was fantastic).

Listen to it all at the Gaming and BS Podcast.

I know what other con I'm going to next year!
 [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Nov 23, 2015)

You know it's interesting, they're taking a very MTG like model with this- each card pack rotating into standard is part of a specific story "season" "innistrad, zendikar, etc" and while Magic operates by making things illegal in the current standard after a certain period of time both for balance reasons (modern and legacy are not balanced for example) and to force their dedicated players to keep buying cards, that won't really apply to us (depending on what AL does i guess.) Instead, we'll just get things as we get the corresponding story material- which means I think we can expect the trend of adventures like Out of the Abyss (being insanely awesome) to continue with more stuff coming out in tandem with it. TBH this is the way it's been working so far- consider that SCAG was supposed to be released alongside Out of the Abyss, Princes of the Apocalypse had the Player Companion etc.


----------



## Rhenny (Nov 23, 2015)

Thanks for the link.  Really, I just like listening to Chris Perkins speak.  His description and logic energize and relax me to no end.  I'm so glad he is overseeing the stories of D&D.


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

You can almost hear the wheels turning while he talks about the lost tomb, and dinosaurs. He really does sound like he's having a great time.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 23, 2015)

Not in the Realms?! I don't care what world* they jump to: I'm buying everything for the next season.

*Okay, I care. I'm hoping Eberron. But, I'd almost buy a couple years worth of product supporting My Little Pony and Care Bears, just to drive the numbers away from the Realms.


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

I'm not sure he meant the next season.


----------



## JohnLynch (Nov 23, 2015)

darjr said:


> I'm not sure he meant the next season.



Adventurer's League operates in a seasonal model. It's most likely what he meant by season.

I reckon we'll get a connective adventure using one of the connective settings that lets people take their Forgotten Realms character's (and their Forgotten Realms knowledge) and allows them to utilise it in another campaign setting. It also gives WotC a clear line of succession from people of the current product to the new one in the form of an adventure. So it will be something like: A group of mid to high level adventurers hear word of a cult-like enemy in such and such place of the Sword Coast. When they go and investigate they:

feel the mists of Ravenloft envelop them and whisk them away to a Domain of Dread; 
discover an ancient portal that has only just become dormant but takes them to Sigil OR 
an ancient spelljammer ship that has been getting repaired and is now spaceworthy so long as the PCs manage to wrest it from the bad guys. 
As they continue to chase down the enemy and discover what's really going on they find themselves travelling to:

Greyhawk 
Eberron 
Dragonlance OR 
Mystara. 
Upon defeating the enemy they find themselves with a new continent to explore and so continue on the (portion of a) continent.

I personally have no problem with this whatsoever. As a fan of the Forgotten Realms traveling from world to world sounds like a lot of fun to me. If I were to run a Forgotten Realms campaign for players who are in my Pathfinder group I would most likely take some of their retired characters (from various campaigns), convert those characters to D&D 5th edition and then give them a plothook that solves a long standing mystery of Golarion which would require them to then travel to the Forgotten Realms to fully discover that mystery. I would pepper it with lots of classic Dungeons & Dragons IP that you can't normally find in Golarion so they can be introduced to this brand new world while still in Golarion and their knowledge checks would reflect these creatures are not of this world. In fact it'd be hilarious to have my characters be both the connective tissue and also the villain. My characters were clones of Manshoon who had been polymorphed to look different, brainwashed and then inserted into Golarion society as sleeper agents to be activated at a certain time in order to be coordinate their efforts into a grand master plan.

Based on the comments (and the fact we've had Forgotten Realms) I'd expect a non-classic campaign such as Eberron and probably using something suitably thematic such as Spelljammer.


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

He did mention a 'ship' in one of the play test games.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Nov 23, 2015)

I haven't listened to the interview yet, but haven't they been saying very recently that all of the stuff they are working on for at least the next couple of years are set in the Forgotten Realms? (I'd personally love it if that weren't the case, but that's the impression I've gotten.)


----------



## JohnLynch (Nov 23, 2015)

I'm under the distinct impression that next year's two adventures will be Forgotten Realms. Although it's possible the second one will be Forgotten Realms segue weighing into another setting. However given they don't talk about products too far into the future I'd be surprised if they're not intending to enter another setting in by the end of 2017.

He mentioned two campaigns they're working on will be published "who knows when or even if they are." I'd say after looking at how the 3rd party games are going they either want more time between tie-in adventures (so once a year rather than twice a year) and/or they've got game studio(s) looking to explore a non-FR setting to try to give them room to explore.


----------



## Quickleaf (Nov 23, 2015)

Interesting comments from Chris...

(paraphrasing) "Two upcoming adventures which Chris worked on are designed to be very home-brew friendly and modular, being set in places that players have never explored before." Presumably, meaning unexplored parts of the Forgotten Realms with notes about how to place the adventure in your own setting.

(paraphrasing) "Most gamers (55%) are home-brewers, 35% Forgotten Realms, and then 10% hot mess of other settings. Of the home-brew campaigns, over half pillage ideas/adventures from published products."

(paraphrasing) "Code-name 'Cloak' playtest involves an icy mountain with evil lurking within it... with jokes about near TPKs, dinosaurs, and airships...or were they jokes?"

(paraphrasing) "Code-name 'Dagger' playtest involves raiding barbarian tombs and has a pulpy feel."

(paraphrasing) "5th edition has been good to us. So now WOTC can afford to bring in consultants to help work on D&D stories, citing the example of Bob Salvatore consulting on Out of the Abyss, and Pendleton Ward coming out to Renton for a couple weeks. Also looking at consultants who are creative titans in their field but who may have never worked on a D&D product before."

(paraphrasing) "Consultant collaboration he thinks will attracts new role-players. It's incumbent upon WOTC to attract new gamers, especially being inclusive beyond 'middle America white guys' , showing D&D in a whole new light that refreshing and exciting. Doesn't want anybody discriminated against with D&D products, dispelling any lingering prejudices (e.g. Satanism D&D), and highlighting D&D as safe, fun, smart, and friendship-inducing."

(paraphrasing) “Going to be changing up the level 1-15 model with a whole bunch of varieties of level coverage. Most games of Elemental Evil & Tyranny of Dragons did not make it to the very end. So, for the next adventures, the level range will be shorter. For example, making a short adventure that’s enormously re-playable — you can play it 200 times and never have the same adventure twice. Players will actually see the end of the story.”

(paraphrasing) “Also have talked about the long slow campaign — we’d like to experiment with that, where you level up slowly over a longer period of in-game time. Whether or not we can actually pull that off will depend on the story it’s married to. Have to let the story convince them that this is the right progression, that it feels right for the story we’re trying to tell.”


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2015)

I've summarised what Chris said in the seminar on my blog, btw:
http://merricb.com/2015/11/23/chris-perkins-on-upcoming-dd-storylines-and-products/

Cheers!


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 23, 2015)

MerricB said:


> I've summarised what Chris said in the seminar on my blog, btw:
> http://merricb.com/2015/11/23/chris-perkins-on-upcoming-dd-storylines-and-products/
> 
> Cheers!




Thanks for that! Lots of interesting stuff, a bunch of food for thought.

The "World Books" section especially caught my eye. So SCAG is what we concluded it to be - an introductory guide for those interested in the setting but worried about getting lost in all the detail a full FRCS would have. I like that more "World Books" will likely appear in the future, so hopefully if SCAG is a success (or people responded they want more for the setting), a full-fledged FRCS (and other campaign settings!) will be published in the future.

An Iuz-centric Greyhawk adventure sounds pretty nifty. As for the timeline, just move it forward a few years to around 600 CY, which will put a some distance, but not too much, from the previous editions. That way you freshen it up a bit without losing all familiarity (a lesson that had to be learned the hard way I assume after the 3e-4e FR transition).

"Cloak" is going to have icy mountains. With all the hints about giants, is time for some frost giant fun?


----------



## Psikerlord# (Nov 23, 2015)

Quickleaf said:


> Interesting comments from Chris...
> 
> (paraphrasing) "Two upcoming adventures which Chris worked on are designed to be very home-brew friendly and modular, being set in places that players have never explored before." Presumably, meaning unexplored parts of the Forgotten Realms with notes about how to place the adventure in your own setting.
> 
> ...




Of all this, I am glad to hear they are making more flexible, shorter adventures. Big adventure paths are of little use to me!


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 23, 2015)

Shorter modules might actually make it so one of the guys might DM a module now and again.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 23, 2015)

darjr said:


> He did mention a 'ship' in one of the play test games.



Maybe spelljammer with the psionics stuff?



			
				Quickleaf said:
			
		

> jokes about near TPKs, dinosaurs, and airships...or were they jokes?



Airships and dinosaurs point at Eberron.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 23, 2015)

I would love the Iuz thing. Iuz is a great villain and one of the original villains of the game. According to Gygax he was one of the first villains created the only main villain that came in before was Obmi. He also works great as a final boss due to having multiple forms. (Starts in Old Man form, then turns into his massive golden armored Demon form.)


----------



## Quickleaf (Nov 23, 2015)

I'm A Banana said:


> Airships and dinosaurs point at Eberron.




His phrasing was roughly "letting players explore places D&D players have never explored before" along with his tone the rest of the interview suggested that he was referring to unexplored parts of the Forgotten Realms. 

He also mentioned writing an extensive section on converting an upcoming adventure to other campaign worlds. That also suggests Forgotten Realms as their continuing base setting.

He cited that non-home brew & non-Forgotten Realms accounted for 10% of games played (that's Planescape, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc. all in that 10%). However, he also acknowledges that 55% of games are homebrews, whereas 35% are FR games. At least, according to their surveying. From what Chris said int he interview it seems like their move with these next two products is to make them more home brew accessible.

I loved all the campaign settings, but I don't think we'll be seeing much support for Planescape, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc. until a couple years later into 5e's existence.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 23, 2015)

I'm A Banana said:


> Airships and dinosaurs point at Eberron.



Or a trader from Halrua crashed in Chult


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 23, 2015)

MerricB said:


> I've summarised what Chris said in the seminar on my blog, btw:
> http://merricb.com/2015/11/23/chris-perkins-on-upcoming-dd-storylines-and-products/
> 
> Cheers!



Thanks!

I hate audio and video casts; am much too impatient and/or a quick reader for such a slow and unstructured way of taking in information! I curse how easy they are to produce, and love the way the written word/post/blog forces the writer, not the reader/listener, to structure the material.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 23, 2015)

"for now the main support for short adventures will be through the D&D Adventurers League"

Makes me feel much less bad for googling the password and downloading the adventures for my personal use!


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 23, 2015)

Quickleaf said:


> He cited that non-home brew & non-Forgotten Realms accounted for 10% of games played (that's Planescape, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc. all in that 10%). However, he also acknowledges that 55% of games are homebrews, whereas 35% are FR games.



He also said half of the homebrewers use bits and pieces of modules.

This means 27,5% + 35% = easily more than half the market...

...is the market for FR books.

No wonder it's a good business decision to make everything fit in the Realms...


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 23, 2015)

Quickleaf said:


> He cited that non-home brew & non-Forgotten Realms accounted for 10% of games played (that's Planescape, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc. all in that 10%). However, he also acknowledges that 55% of games are homebrews, whereas 35% are FR games. At least, according to their surveying. From what Chris said int he interview it seems like their move with these next two products is to make them more home brew accessible.




The problem with the above is that they are based on the playtest surveys out of which we don't know the exact percentage of those that actually answered with regards to the above. Let's say 55% of people took the survey and out of 55%, 25 actually answered the question and then out of 25% etc.... Percentage of percentages. I know loads of people who play in other worlds but don't report it to WoTc. 

They shouldn't really be throwing those figures out there because there is no way to know if that is a reflection of the player base out there.


----------



## Uchawi (Nov 23, 2015)

Their current adventures are stretched out with a lot of effort on the DM to fill in the blanks. If 55 percent of the market is homebrew then I assume they like to pick and choose. Therefore, shorter adventures with more focused content makes sense. It would also allow them to release more of them, if you compare the time and effort for their current offerings. I also hope by consulting outside the office will actually create unique story concepts that are not re-hashes of old ideas.

But honestly, I am more interested in crunch versus story, and their current release schedule for new rules is very slow in comparison.


----------



## JohnLynch (Nov 23, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> "for now the main support for short adventures will be through the D&D Adventurers League"
> 
> Makes me feel much less bad for googling the password and downloading the adventures for my personal use!



There's more than a few 3rd party short form adventures you might want to look into. More than a few by professional game designers.


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 23, 2015)

MerricB said:


> I've summarised what Chris said in the seminar on my blog, btw:
> http://merricb.com/2015/11/23/chris-perkins-on-upcoming-dd-storylines-and-products/
> 
> Cheers!




Thanks for the summary.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 23, 2015)

Sorry Chris but D&D is not World of Warcraft. 

*You can't imagine Blizzard releasing six expansions a year. They don't ... they want to release a mammoth, not a bunch of mice.*

Sorry but you aren't comparing like for like.


----------



## Marandahir (Nov 23, 2015)

It's a great podcast. So informative!


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2015)

Meh. He is contradicting Nathan Stewart when he talked to Forbes mag. Stewart said they would focus on the FR for some time. Considering what Perkins said about the OGL coming, I'm not too inclined to give him some credibility. 

This was rather empty PR.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 23, 2015)

Still listing...its PLANAR. It must be PLANAR.

Still have an hour to go. Vampires at some point...PLANAR sooner.


----------



## Keyframe18 (Nov 23, 2015)

Really interested to see what Pendleton Ward will bring to the table as a consultant.


----------



## delericho (Nov 23, 2015)

That was an interesting read. Although, alas, I found it kinda disappointing, because...



> Very few people right now, turns out, running Dark Sun campaigns. A sliver of a sliver. Very few people running Hollow World campaigns. Very few people are running Mystara campaigns. It pretty much goes Homebrew, Forgotten Realms, I think Greyhawk's at 5% ands then everybody else is at 2% or 1%.




That says to me "don't expect any Eberron stuff for a _very_ long time." 

Though this does give just a sliver of hope:



> Dagger -- Dagger is a story in which you're going around and pillaging the ancestral mounds of barbarian tribes. And that has a slightly different feel, don't you think? It feels a bit more pulpy, *and oh, you're got an airship!* Great!




At the very least, I'd expect that one to have Eberron (and Mystara) conversion notes in abundance.

Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter - the only real effect is that it means I'll be saving a bunch of money going forward. (Plus, WotC really shouldn't try to tailor their release schedule specifically to suit me - that's a sure way to lose a lot of money!)

On a different note...



> I can't remember it was Mike Mearls or somebody else, described Greyhawk as almost Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser-esque, Fritz Leiber, Lankhmar-esque. That would certainly make sense based on things I heard about what Greyhawk was like when Gary was running it, sort of maybe he felt that way.




It's almost as if Greyhawk was inspired by the same Appendix N as the rest of the game...



> If we were to do a Greyhawk story, one of the things I'd be sorely tempted to do is focus on Iuz. I'm not going to give you a full campaign setting. I'm going to tell you a story about Iuz and all of the **** that he's doing right now and all of the repercussions that are happening because of that... Iuz is going to be the glue that holds this story together.




Well, it's your call but I think that would be a mistake. You've just said that Greyhawk feels Lankhmar-esque, so the focus of your storyline should _surely_ be the setting's equivalent of Lankhmar itself - specifically, the Free City of Greyhawk?


----------



## JeffB (Nov 23, 2015)

I do have shelves of supplemental  books/boxed sets/adventuree from prior editions and some were used precious little. But I did buy them and enjoy them, and in many cases used extensively and some have been used for almost 40 years.

I have a grand total of  zero 5e supplemental books/adventures on my shelf from Wizards.

Chris was deep into Branding Iron Marketing Speak here (and I don't think he understands Greyhawk at all, please hire someone else to work on it, Chris) but it was a  good read nonetheless. To see them  considering other worlds and types of stories is encouraging.  Hopefully the adventure paths will become a bit more manageable and compact.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 23, 2015)

Or Tharizdun? Or Eberon?


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Meh. He is contradicting Nathan Stewart when he talked to Forbes mag. Stewart said they would focus on the FR for some time. Considering what Perkins said about the OGL coming, I'm not too inclined to give him some credibility.
> 
> This was rather empty PR.




Actually he isn't. That interview was done just as princes was released. Given their three month announcement policy it kinda fits right in.

 I do like his hint about "diving deeper" into the realms, he knew about "out of the abyss" even though it was months in advance.


----------



## wedgeski (Nov 23, 2015)

I just listened to this. Surprisingly frank, I thought. No shockers to speak of, but maybe a few clues as to where "Cloak" and "Dagger" will be taking us.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Nov 23, 2015)

I could see a vampire being a big part of either Cloak or Dagger, although I think I would prefer the vamp to be in Dagger.

I am a little worried about the short AP's, mostly because higher level play support always seems to be whats cut out.  At least with a 1-15 adventure you have something for level 15, which is more "upper medium" than "high."

I like the thought of new published adventures going from one world to the next.


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...lines-Products-Staffing-Other-Worlds-amp-More!

The link to the front page news item.


----------



## Vampyr3 (Nov 23, 2015)

He must have a +20 in PR Speak after listening to that...


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

I think he has a +20 to speak.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2015)

darjr said:


> Actually he isn't. That interview was done just as princes was released. Given their three month announcement policy it kinda fits right in.
> 
> I do like his hint about "diving deeper" into the realms, he knew about "out of the abyss" even though it was months in advance.



The way Stewart was talking it was about years of FR APs. 

Like I said, Perkins has little crebility.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The way Stewart was talking it was about years of FR APs.
> 
> Like I said, Perkins has little crebility.




Time will tell...


----------



## halfling rogue (Nov 23, 2015)

> We are doing that, but we're doing it now though Adventurer's League. So our shorter module adventures are all Adventurer's League adventures, you can play many of them here, you can also download them.




I've pretty much assumed that this would be the case. That AL will be the only outlet for modules. The biggest problem with AL being the only outlet for modules is that it limits it to AL groups only. No home groups can download them. I know they've thrown us a bone in Dragon+ but it still would be nice to have access through something other than only AL.

That said...



> So, for the next one, we're going a little shorter, and for the one after that we're going a little shorter still. That doesn't necessarily mean that the products will be getting tremendously shorter; for instance one of the upcoming products that we're doing it enormously replayable. It's a short adventure, but you can play it 200 times and never have the same adventure twice.




If this sounds as good as he's describing, then I could maybe forget about everything I just lamented above. The issue is about replayability. I mean, every adventure is replayable, right? But here he's saying you'll not have the same adventure twice. That is extremely intriguing to me. I'm not sure what they'll do to achieve it, but if that is the case---a short adventure that can be replayed 200 times without having the same adventure!?!?!?!?!---then sign me up!


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The way Stewart was talking it was about years of FR APs.
> 
> Like I said, Perkins has little crebility.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/

Are you sure we read the same article, he doesn't say years and years, he says a long time, that could just mean the next two story arcs, and a planar path could still start and end in the realms.


----------



## delericho (Nov 23, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Time will tell...




Indeed.

Actually, it might be worth someone who is on Twitter (i.e. not me) pinging him with the question: is it still their intention to bring back the OGL? He might well not answer... but then again, he might.


----------



## GreenTengu (Nov 23, 2015)

I think this snails-pace release schedules is going to come back and bite them. People are getting bored with the edition already with little to chew on. Their adventure books are good for around 5-6 sessions. But with groups that meet once a week, that means they will get used up in less than 2 months. Having 6 months between releases just doesn't cut it.

TSR didn't have that slow of a release schedule. They had their monthly magazines with 3 or so published adventures every month. Considering the vast library that is available over 4 previous editions, I can't imagine it is hard to go pick out forgotten gems and convert them up to being 5E adventures. Maybe even combing some of them so that they get a new twist so that the 2-3 people who actually remember them can feel like there is something new there.

Moreover, only a few months ago there were polls that demonstrated that what a lot of people want to play isn't in the game yet.
People want to play goblins, aasimar, hobgoblins, catfolk, thri-kreen, gith (zerai & yanki), kobolds, gnolls, lizardfolk, half-ogres, revenants and pixies as races... many of those aren't all that far out there, no more so than Tieflings and Dragonborn at least, but things that are pretty universal across all worlds.

Furthermore, an interest in an Alchemist/Artificer class, a Shaman class and something that properly replaces the Warlord without being 90% Fighter are also in demand.
Really, it probably wouldn't even matter if most of the mechanics were the same. Even if they generally came across as "hey, this is sort of a Class X/Class Y multiclass with many of the abilities cut out or weakened and the others combined", it would probably be enough to please some people. It'd be a lot less lazy than some of the "classes" 1st and 2nd edition put out.

And the game could probably use a few more feat options if we are being honest. Some of the current subclasses are just downright broken to the point of seemingly unplayable or forced into a very, VERY specific build (strength-based Fighter of any sort is an excellent example where you are forced to take great weapon master, buy the most expensive armor in the game and use a two-handed weapon to be remotely feasible compared to a Dex build) or feel like they are required to multiclass to function (Warlocks seem to ALWAYS take one level of Fighter), so maybe a few feats targeted at fixing these things or expanding their viability or... something.

Anyway, I don't see why these sorts of player option need to be buried in adventure path book.
Yeah, putting out separate books for every class which were only useful to a small number of players was a terrible idea. But, honestly, in the PHB each race takes up maybe 3 pages, each class maybe 5. So even if all 12 races and 3 classes were in the same book, that is less than 50 pages of actual content. And, really, a lot of those races will take up a lot less space space due to the fact that they wouldn't lend themselves to explicit subraces. Maybe another 5 pages are so are devoted to new spells, maybe 3 pages to new equipment options. And then whatever art and garbage padding they want to use to fill up the rest of the book.

Honestly, it means one could put together a proper Expanded Player's Options book that would be half the size of one of their adventure paths and pretty much everyone (not just the DM) who would have the slightest interest in trying out a new race or new class or new spell would have some reason to buy.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 23, 2015)

Keyframe18 said:


> Really interested to see what Pendleton Ward will bring to the table as a consultant.



GAMMA CANDYLAND!

(I can't wait either)


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The way Stewart was talking it was about years of FR APs.
> 
> Like I said, Perkins has little crebility.



I think you could be reading to much into Stewart's comments.  Why do you assume he is more credible than Perkins?


----------



## delericho (Nov 23, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> I think this snails-pace release schedules is going to come back and bite them.




Very possible, but it's too soon to tell. At the moment, the strategy is working beyond their expectations.



> People are getting bored with the edition already with little to chew on.




_Some_ people, yes. But here's the key question: how many people? What percentage of the market? And what percentage of _those_ would be bored anyway because the edition is no longer the shiny newness?



> Their adventure books are good for around 5-6 sessions. But with groups that meet once a week, that means they will get used up in less than 2 months.




You're joking, right? From where I'm sitting, the only way you could get through PotA or OotA in six sessions would be if each session was 24 hours long.



> Honestly, it means one could put together a proper Expanded Player's Options book that would be half the size of one of their adventure paths and pretty much everyone (not just the DM) who would have the slightest interest in trying out a new race or new class or new spell would have some reason to buy.




I would buy that book. Sadly, I suspect I'm in a minority.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 23, 2015)

Nice information there; can't wait to fine out more about what is being teased!


----------



## Pauper (Nov 23, 2015)

dave2008 said:


> I think you could be reading to much into Stewart's comments.  Why do you assume he is more credible than Perkins?




Because Chris Perkins isn't making the business decisions for D&D -- it's not clear to me if Stewart is or not, but given that the CEO should be signing off on the business decisions even if he's not making them, my guess would be that Stewart would be a much more credible source for WotC's business decisions.

To me, a lot of what Perkins is saying is justification for the business decisions made somewhere else -- for instance, when Perkins talks about the desire to mine old material, sourcebooks, campaign worlds, etc., it sounds to me like the business decision is not to spend money investing in new stories and material, but rather to mine the existing IP for as much wealth might remain in it. It sounds good to hear Perkins talking about the history of the game and promoting a common understanding among gamers, but how far down that path can you go until you hit "Nostalgia Ain't What It Used To Be" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NostalgiaAintLikeItUsedToBe)?

--
Pauper


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2015)

darjr said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/
> 
> Are you sure we read the same article, he doesn't say years and years, he says a long time, that could just mean the next two story arcs, and a planar path could still start and end in the realms.



Granted it is subjective. But a year being a long time when it takes a year just to make one book? I have my doubts.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Time will tell...




Indeed, but it won't be a "I told you so" moment if a non-FR AP comes out in four years. 

After 2018, that could be possible. Didn't they say they had their stories lined up until then?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2015)

dave2008 said:


> I think you could be reading to much into Stewart's comments.  Why do you assume he is more credible than Perkins?




Stewart's comments were made in a business magazine, he is the brand director and so far what he said has been on the mark. Perkins is good at tell fans what they want to hear without committing to anything. Except for the OGL. He said it was coming and it hasn't shown up. Maybe at the time it was supposed to come out, but it got cancelled. He isn't one of the people who gets to call the shots, so I'm taking what he said with a truck of salt.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> ... Perkins is good at tell fans what they want to hear without committing to anything. Except for the OGL. He said it was coming and it hasn't shown up. Maybe at the time it was supposed to come out, but it got cancelled. He isn't one of the people who gets to call the shots, so I'm taking what he said with a truck of salt.




Lots of WotCs have hinted at an OGL. 

I don't think Perkins has told fans what they want to hear. I think he is articulate and puts a good spin on things. Thats not the same thing.

He has said story, story, story, story.

Guess what they have done: story. He has been very credible in terms of what he has emphasized. Sure he says various things are possible, and maybe they are. But I think you are seeing more what people read into what he says then what he actually says. He says story. He has said story. 

Will they do non-FR. Of course. Maybe with a tie-in or link. They know the market is there. They just need to get the digital partners on board, but how hard can that be? A portal, a spelljammer, a something takes you to another world.    

Will they also keep doing FR. Of course. One does not exclude the other.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 23, 2015)

The statistics on the breakdown between home brew and published campaign worlds stood out the most for me. 

I assumed the amount of pillaging done by homebrew DMs of published worlds would be higher than 15%, so I hope WotC takes a hard look at how to raise that number.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 23, 2015)

sanishiver said:


> The statistics on the breakdown between home brew and published campaign worlds stood out the most for me.
> 
> I assumed the amount of pillaging done by homebrew DMs of published worlds would be higher than 15%, so I hope WotC takes a hard look at how to raise that number.




That's my fault why the transcribing. Listening back, he actually said 15%... 50%, but didn't know the actual figure offhand.


----------



## vandaexpress (Nov 23, 2015)

Sometimes I wonder if they overestimate the Forgotten Realms brand equity - I appreciated the breakdown of the campaign setting usage, but I think you're going to see a lot of bias in those numbers. I don't run Dark Sun because I have no official 5E Dark Sun materials, not because I have no interest in running it. I'm sure they recognize this, though.

My thoughts are just that I spend a fair amount of time recruiting "non-standard" players into my games and there is no faster way to overwhelm them than by introducing them to the realms, hah. I do appreciate them keeping the focus on the Sword Coast to minimize the confusion, but the Forgotten Realms is so overwhelmingly detailed that I might go so far as to say that it's a little bit at odds with recruiting new players. I'm not sure how many players come to D&D after reading Drizzt books though, or after being exposed to some other aspect of the "transmedia" experience; I can only speak from my personal experiences.

Very excited by the hints of the next campaigns. Appreciate them recognizing that most people don't finish the campaigns as quickly as they may have modeled initially.


----------



## not-so-newguy (Nov 23, 2015)

sanishiver said:


> The statistics on the breakdown between home brew and published campaign worlds stood out the most for me.
> 
> I assumed the amount of pillaging done by homebrew DMs of published worlds would be higher than 15%, so I hope WotC takes a hard look at how to raise that number.




My guess would be that you will see more homebrewing in the future, if they keep focusing on exclusively on FR. There are quite a few people being introduce* to DnD through 5e. When people realize that they don't need to rely on new info and can create worlds all by themselves. 

*or re-introduced to DnD, as is my case.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 23, 2015)

Yeah, I also wonder if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You gives people only _Forgotten Realms_ stuff, then you ask them what they're playing and - surprise! - it's _Forgotten Realms_ stuff!


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

Uh, mining old stories while busting out the funds to hire folks like Ward Pendleton doesn't sound like they are going cheap to me. And Perkins didn't say when on the OGL. Even Mearls has said there is an OGL and it'll be seen soon. Third parties have seen it, recently.


----------



## ZeshinX (Nov 23, 2015)

I no longer care what WotC says or does about any of its brands.  The only quality product I've seen come from them (D&D-wise) since 4e's launch is the 5e Core Rules.

I find their responses to requests about an OGL even more huffing and puffing.  I wouldn't count on one.  They way they're doing things now...contracting out products to 3rd parties, is their new way of leveraging the OGL (which, more and more, they give the impression they feel it was a colossal mistake).

I'll keep my eyes open for anything that might be of use at my table, since I do enjoy the 5e core, but I'm done really giving a  what WotC says anymore.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 23, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I also wonder if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You gives people only _Forgotten Realms_ stuff, then you ask them what they're playing and - surprise! - it's _Forgotten Realms_ stuff!




But what are they going to do about it?  Deliberately publish crappy Realms stuff so that people stop playing in the Realms?  Now granted... there are a whole heap of people here on the boards who think TSR/WotC has already succeeded in that endeavor for decades now... but it apparently hasn't stopped lots of other people, has it?

They've had the Realms since '87.  They then released Dark Sun in '91.  Didn't supplant it.  They released Birthright in '95.  Didn't supplant it.  They released Ghostwalk in '03.  Didn't supplant it.  They released Eberron in '04.  Didn't supplant it.

How many times do the folks in charge of D&D have to release a new campaign setting to try and take over the position of "most popular setting" before everyone else just finally admits "Yeah, the Forgotten Realms is D&D's primary campaign of choice for players who use them.  And thus setting most of their material there makes the most sense.  Oh well!"

The problem the rest of the non-Realms fans have is that none of you can AGREE on one setting being better than the Realms.  You all go do your own home-brew settings or play in the other ones TSR/WotC has released, and can't come to a consensus.  Is it irritating that your own personal choice is not embraced by more people?  Sure.  But there's nothing you can do about it except either ADAPT the existing 5E material that comes out to your personal campaign, WAIT until they hopefully get around to you, or do what I did and just ACCEPT the Forgotten Realms as my new setting for the campaign I have chosen to run because I didn't feel like doing either of the previous two.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 23, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I also wonder if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You gives people only _Forgotten Realms_ stuff, then you ask them what they're playing and - surprise! - it's _Forgotten Realms_ stuff!



That's certainly true of settings that haven't seen proper support in decades, like Birthright or Mystara. Then again, most settings are long out of print: it's been 5 years since anything was made for Eberron, 8 or so since Greyhawk, Ravenloft or Dragonlance saw support. Planescape support has been scattered in various books and modules for over a decade, and its been nearly 20 since Kara-tur or Al-Qadim got anything more than a paragraph in a Forgotten Realms Campaign book. I'm not surprised most of the non Realms settings aren't used more, even controlling for taste.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 23, 2015)

ZeshinX said:


> I'll keep my eyes open for anything that might be of use at my table, since I do enjoy the 5e core, but I'm done really giving a  what WotC says anymore.




Personally, I think this is exactly the attitude everyone should have had all along.  There would have been a lot less clutching of pearls and feeling as though they were being personally insulted by what WotC was choosing to do, if people had.  We would certainly be seeing a lot fewer threads of people caterwauling about the same five issues over and over.


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

They also have sales numbers from drivethru. And if you look you can almost see what's selling there. Like they post em on the site and everything.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Nov 23, 2015)

My 5E campaign takes place in Phandalin, Chult, Sembia, Shade, as well as Sigil, Erelhei Cinlu, the Tyr region of Athas, the city of Crux on Yggdrasil, and a homebrew world.

Although parts of my campaign would be easier if they supported other settings with published material for those worlds, I don't need them to do so. And I would prefer they work on quality stories, and any necessary crunch to support the stories, rather than just splat for the sake of splat.

I would say though that it would be interesting to see those setting stats broken down a little further into the new player/ existing player categories.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 23, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> The problem with the above is that they are based on the playtest surveys out of which we don't know the exact percentage of those that actually answered with regards to the above. Let's say 55% of people took the survey and out of 55%, 25 actually answered the question and then out of 25% etc.... Percentage of percentages. I know loads of people who play in other worlds but don't report it to WoTc.
> 
> They shouldn't really be throwing those figures out there because there is no way to know if that is a reflection of the player base out there.




It is the default assumption that whoever does answer is roughly representative of the market as a whole.  You disagree based on...a much much much smaller subset of the market (people you personally know).  Their method is far superior to yours.  They have to base their decisions on something objective, and the thing they've chosen (surveys) is a very well researched and industry-norm method of testing the marketplace.


----------



## Elodan (Nov 23, 2015)

I get why they want to do larger adventure books (shelf display, focus, etc.) but they keep referencing old adventures like _Tomb of Horrors_ as a sort of ideal.  Granted, they were the only game in town.  I think the shorter format is a large part of why they're remembered so fondly. They could be more easily fit into an ongoing campaign.  Their length meant more groups completed them.  You got a real sense of accomplishment beating the adventure.

It'd be nice if home groups had better access to the shorter AL adventures.


----------



## qstor (Nov 23, 2015)

I think Forgotten realms play is high too because the Adventurers League play is set in the Realms.

I'd rather see a campaign arc focused on Iuz rather than the City of Greyhawk.


----------



## Phototoxin (Nov 23, 2015)

The only drawback is the diverse writing quality - the first 2 dragon/tiamat modules were all over the place sadly :-(

With all of the stuff for 4E that was rendered 'useless' maybe more conversion type material?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> I don't think Perkins has told fans what they want to hear. I think he is articulate and *puts a good spin on things*. Thats not the same thing.



I can be the same thing.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Nov 23, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> But what are they going to do about it?  Deliberately publish crappy Realms stuff so that people stop playing in the Realms?




They tried it with 4E, and it didn't work. We're still here, playing in the Realms and loving it...


----------



## lkj (Nov 23, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I also wonder if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You gives people only _Forgotten Realms_ stuff, then you ask them what they're playing and - surprise! - it's _Forgotten Realms_ stuff!




I did ask Mearls about this on twitter awhile back--

Me: "Is exposure considered in understanding setting popularity? Some settings might get less votes due to lack of recent attention?"

Mearls: "yes! that's part of our analysis"

So, not surprisingly, they are aware of it.

AD


----------



## Krypter (Nov 23, 2015)

Mallus said:


> GAMMA CANDYLAND!
> 
> (I can't wait either)




Pendleton Ward's PLANAR ESCAPADES!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 23, 2015)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> They tried it with 4E, and it didn't work. We're still here, playing in the Realms and loving it...




Thank you for making my point.  

What's sad is that WotC TRIED to get people off of the Realms.  Heck, they even offered up the prime spot of the Dungeons & Dragons MMO (smack dab in the middle of the MMO boom) to a different setting!  But it apparently didn't help.  Eberron made some waves but not enough to supplant the Realms over the long term.  But you can't say they didn't offer up enough support for it to see if it would grab hold.

Sorry non-Realms fans... you just don't have the sway.  Nothing personal.


----------



## sleypy (Nov 23, 2015)

I haven't read every post, but I get my guess for Cloak and Dagger could be White Plume Mountain and Eberron.


----------



## greylurk (Nov 23, 2015)

> Very few people right now, turns out, running Dark Sun campaigns. A sliver of a sliver. Very few people running Hollow World campaigns. Very few people are running Mystara campaigns. It pretty much goes Homebrew, Forgotten Realms, I think Greyhawk's at 5% ands then everybody else is at 2% or 1%.




Well, that could be because you haven't released anything for those other settings, or it could be because there's no interest in those settings. It's kind of a chicken and the egg problem isn't it?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 23, 2015)

greylurk said:


> Well, that could be because you haven't released anything for those other settings, or it could be because there's no interest in those settings. It's kind of a chicken and the egg problem isn't it?




They just release a completely new Dark Sun campaign setting just several years ago for 4E.  But where are all the Dark Sun players at?  If Dark Sun is really such a great setting, why aren't their popularity numbers higher?  Same goes for Eberron.  They gave us what we asked for in both of those cases and yet it apparently hasn't bumped their numbers up nearly enough.  Hell... 4E apparently KILLED many people's interest in the Forgotten Realms with the 100 year time jump... but I guess not nearly enough to make a real dent in the numbers overall.

Don't blame WotC for just following all of our predilections.  They're giving us what we apparently want.

Kind of makes actually filling out their surveys rather important, doesn't it?


----------



## Pauper (Nov 23, 2015)

One part of the podcast that didn't make Morrus's transcription is significant, I think:

"To some extent it's not important, because if you're running Out of the Abyss in your home campaign, you don't give a s**t about whether or not...if Demogorgon dies in the adventure, he's DEAD in your campaign. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter what the official FR says -- it matters not in the least, because the only thing that's important to your players is the campaign that they played. *That* is canon, to them, and is canon to you, probably, if you as a DM value that campaign that you created. So what happens in the official narrative doesn't necessarily have merit, so it's one of those things like, we care about it, aaaand we don't care about it, because we know DMs are going to use it in their own way in their own campaigns for the most part. Now if you run it as 'the official FR adventure in the official FR world set in the official FR timeline' and you really want to marry all the canon together, then yeah we would like to help you out and say 'OK, Tiamat's still alive, good luck with that!'"

That seems as good a statement as any that, thematically, WotC is getting out of the business of publishing giant tomes of setting information independent of any other use (such as running a specific adventure).

However, in his next breath, he notes:

"We're dealing with it a story at a time. So if the events of Elemental Evil, for instance, impact a future story, we'll tell you. If in a future story you run into an evil dragon who fought in the Tyranny of Dragons story, that dragon's story has changed, he's learned something from that experience. He's different now. And so when you face him, and you will...<evil laughter>...in 'Dagger'. In 'Dagger' you will meet one of the dragons who was part of the coalition in Tyranny of Dragons."

So there's that nugget.

--
Pauper


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

I love love the question and answer segment. The part where the young lady thanks him for DND and coins the perfect catchphrase "I can do anything?!"


----------



## Jiggawatts (Nov 23, 2015)

sleypy said:


> I haven't read every post, but I get my guess for Cloak and Dagger could be White Plume Mountain and Eberron.



Dagger screams Eberron to me, pulpy with ancestral stuff and airships, yeah gotta be Eberron. (And I'm not an Eberron guy)

Cloak being White Plume Mountain is intriguing and something I'd probably be interested in.


----------



## bogmad (Nov 23, 2015)

Jiggawatts said:


> Dagger screams Eberron to me, pulpy with ancestral stuff and airships, yeah gotta be Eberron. (And I'm not an Eberron guy)
> 
> Cloak being White Plume Mountain is intriguing and something I'd probably be interested in.




I don't know, whoever said Halrua ship in Chult sounded pretty on the mark for me. Especially if it's going to include a dragon from ToD.  

For certain there'll be a conversion guide saying it's perfect for Eberron though.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 23, 2015)

I think That Iuz would make a great villain to create another Forgotten Realms story around.   They can call it something like: Iuz's Whacky Sword Coast Adventures.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 23, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> They just release a completely new Dark Sun campaign setting just several years ago for 4E.  But where are all the Dark Sun players at?  If Dark Sun is really such a great setting, why aren't their popularity numbers higher?  Same goes for Eberron.  They gave us what we asked for in both of those cases and yet it apparently hasn't bumped their numbers up nearly enough.  Hell... 4E apparently KILLED many people's interest in the Forgotten Realms with the 100 year time jump... but I guess not nearly enough to make a real dent in the numbers overall.
> 
> Don't blame WotC for just following all of our predilections.  They're giving us what we apparently want.
> 
> Kind of makes actually filling out their surveys rather important, doesn't it?




If you are going to bring up this kind of stuff then you are going to have to look at the full picture. 

I bet you anything that if they did a full fledged Dark Sun campaign setting right now it would sell like hot cakes. You, and some others, seem to forget that 4th edition was not as popular as the other editions. Right campaign setting, wrong rules to go with it. I love Dark Sun but I didn't buy the setting because I hated 4th edition and same goes with the Forgotten Realms. 

They haven't given us what we've been asking for. Not sure where you got that from. Too much blind faith in these surveys.


----------



## Nylanfs (Nov 23, 2015)

So nothing new on the OGL. :-(


----------



## sleypy (Nov 23, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> They just release a completely new Dark Sun campaign setting just several years ago for 4E.  But where are all the Dark Sun players at?  If Dark Sun is really such a great setting, why aren't their popularity numbers higher?  Same goes for Eberron.  They gave us what we asked for in both of those cases and yet it apparently hasn't bumped their numbers up nearly enough.  Hell... 4E apparently KILLED many people's interest in the Forgotten Realms with the 100 year time jump... but I guess not nearly enough to make a real dent in the numbers overall.
> 
> Don't blame WotC for just following all of our predilections.  They're giving us what we apparently want.
> 
> Kind of makes actually filling out their surveys rather important, doesn't it?




I gave up on trying to run an Eberron game where I live; for everyone one person that was interested there where two people that just wanted an opportunity to bash the setting and me for wanting to play it.


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

They supported darksun withbw living campaign run by thebfolks that run winter festival. I've even got the adventures for that first season. And the darksun 4e synergy was amazing. If you skipped it you missed out. A lot was working really well.


----------



## sleypy (Nov 23, 2015)

bogmad said:


> I don't know, whoever said Halrua ship in Chult sounded pretty on the mark for me. Especially if it's going to include a dragon from ToD.
> 
> For certain there'll be a conversion guide saying it's perfect for Eberron though.




I hope that's not the case.


----------



## Quickleaf (Nov 23, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> The problem with the above is that they are based on the playtest surveys out of which we don't know the exact percentage of those that actually answered with regards to the above. Let's say 55% of people took the survey and out of 55%, 25 actually answered the question and then out of 25% etc.... Percentage of percentages. I know loads of people who play in other worlds but don't report it to WoTc.
> 
> They shouldn't really be throwing those figures out there because there is no way to know if that is a reflection of the player base out there.




If you've followed Chris Perkins much you'll know that he doesn't throw out statistics that often, and he chooses his words pretty carefully (except when cussing or joking).

Just because we don't have all the information about how the survey was conducted & there may be the flaw that all surveys have (the risk of self-selecting), doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the data. Even if it's 5% inaccurate here or there, it's still capturing an overall trend among D&D players -- in other words, if 10 +/- 5% of the market is "non-homebrew/non-FR settings" it probably isn't worth it for them to publish a separate Greyhawk or Mystara book given the kinds of sales figures they're looking for. Maaaybe if they can come up with a way to make it accessible to homebrew and FR DMs as well, then it could make sense.

Moreover, I trust Chris' judgment. I've followed his RPG career since Dragon magazine and he comes across as a very perspicacious guy. Listen to him talk sometime.

And as much as I'd love to see Al-Qadim, Birthright, Planescape, or Dark Sun supported, you know what? They're doing well with 5e. What [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] said is right on - if they design FR books to be modular and usable by home-brew DMs then over half the market is the FR market.


----------



## darjr (Nov 23, 2015)

Actually that's a good point. Do yourself a favor and listen to the podcast. The summaries are great, fantastic, but there is something wonderful listening to it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 23, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> If you are going to bring up this kind of stuff then you are going to have to look at the full picture.
> 
> I bet you anything that if they did a full fledged Dark Sun campaign setting right now it would sell like hot cakes. You, and some others, seem to forget that 4th edition was not as popular as the other editions. Right campaign setting, wrong rules to go with it. I love Dark Sun but I didn't buy the setting because I hated 4th edition and same goes with the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> They haven't give us what we've been asking for. Not sure where you got that from. Too much blind faith in these surveys.




Well... maybe if you had gotten off your duff and PROVED your love of Dark Sun by actually buying the book (even if it was for a less-popular edition), WotC might've been shown that supporting the setting was more important than the edition.  But because you didn't, they never knew that.  I sure hope you also filled out their surveys telling them you loved Dark Sun, because if you screwed the pooch on that one too, you have no one to blame for your unhappiness but yourself.  You had your chance to show your support of Dark Sun and you didn't do it.

Meanwhile... all the Forgotten Realms fans (even the ones who felt they were kicked in the nuts by the Spellplague) apparently supported it enough to weather the 4E storm and come out on the other side at 35%.  So don't get mad that WotC just followed where the people were already going.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 23, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Meanwhile... all the Forgotten Realms fans (even the ones who felt they were kicked in the nuts by the Spellplague) apparently supported it enough to weather the 4E storm and come out on the other side at 35%.  So don't get mad that WotC just followed where the people were already going.




Who would have thought that 35% of people like to be kicked in the nuts?  I would have imagined that it would have been lower.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 23, 2015)

35% of players who maybe just ignored what they didn´t like... or who adapted to what was done...

you never know what they love about the realms... i guess "liking being knocked in the nuts" is not on of their reasons. But maybe your reason why you don´t like them anymore...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Who would have thought that 35% of people like to be kicked in the nuts?  I would have imagined that it would have been lower.




Like being kicked in the shins?

Oh... wait... or did you mean the PERCENTAGE would be lower?  Sorry!  Got confused there for a second!


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 23, 2015)

Quickleaf said:


> And as much as I'd love to see Al-Qadim, Birthright, Planescape, or Dark Sun supported, you know what? They're doing well with 5e. What @_*CapnZapp*_ said is right on - if they design FR books to be modular and usable by home-brew DMs then over half the market is the FR market.




At least Al-Qadim (and Kara-Tur) are officially part of the Forgetten Realms setting, so there's always the possibility, if FR products continue to sell well, of seeing some sort of update in the future (more likely with Kara-Tur than Al-Quadim in all probability, but at least it's possible).

As every edition has had its version of the _Manual of the Planes_, I'm sure we'll get at least that for Planescape (although perhaps not the full "feel" of the setting).

And the amount of people who are shocked (shocked!) that anyone could actually tolerate the Forgotten Realms, let alone enjoy it and actually _want_ to have things published for it is a lot higher than I expected. Come on people, you may not like the setting, but it's disingenuous to to believe it's not popular...


----------



## mykesfree (Nov 23, 2015)

Concerning the rate of release of titles and there use. I think WotC keeps on forgetting that folks like to read source books and adventures even if they never run or use them.  

What I think it comes down to is this. People like interacting with Table Top D&D.  They want to know something more about the game when they are not playing it.  

I think bringing back Dungeon and Dragon magazines into their Lore/Adventures/Rules/New Monsters incarnation into a deeper way then its current form would help to satisfy a lot of peoples needs.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 23, 2015)

I'm betting that 35% consists of gamers new to the Realms, who came along for the ride starting with 4E. 

Being new, their bits hadn't dropped yet so they weren't targets for kicking. 

Is the metaphor dead yet?


----------



## Jraynack (Nov 23, 2015)

I enjoy the adventure paths, though I do not run them (I write and publish my own adventures/campaign).  It has been a good source of monsters for a varying levels.

With that said, I would like to see a half/half concept -a  smaller adventure path for the first half of the book and a brief gazetteer that includes player options and monsters that focus on the region or story in the second portion.


I was also disheartened to hear about low level play and not groups not finishing the APs.  My group is about to finish our 20th+ level 5E campaign and while it is a bit of work to challenge 20th level characters without non-iconic high CR creatures, the system sustains it well.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 23, 2015)

mykesfree said:


> Concerning the rate of release of titles and there use. I think WotC keeps on forgetting that folks like to read source books and adventures even if they never run or use them.
> 
> What I think it comes down to is this. People like interacting with Table Top D&D.  They want to know something more about the game when they are not playing it.
> 
> I think bringing back Dungeon and Dragon magazines into their Lore/Adventures/Rules/New Monsters incarnation into a deeper way then its current form would help to satisfy a lot of peoples needs.




But are there enough of those people who will spend the money for those magazines to offset the cost to write, edit and publish said magazines?

Based upon what we've heard from almost everyone in the know, the answer is "OH *HELL* NO!"


----------



## evilbob (Nov 23, 2015)

1.  Ravenloft was hinted like 5 times in the article.  Hmm, I wonder what's coming out soon?  

2.  WoW is actually getting away from the 1 mammoth release and trying as hard as they can to get to multiple small releases a year.  Because they saw that their players got bored too quickly.  (To be fair, they've been trying to do that since about the 1st expansion.)

3.  15 people, eh?  Yeah that's pretty small.  No wonder things are going so slowly.  I can't say I completely fault their new idea - to go more slowly and make each product "count" more - but the thing you lose is when something comes along that's a dud, it's a bigger failure.  Still, the opposite didn't work either, so we'll see how it pans out.

4. I sure hope that talk about inclusiveness isn't just lip service.  Hopefully their new artist hire will help move them away from the standard fantasy-art fare and more in the direction that the PHB was trying to head.


----------



## halfling rogue (Nov 23, 2015)

I'm still stoked about his comment that they're going to release a short adventure that you can play like 200 times and never have the same adventure twice! And I'm still intrigued as to how they are going to pull it off.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 23, 2015)

[MENTION=6779182]halfling rogue[/MENTION]: Ever play the original _Ravenloft_ adventure? Or the 3.5e _Expedition to ..._ version? Both of those come with a built-in randomization element (based on fortune telling cards). While the overall story remains the same, it's different each time you play it because certain items can appear in different locations, Strahd can have different goals and places where he appears, and so on.

4e's _Madness at Gardmore Abbey_ has a similar card-based randomization mechanic (in this case the Deck of Many Things). The main bad guy can be different each time, as can the location of various items and cards.

My guess is Perkins is talking about doing something along those lines.


----------



## ad_hoc (Nov 23, 2015)

Jraynack said:


> I was also disheartened to hear about low level play and not groups not finishing the APs.  My group is about to finish our 20th+ level 5E campaign and while it is a bit of work to challenge 20th level characters without non-iconic high CR creatures, the system sustains it well.




What is the benefit of playing at that level?


----------



## Benji (Nov 23, 2015)

Things I'v taken from this that haven't been mentioned so far:

1) The 'Settings' thing seemed to indicate they are thinking of publishing other settings but like maybe that'll be one Adventure path in every four-six and they will always return to the realms after. If you read 'other worlds' section with that as a framework, it makes sense. Also, I think this 'going to another place' which, he's mentioned before will in all likelihood be Ravenloft. That's an Hunch though, I have NOTHING to back it up with.

2) That Giants, who featured breifly in a 'past-adventure' (ToD) are likely to be the next adventure path. We knew this already but this sorta confirms it for me. I guess it'll be set in the realms and might feature that giant who flies a castle from Hoard.

3) No matter what we say, the release schedule is here to stay. Can we just all just shut up about it now? I'm bais because I like it but wait until it fails to decry it. Bitching will not change anything. They defend it like three times here. It's DONE.

4) The 'Intrigue' adventure sound like a great idea. I'd love a Shackled City/Game Of Thrones/First Law Mash up.

5) Some of these comments are so close to what's been said before in podcasts on the D&D website, it's gotta be company policy/ideas that are solid. Therefore we can take some of it at face value as worthwhile. It has backing to be broadcast as a wizards podcast.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 23, 2015)

mykesfree said:


> Concerning the rate of release of titles and there use. I think WotC keeps on forgetting that folks like to read source books and adventures even if they never run or use them.




I don't think they're forgetting this.  I think it's a conscious effort to support things people actually run with game books, and use novels for stuff people just read.  It's an intentional focus on the aspect of the game that people play.  Probably because they think it's better for the game overall.



> What I think it comes down to is this. People like interacting with Table Top D&D.  They want to know something more about the game when they are not playing it.




There's an app for that.



> I think bringing back Dungeon and Dragon magazines into their Lore/Adventures/Rules/New Monsters incarnation into a deeper way then its current form would help to satisfy a lot of peoples needs.




True


----------



## gyor (Nov 23, 2015)

Rhenny said:


> Thanks for the link.  Really, I just like listening to Chris Perkins speak.  His description and logic energize and relax me to no end.  I'm so glad he is overseeing the stories of D&D.




 I saw no logic or energy present, my reaction was for the love of the Gods please take D&D away from these people, they have no plans to support it, they only want to let it die slowly.

 And if so few people are interested in the none FR settings, then lience them out to other companies, but no they'll just sit on the IPs and let them rot.

 If I was a Greyhawk fan I'd be pissed at the "I wouldn't do a setting thing".

 People have said that they want settings, but they won't offer them.


----------



## Jraynack (Nov 23, 2015)

ad_hoc said:


> What is the benefit of playing at that level?




Well, for one, from a player standpoint, a sense of achievement - though completing an involved story at any level is a great reward.  I believe it also allows players to really "kick the tires" and put the system through its paces; to really see what is capable, which leads to developing what they want to "play" next.  If you game with a GM for many years, characters at such levels can also graduate into the lore of campaign setting (I have the player of one character who became the supreme religious leader and remained so as an NPC for several years after the campaign.  So, when each new campaign we begin, that's his first question: is my old character still leader of the church?

Also, the fights become more epic in scope (though this is what I enjoyed about 5E - not every fight needs to be epic to challenge 20th level characters).

It's really hard for me to say - personally, I've game mastered for the past 30 years (though in that time, I played in a few campaigns with my characters reaching between 15th-20th).  Though, I will ask my players want they think on the matter this Saturday when we meet.

As for me, like Chris Perkins stated in his interview, it is a challenge for the Game Master to cope with 20th level characters and their level of power (three of my eight players possess the _wish_ spell).  That is what I like - to stifle and challenge characters at that level while not going overboard with a TPK (total party kill) because you want players to succeed.  Even at 20th level, my players say, "Oh, s$%@!"

My problem with epic stories at lower levels, there are always higher level NPCs that are better suited to fight such catastrophes.  I played in a FR campaign where the Weave was disintegrating.  We were elected by the Council of Waterdeep to seek out answers.  Awesome for a high-level campaign, but we were 9th level!  Even in fantasy, there needs to be a level of realism for me to enjoy it.  Now, when playing as 20th characters, there is no one else to call.

So, when I run a campaign from 15th-20th level, players should change the landscape of the campaign setting, be able to establish their ideas and shape the world in characters (even future characters) adventure.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 23, 2015)

ad_hoc said:


> What is the benefit of playing at that level?



We just hit the 20+ point in our Age of Worms campaign. The DM's letting us pick one of the epic boons from the DMG as a reward for defeating Dragotha. We can totally take Kyuss now.


----------



## lkj (Nov 23, 2015)

ad_hoc said:


> What is the benefit of playing at that level?




For the DM: Access to certain kinds of stories (like those that involve being able to directly challenge very powerful entities).

For the Players: In addition to being able to participate in the aforementioned stories, getting to play around with the most powerful version of your character and the abilities that come with it.

AD


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Nov 24, 2015)

Anyone else read that as:

Ravenloft-type adventure - Check
Against the Giants-type adventure - Check


----------



## scruffygrognard (Nov 24, 2015)

gyor said:


> If I was a Greyhawk fan I'd be pissed at the "I wouldn't do a setting thing".




Yeah... pretty much.

As much as I love 5th edition I hate that WotC doesn't offer two products that I'd actually use: campaign settings and short adventures.

Those products are what fueled my interest in D&D, particularly boxed set campaign worlds with fold-out maps and just enough background information to fire my imagination.  Short adventures, that I could adapt and string together to form my own story arcs, worked better for me than the mega-adventures that are currently released.  

Hopefully someone out there fills this niche (and can get licences to produce classic settings like Greyhawk and Planescape).


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 24, 2015)

Olaf the Stout said:


> Anyone else read that as:
> 
> Ravenloft-type adventure - Check
> Against the Giants-type adventure - Check




Actually I was getting a "Haunted Mountain filled with Magic" Rise of the Runelords vibe myself.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Nov 24, 2015)

I think a Ravenloft story is a certainty based on what Perkins said.


----------



## ad_hoc (Nov 24, 2015)

Thanks for the answers. I personally don't like high level play. I think the highest I will go in 5e will be 15.



Jraynack said:


> Even in fantasy, there needs to be a level of realism for me to enjoy it.  Now, when playing as 20th characters, there is no one else to call.




This was particularly interesting to me. There are many reasons why I don't like high level play and this is a big one. I find the realism goes out the window.

In 3.x I used to play e6, so both the PCs and NPCs in the world didn't go above 6th level. There is a place for low level characters in this world.

I stayed far away from the Forgotten Realms because I saw it as this place where every city has 20th level characters running around.

5e is a lot more forgiving for this. High level characters don't completely invalidate the need for basic fantasy tropes like having kingdoms with farmers and such. Still, there are very few high level characters in my games.

I think it is interesting that for the same reason we like to play completely opposite styles.

If I could request a 5e product it would be a hardcover 200 page collection of short adventures to be dropped as you like into a sandbox.

Actually ideally there would be 3 of them, for tiers 1-4, 5-10, and 11-16.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 24, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Actually I was getting a "Haunted Mountain filled with Magic" Rise of the Runelords vibe myself.



Those descriptions of scenes from "Cloak" and "Dagger" are red herrings. He said so himself: _"Now, by telling you that, I haven't actually given anything away about the main plots of those stories, I assure you. But it's tantalising..."_


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 24, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Those descriptions of scenes from "Cloak" and "Dagger" are red herrings. He said so himself: _"Now, by telling you that, I haven't actually given anything away about the main plots of those stories, I assure you. But it's tantalising..."_




Or is that a red herring?

Chris is good, but he is no Sicilian.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 24, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Or is that a red herring?



REDACTED


----------



## gyor (Nov 24, 2015)

scruffygrognard said:


> Yeah... pretty much.
> 
> As much as I love 5th edition I hate that WotC doesn't offer two products that I'd actually use: campaign settings and short adventures.
> 
> ...




 If WotC continues its current foolish way of doing business, I think I'm done with what started off as the best edition yet.

 I mean two APs next year and that's likely it, wow don't hurt yourself there.

 Pathetic, I wish they'd replace who ever is making the bad choices.


----------



## Jraynack (Nov 24, 2015)

ad_hoc said:


> This was particularly interesting to me. There are many reasons why I don't like high level play and this is a big one. I find the realism goes out the window.




I agree - that's why I enjoy the challenge of high-level campaigns: keeping a realistic atmosphere while players weild powerful magic or skills.

The Feudal Lords Campaign Setting is what I run: low magic/fantasy without the typical restrictions of a low/magic fantasy campaign.

Instead, I focus on the consequences of utilizing powerful magic: the inquisition, feudal lords that do not want to see peasants wielding magic, or even superstitious peasants themselves.  In 5E, pitchfork wielding peasants are still a threat for high level characters (mob rules in the DMG).

I also try to keep magic mysterious and fickle.  Teleport is a good example: in my game, it opens a gateway into the Fey Realm where time moves at a slower pace and mirrors the material plane.  Wicked fey or playful pixies might hamper or pull at the players.  Likewise, it may open into the Shadow Realm.

I describe the imagery, keep the anxieties high by undead shadows (especially, for a mishap) and a few dice rolls, then players emerge as if no time has passed between the two points.

The spells in the PHB for me are more like recipes rather than facts of science: if everything goes well, this is the effect.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is a good book/mini series for inspiration about making epic magic mysterious and fickle in a realistic setting.


----------



## oknazevad (Nov 24, 2015)

dave2008 said:


> I think you could be reading to much into Stewart's comments.  Why do you assume he is more credible than Perkins?




Exactly. I frankly think it's laughable to say that the guy who's in charge of D&D story development has no credibility when it comes to discussing future storylines. I mean, just think about how nonsensical that is.


----------



## JohnLynch (Nov 24, 2015)

I personally don't have any need for campaign settings. I'm more than happy to convert from other editions and games into 5th edition. I've put a handful of notes together for a potential 5th edition Golarion campaign and have some thoughts as to a 5th edition Greyhawk campaign. At this stage I'm tempted to give up on waiting for WotC to convert anything and I'm tempted to create my own psionics rules as well for a Dark Sun campaign.


----------



## Quickleaf (Nov 24, 2015)

scruffygrognard said:


> Yeah... pretty much.
> 
> As much as I love 5th edition I hate that WotC doesn't offer two products that I'd actually use: campaign settings and short adventures.
> 
> ...




Stay scruffy, grognard 

I too miss boxed sets. Few things captivated my imagination as a kid as much as opening up a new boxed set and unfolding wondrous maps, shuffling thru handouts, thumbing thru booklets, and figuring out how it all worked together.


----------



## Evenglare (Nov 24, 2015)

Im fine with a slow release, but I don't care at all about other worlds. I don't care at all about the stories, I care about usable stuff in my games. I was super dissapointed with the page count of the SCAG. Let's compare the subsequent releases of the core books with pathfinder. Advanced player's guide vs SCAG. The Advanced player's guide added a metric TON of options that were easy to digest while half of the SCAG is FR specific... I was so dissapointed. What actually WAS there that I could use was alright, but most of it is worthless to me. I'm not saying that you shouldn't like it, but I certainly don't.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 24, 2015)

gyor said:


> If WotC continues its current foolish way of doing business, I think I'm done with what started off as the best edition yet.
> 
> I mean two APs next year and that's likely it, wow don't hurt yourself there.
> 
> Pathetic, I wish they'd replace who ever is making the bad choices.





You seem to be in a bad mood again. Like when you took some anger out on the Sword Coast Book and made the terrible review without reading it. The reason for that was that you said you were having some difficulties in real life.

They are supporting the game and making money. I like the current system. I am having fun with the books they bring out and like that I don't have to buy a new thing every month. Also they will likely give us more then just the two AP's next year. I personally think we will get around 3 or 4 books. I don't really need more then that in a year.




Evenglare said:


> Im fine with a slow release, but I don't care at all about other worlds. I don't care at all about the stories, I care about usable stuff in my games. I was super dissapointed with the page count of the SCAG. Let's compare the subsequent releases of the core books with pathfinder. Advanced player's guide vs SCAG. The Advanced player's guide added a metric TON of options that were easy to digest while half of the SCAG is FR specific... I was so dissapointed. What actually WAS there that I could use was alright, but most of it is worthless to me. I'm not saying that you shouldn't like it, but I certainly don't.




It was stated as largely being a book for realms fans or those interested in the Realms. (Books actully really good for someone finding out about the realms for the first time.) Honestly I would have been fine with it if it was pure lore. The new stuff for the game is just a nice bonus. You can't really compare it with the Advanced Players guide from Pathfinder, because they are different types of books. 

But I understand why people would not like or care about it.


----------



## Evenglare (Nov 24, 2015)

I'm simply comparing the releases of timing. Both of those books were after the first three, also I wanted the new crunch. The fact that it was paired with FR, and the book was super light on page count is what I hated. In order for me to get those new subclasses and such I was forced to buy a book which I have only used half of. You can throw that "the aren't making you buy it" nonsense, but be real. If you want the content you have to pay for a book that is half worthless. There's no other legal way to obtain the information, If I were to say I pirated the book, I'd get crapped on for supporting piracy. It's BS and annoying.


----------



## delericho (Nov 24, 2015)

scruffygrognard said:


> As much as I love 5th edition I hate that WotC doesn't offer two products that I'd actually use: campaign settings and short adventures.




On the plus side, they've been open and up-front about having no plans to do them, which means you now know to look for them elsewhere.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 24, 2015)

Well, that campaign setting pie chart does look a bit discouraging... Given that, I can understand why they're reluctant to support anything beyond FR.


----------



## RevTurkey (Nov 24, 2015)

It all sounds a bit lame.


----------



## JohnLynch (Nov 24, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Im fine with a slow release, but I don't care at all about other worlds. I don't care at all about the stories, I care about usable stuff in my games. I was super dissapointed with the page count of the SCAG. Let's compare the subsequent releases of the core books with pathfinder. Advanced player's guide vs SCAG. The Advanced player's guide added a metric TON of options that were easy to digest while half of the SCAG is FR specific... I was so dissapointed. What actually WAS there that I could use was alright, but most of it is worthless to me. I'm not saying that you shouldn't like it, but I certainly don't.



I would not characterise the APG as easy to digest. I gamed back then with a group of 3.5e players:

The Favoured class bonuses were more powerful in some cases then the standard rules and underpowered in other cases.
It introduced some pretty horrid Metamagic feats that remain banned to this day in my group.
Summoner was broken as all heck.
It took us a while to work out how to make viable witches. They were instantly deemed boring one trick ponies.
Inquisitors are one of the hardest classes to make viable builds with.
Oracle is a favorite but is considered by some to be the most powerful class in the game.
Cavaliers, alchemists, archetypes and other parts of the book are great additions. But "easy to digest" is not a phrase I would apply to the book.

Your comments on the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide are valid (they're your opinion, of course they're valid) but apply equally to someone who bought the Inner Sea World Guide and didn't want the Golarion fluff. 5th edition clearly won't be producing Pathfinder style splat books anytime soon and the FR-specific book certainly won't be the one to have it.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 24, 2015)

Any news on either a monster manual 2 or a players handbook 2 style book?


----------



## gyor (Nov 24, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> You seem to be in a bad mood again. Like when you took some anger out on the Sword Coast Book and made the terrible review without reading it. The reason for that was that you said you were having some difficulties in real life.
> 
> They are supporting the game and making money. I like the current system. I am having fun with the books they bring out and like that I don't have to buy a new thing every month. Also they will likely give us more then just the two AP's next year. I personally think we will get around 3 or 4 books. I don't really need more then that in a year.
> 
> ...




 I'm not asking for a zillion books a year, just 1 or 2 proper campaign setting guides, instead we get force fed these storylines.

 My discontent this time is not about my personal life this time, its with a plan for the future that is utterly lacking in vision in any shape or form.

 Reading what Perkins has said they seem more interested in rail roading people into playing what they want you to play then in genuinely supporting the game and the settings so I have no use for thier approach, I have no interest in thier APs, so they offer me nothing.

 So aside from a tiny trickle of almost content 5e is dead before it really had a chance.

 I wish the people who made this decision would retire for the good of D&D and make way for people who know what they're doing.

 Another thing I don't like is the pathetic excuse he provides for not communicating with D&D fans, like releasing no information will get anyone excited.

 People were so excited about the Sundering and 5e and now I see most of that excitement is gone for lack of support.

 I'm so disgusted with the lack of vision I'm pretty much done with 5e until the mismangers are gone.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 24, 2015)

I have bought more D&D books in 12 months than in 12 years prior; their sales seem to be booming.  "Dead" is a strong word, when the game seems to be going very strong.


----------



## delericho (Nov 24, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> Any news on either a monster manual 2 or a players handbook 2 style book?




No.

What's more, there are indications that these _won't_ be happening any time soon - WotC have indicated that pretty much all support will be tied to some storyline or other, which seems to preclude the possibility of a more general book like this.

Though they might make an exception for something like MM2. Perhaps.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 24, 2015)

delericho said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





They not only haven't ruled out a MM2, they have specifically stated that they had enough cut from the MM to make another.  I wouldn't be surprised to see one.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 24, 2015)

Olaf the Stout said:


> Anyone else read that as:
> Ravenloft-type adventure - Check
> Against the Giants-type adventure - Check




Yup n' yup. Don't really care about the first...but they've done dragons, demons, and elementals...giants (knew that was coming) and undead are the next obvious "group/category" options...and then, naturally, the sparkly oh-so-hot-n'-emo rockstars of the undead, vampires..Oh look! And we just happen to have a whole campaign setting built around them. I DID catch and appreciate his comment that, specifically in relation to vampires, the question is 'when?" Since, it seems [finally and thankfully], the vampire crazy of the last +/- 5 to 10 years may  have finally cooled off. I think it may have gotten _too_ cool [now] for them to put out vampires now/soon without looking late to the proverbial party/behind the times [never good for the image].  



Shasarak said:


> Actually I was getting a "Haunted Mountain filled with Magic" Rise of the Runelords vibe myself.




I did not hear that, but perspective, as always, is a funny thing. Because as soon as I read "Haunted Mountain filled with Magic", I IMMEDIATELY thought, "OMG! _*White Plume Mountain?!*_"...and then could totally see the possibility of Mr. Perkins saying _this_ without saying it and goes along with their trend of reworking/expanding original modules into 5e "adventure paths."

EDIT P.S.: ...and what world was WPM set in?....yuh-huh, Greyhawk.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 24, 2015)

gyor said:


> I'm so disgusted with the lack of vision I'm pretty much done with 5e until the mismangers are gone.




Does that mean you'll also stop posting in 5E threads too?  Or do you still intend on posting over and over and over how you've stopped playing it, as though the rest of us are supposed to feel sympathy for you that you've been forced to play a different game because of those oh so wicked game designers at Wizards of the Coast?


----------



## darjr (Nov 24, 2015)

Hmmmm... Interesting, cloak about an old stronghold of good alone in the wilderness that hasn't been heard from in a hundred years. That does sound like a prelude to undead and vampires. Cloak being the keyword.


----------



## halfling rogue (Nov 24, 2015)

pukunui said:


> @_*halfling rogue*_: Ever play the original _Ravenloft_ adventure? Or the 3.5e _Expedition to ..._ version? Both of those come with a built-in randomization element (based on fortune telling cards). While the overall story remains the same, it's different each time you play it because certain items can appear in different locations, Strahd can have different goals and places where he appears, and so on.
> 
> 4e's _Madness at Gardmore Abbey_ has a similar card-based randomization mechanic (in this case the Deck of Many Things). The main bad guy can be different each time, as can the location of various items and cards.
> 
> My guess is Perkins is talking about doing something along those lines.




No I haven't played any of those (I'm late to D&D and RPGs in general) but that randomization makes sense. Thanks!


----------



## havard (Nov 24, 2015)

Interesting article. Not buying the percentages at all. Sales of PDFs or books during the 4E era are definitely poor indicators of what people out there are *playing*. Is the FR the most popular setting? Without a doubt. Are alot of people playing Homebrew? For sure. But only 10% divived between Greyhawk, Mystara and other WotC owned settings? I would question that. On the other hand, it is interesting to hear what they are thinking. I will try to get around to listening to the whole thing when I find the time. 

-Havard


----------



## TwoSix (Nov 24, 2015)

havard said:


> Interesting article. Not buying the percentages at all. Sales of PDFs or books during the 4E era are definitely poor indicators of what people out there are *playing*. Is the FR the most popular setting? Without a doubt. Are alot of people playing Homebrew? For sure. But only 10% divived between Greyhawk, Mystara and other WotC owned settings? I would question that. On the other hand, it is interesting to hear what they are thinking. I will try to get around to listening to the whole thing when I find the time.



I'm reasonably sure they're basing the numbers off of customer surveys, not off of any particular sales numbers.  

I think there's a reasonable amount of inertia that drives the setting numbers.  FR has had by far the most products over the past 20 years, so people who don't want to homebrew are naturally going to gravitate towards the setting that has product available, which then reinforces the focus on Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Bugleyman (Nov 24, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Does that mean you'll also stop posting in 5E threads too?  Or do you still intend on posting over and over and over how you've stopped playing it, as though the rest of us are supposed to feel sympathy for you that you've been forced to play a different game because of those oh so wicked game designers at Wizards of the Coast?




Yes, how dare you express your opinion when it isn't to DEFCON 1's liking.  You should be flogged.


----------



## basilforth (Nov 24, 2015)

Nice to hear about DnD plans from Chris Perkins.  Class act.  I am glad to hear that they are considering releasing smaller scale stuff.  I'd rather plunk down $20 for a shorter adventure than $50 for a Tyranny type adventure.  My time is short and play sessions are infrequent.  My players just want to roll dice (right now) rather than figure out a plot.  Just hard to make a long arced campaign happen.

Now, I would plunk down $50 for a nice sandbox description of Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.,  I love that stuff.  Followed up with shorter, less specific adventures.  Also, pregenerated characters are awesome.  Especially since DnD is not officially supporting a character generation program at this time.


----------



## delericho (Nov 24, 2015)

basilforth said:


> I am glad to hear that they are considering releasing smaller scale stuff.  I'd rather plunk down $20 for a shorter adventure than $50 for a Tyranny type adventure.




The problem is that economies of scale mean that small books are increasingly inefficient - $30 gets you a 100-page HotDQ (3.3 pages per $), $40 gets a 16-page SCAG (4 pages per $), and $50 gets you a 250-page OotA (5 pages per $). So for $20 you're probably looking at 64 pages.

I'd much rather see them go with fewer, bigger products at that higher price point and page count - indeed, better for them to package up 4 64-page adventures into a single $50 book than publish them individually at $20 each.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 24, 2015)

gyor said:


> If WotC continues its current foolish way of doing business, I think I'm done with what started off as the best edition yet.
> 
> I mean two APs next year and that's likely it, wow don't hurt yourself there.
> 
> Pathetic, I wish they'd replace who ever is making the bad choices.






gyor said:


> I'm not asking for a zillion books a year, just 1 or 2 proper campaign setting guides, instead we get force fed these storylines.
> 
> My discontent this time is not about my personal life this time, its with a plan for the future that is utterly lacking in vision in any shape or form.
> 
> ...





I am sorry you're unhappy with this edition.  At least you leaving the edition may make this board a bit more enjoyable for those who do like this edition, but I know that is not much consolation for your frustration. I hope you find the right game for your preferences.

If maybe you change your mind and decide to stay with 5e a bit longer, I hope you can find something you like, and focus on that.  Maybe we can talk about the kinds of games you like, the stories you like, the mechanics you like, and work out some homebrew stuff or blackboard some campaign ideas? This board can be a good place to vent, but it can also be a great place to create.  I think it's actually better for the later.  There are so many smart, creative, inventive people here willing to dive in and support the things you like.  It's really fun to start the day in a thread about those kinds of things and see all the ideas that came in overnight. I know at least for me, it makes me feel better than the threads where I am venting my frustrations (which I do sometimes as well).


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 24, 2015)

havard said:


> Interesting article. Not buying the percentages at all. Sales of PDFs or books during the 4E era are definitely poor indicators of what people out there are *playing*. Is the FR the most popular setting? Without a doubt. Are alot of people playing Homebrew? For sure. But only 10% divived between Greyhawk, Mystara and other WotC owned settings? I would question that. On the other hand, it is interesting to hear what they are thinking. I will try to get around to listening to the whole thing when I find the time.
> 
> -Havard




It's based on the surveys not sales.  And Mike Mearls' favorite setting is Greyhawk.  He's said his personal preference would be to support Greyhawk but so far the numbers have not justified it. I think if he had a way to spin the numbers to support Greyhawk at this point he would.


----------



## Orlax (Nov 24, 2015)

gyor said:


> I'm not asking for a zillion books a year, just 1 or 2 proper campaign setting guides, instead we get force fed these storylines.
> 
> My discontent this time is not about my personal life this time, its with a plan for the future that is utterly lacking in vision in any shape or form.
> 
> ...




Lack of vision?... Said about someone that just detailed that they have a plan for the next two to three years.  Okay just to get it straight a vision differing from your own is not a lack of vision it is just a differing vision.  And you aren't in any way entitled to know what that vision is until they feel like telling you.  Year out warning on a product  release is one of the major killers of the current video game industry, which is unabashedly where they are lifting their current D&D release strategies from.

They are making due with what they got, and they are being responsible with the dissemination of information, and with the resources they have.  They are doing their best to keep the system light while still putting out some trickle of content (and really grabbing the APs for the maps, monsters, magic items, and NPC stats isn't that bad of a trade off), and they are experimenting with new and risky marketing approaches because their former marketing approaches lead to poor product and a disappointed fan base.  They've correctly identified a phenomenon.  That maintaining excitement for a product for a year is impossible nowadays.  Heck the hype train for fallout four didn't really even get rolling till about a month or two before the game dropped, and that's one of the loudest hype trains I've seen in years.  They have identified that phenomenon and have come up with a marketing strategy to try and work within the confines of the phenomenon.  They show an incredible amount of vision by noticing the market they actually live in.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 24, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Yes, how dare you express your opinion when it isn't to DEFCON 1's liking.  You should be flogged.




When people who aren't playing something jump into threads for no reason other than to say they aren't playing it... we have every right to call them out on it for wasting our time.

I can't stop anyone from posting even when they have nothing worthwhile to add.  But I will absolutely point out how ridiculous I think they're behaving when they do.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It can be the same thing.




Its a subtle distinction. 

But he has been very consistent on STORY!


----------



## jodyjohnson (Nov 24, 2015)

I think "Story, story, story", shared experiences, and keeping crunch to manageable levels is not boding well for an OGL.

Multiple settings, innumerable splats, and an overflow of adventures are pent up behind the 'No-OGL' dam.  I don't see how the OGL fits into their current focus as much as they may individually like the idea.  We'd be back in a "5% using 5%" state within a year (when looking at the full set of 5e products available).


----------



## Orlax (Nov 24, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> I think "Story, story, story", shared experiences, and keeping crunch to manageable levels is not boding well for an OGL.
> 
> Multiple settings, innumerable splats, and an overflow of adventures are pent up behind the 'No-OGL' dam.  I don't see how the OGL fits into their current focus as much as they may individually like the idea.  We'd be back in a "5% using 5%" state within a year (when looking at the full set of 5e products available).




I think you may be unfortunately right.  I personally have no issue with an ogl and a flood of third party material for 5e.  Third party material is always volatile and isn't expected to work properly when placed in concert with anything but the core books.

I think the main issue with the licensing of 5e is that they really want control over class names and stuff like that and don't want to lose out on being able to print something called a scout because a third party product already produced a scout.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 24, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> I think "Story, story, story", shared experiences, and keeping crunch to manageable levels is not boding well for an OGL.
> 
> Multiple settings, innumerable splats, and an overflow of adventures are pent up behind the 'No-OGL' dam.  I don't see how the OGL fits into their current focus as much as they may individually like the idea.  We'd be back in a "5% using 5%" state within a year (when looking at the full set of 5e products available).




Actually... what is currently happening might very well be what WotC is relatively happy with.  They aren't releasing 5E material via an SRD into the OGL pool, which means only those people and companies who are experienced designers and knowledgeable of how the OGL works are the ones currently producing 5E compatible content via the 3E SRD.  Thereby increasing the odds of the products being of a certain level of quality, and reducing the overall number of products released that could water everything down.

What we HAVEN'T seen is the mass of questionable product that every Tom, Dick and Harry made up and released during 3E trying to make a quick buck... product which probably sometimes salted the soil for less discernible purchasers.  Tom, Dick, and Harry right now _could_ be making and releasing product for 5E, but they aren't for fear of reprisal due to not being fully up on what using the 3E SRD entails.

So by WotC's probable way of thinking, they don't *need* to release a 5E SRD, because the 3E SRD is more than up for the challenge to allow the professionals to make quality product for the system.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Nov 24, 2015)

When I look through the classics list I see a few that haven't really been touched in the last few years - but have been retreaded by Pathfinder APs.

I3-5 Desert of Desolation - Mummy's Mask, Barrier Peaks - Iron Gods, Ravenloft - Carrion Crown, Kara-Tur - Jade Regent, Against the Giants - Giantslayer, Isle of Dread - Savage Tide (Paizo/WotC).

Forgotten Temple in the Mountains (of Tharizdun) sounds like a Spelljammer/Elder Evils mash up especially if the next adventure is as far from the Underdark as you can get.  Toss in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks with less technology.

Another 'far from Underdark' option is the Deserts of Desolation series in Zakhara (Al-Qadim).  More 'Arabian Adventures' and less 'Tomb of the Mummy'.


----------



## GobiWon (Nov 24, 2015)

Elodan said:


> .
> 
> It'd be nice if home groups had better access to the shorter AL adventures.





They should give the Adventure League exclusive access to the adventures for a year and then release the AL adventurers as pdf modules for sale.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 24, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> Any news on either a monster manual 2 or a players handbook 2 style book?



Not explicitly. However, the next minis set from WizKids is apparently called "Monster Menagerie". So far, the minis sets have all tied in to the storyline seasons, but that doesn't really sound to me like a title you'd use for a storyline. So it *could* mean that we'll be getting an MM2 with a set of minis to support it. Then again, Perkins says they're not going to release anything that's not tied to a storyline, so who knows? All we can do is wait and see what they announce.


----------



## GobiWon (Nov 24, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Meanwhile... all the Forgotten Realms fans (even the ones who felt they were kicked in the nuts by the Spellplague) apparently supported it enough to weather the 4E storm and come out on the other side at 35%.  So don't get mad that WotC just followed where the people were already going.




This made me laugh and was an accurate reflection of how I felt.


----------



## rooneg (Nov 24, 2015)

I still think it's hilarious that their answer for "short adventures" is the Adventurer's League, and "you can also download them", except you can't. They're restricted to people who are running them in stores or at cons. I want to buy these things, but you won't let me.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 24, 2015)

rooneg said:


> I still think it's hilarious that their answer for "short adventures" is the Adventurer's League, and "you can also download them", except you can't. They're restricted to people who are running them in stores or at cons. I want to buy these things, but you won't let me.




Yeah. I thought that. I most certainly cannot download them!


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 24, 2015)

Orlax said:


> I think you may be unfortunately right.  I personally have no issue with an ogl and a flood of third party material for 5e.  Third party material is always volatile and isn't expected to work properly when placed in concert with anything but the core books.
> 
> I think the main issue with the licensing of 5e is that they really want control over class names and stuff like that and don't want to lose out on being able to print something called a scout because a third party product already produced a scout.




I think maybe Wizards has copped on to the quality of products that 3rd party companies make. 

Look at it this way. If their figures are accurate then letting 3rd party companies put out material should be a no brainer because hey, it's not going to effect you anyway. Now on the other hand, maybe people do want more than what Wizards is putting out so if the likes of Keith Baker and Co continue put out quality stuff like Primeval Thule then maybe people will buy more from them than Wizards.


----------



## GobiWon (Nov 24, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Actually... what is currently happening might very well be what WotC is relatively happy with.  They aren't releasing 5E material via an SRD into the OGL pool, which means only those people and companies who are experienced designers and knowledgeable of how the OGL works are the ones currently producing 5E compatible content via the 3E SRD.  Thereby increasing the odds of the products being of a certain level of quality, and reducing the overall number of products released that could water everything down.
> 
> What we HAVEN'T seen is the mass of questionable product that every Tom, Dick and Harry made up and released during 3E trying to make a quick buck... product which probably sometimes salted the soil for less discernible purchasers.  Tom, Dick, and Harry right now _could_ be making and releasing product for 5E, but they aren't for fear of reprisal due to not being fully up on what using the 3E SRD entails.
> 
> So by WotC's probable way of thinking, they don't *need* to release a 5E SRD, because the 3E SRD is more than up for the challenge to allow the professionals to make quality product for the system.




This is the truth. They want to keep at an arms reach from third party material while hoping that anything that is produced has a decent level of quality. Not having an OGL is doing that. If something of questionable worth is produced they can shut it down, and if they can't shut it down they can at least disown it.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 24, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I think maybe Wizards has copped on to the quality of products that 3rd party companies make.
> 
> Look at it this way. If their figures are accurate then letting 3rd party companies put out material should be a no brainer because hey, it's not going to effect you anyway. Now on the other hand, maybe people do want more than what Wizards is putting out so if the likes of Keith Baker and Co continue put out quality stuff like Primeval Thule then maybe people will buy more from them than Wizards.




Keith Baker didn't put out Primeval Thule.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 24, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Keith Baker didn't put out Primeval Thule.




Ooooops! I meant Richard. Get the names mixed up sometimes.


----------



## darjr (Nov 24, 2015)

If you want to access them and don't want to run in a store or con consider running somewhere else in public or in public online.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 24, 2015)

darjr said:


> If you want to access them and don't want to run in a store or con consider running somewhere else in public or in public online.




Or they could, you know, just make them available for everyone?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 24, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Ooooops! I meant Richard. Get the names mixed up sometimes.




It's not like you to cite wildly inaccurate facts....


----------



## GobiWon (Nov 24, 2015)

I wouldn't be surprised if the new material isn't connected to Forgotten Realms in some way. You can start someone in Forgotten Realms and get them to Ravenloft. You can have an Airship from Eberron crash in the Realms. I do think that Greyhawk is to generically D&D to justify an entire book, but Eberron and Dark Sun have real differences that need game mechanics and could justify a handbook. They are not going to allow a third party the license, because it would eat away at their own sales. I might not like it, but I can understand it from a business point of view.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 24, 2015)

Morrus said:


> It's not like you to cite wildly inaccurate facts....




Was that really necessary?


----------



## darjr (Nov 24, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Or they could, you know, just make them available for everyone?




Uhm....


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 24, 2015)

I don't see why they don't test out the theory. 

Why not release a free PDF containing stuff for playing Thri-kreen, Muls, and Half-giants, add the psionics and then release an AL adventure for Dark Sun and see where it goes.


----------



## darjr (Nov 24, 2015)

Why don't you? Keep track of the number of downloads and plays and report back.

I'd consider giving it a try.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 24, 2015)

*WotC's Chris Perkins Talks About... Everything! Upcoming Storylines, Products...*



Corpsetaker said:


> Was that really necessary?




It'll stop being necessary when you stop citing inaccurate facts.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Nov 24, 2015)

Okay, this was too long of a thread to read.

I listened to the interview. He didn't say nearly as much as some people seem to think he did about what, specifically, we will see.

The next 2 adventures coming out (code named "Cloak" and "Dagger") are being playtested and seem pretty much done. They are also working on 2 additional adventures beyond those that are in fairly advanced states.

It was mentioned that in one of the first 2 adventures, there is tomb raiding, and a dragon that featured in Tyranny of Dragons. This is a pretty good indication that it is set in the Forgotten Realms. An airship was also mentioned, and I believe it was in context of this adventure. There is zero reason to assume the airship has any Spelljammer correlation. The brief mention made me think balloon or zeppelin. 

At least one of these first 2 adventures would have a shorter storyline but tremendous replay value (very different story each time you play).

Beyond that, there was almost nothing said that can be pinpointed to one of the next 2 adventures, and very little that was clearly identified as in the next 4. 

There was a ton of brainstorming, and a ton of non-specifics. Chris got inspired with some cool ideas during the interview. If you take any of that as indication we _will_ see things he liked, you are way out on a limb. He liked the Iuz idea someone suggested, and talked about it a bit. That means nothing as far as future products, other than that Chris thought it was a cool idea the first time someone brought it up.

It was a great interview; but realize that the speculation going on about it is _way_ out on a microfiber limb.


----------



## ccs (Nov 25, 2015)

rooneg said:


> I still think it's hilarious that their answer for "short adventures" is the Adventurer's League, and "you can also download them", except you can't. They're restricted to people who are running them in stores or at cons. I want to buy these things, but you won't let me.




Can't your local store print you a copy?


----------



## rooneg (Nov 25, 2015)

ccs said:


> Can't your local store print you a copy?




In practice there are many ways to acquire copies of the shorter adventures, but none of them are both legal and universally accessible. Yes, I can download the pdfs from sketchy websites. Yes, I can ask my friend who DMs at a local store to give me a copy. Heck, I could even sign up to DM myself. These are all totally available options, but they're weird hoops to expect people to jump through as compared to the totally reasonable and sane option of just making the pdfs available for purchase via their already existing online store, or allowing your LGS to special order hardcopies from WotC.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 25, 2015)

gyor said:


> Reading what Perkins has said they seem more interested in rail roading people into playing what they want you to play then in genuinely supporting the game and the settings so I have no use for thier approach, I have no interest in thier APs, so they offer me nothing.
> 
> So aside from a tiny trickle of almost content 5e is dead before it really had a chance.




I know people get tired of hearing this question/opinion, but how can the game be dead when you can create worlds, settings, adventures, and characters with the resources we have?

What do you need?


----------



## pukunui (Nov 25, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> What do you need?



The impression I get is that he feels the need to have WotC give him official updates for every little corner of the Realms. I, for one, quite like that they haven't mentioned *everything*. It leaves more to the imagination. I can fill in the blanks myself and make the Realms my own, just like WotC wants me to do (see the sidebar on page 44 of the SCAG).


----------



## darjr (Nov 25, 2015)

Hmm I wonder if a public AL game event could be held here at ENWorld? Anyone running would need a copy of their adventure. Anybody interested?


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 25, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> I think "Story, story, story", shared experiences, and keeping crunch to manageable levels is not boding well for an OGL.




When ever I see "Story, story, story", it always makes me remember Steve Ballmer racing around shouting "Developers, Developers, Developers" with the vague hope that Greg does that at WotC headquarters.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 25, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> It was a great interview; but realize that the speculation going on about it is _way_ out on a microfiber limb.




The problem is, since Chris _had_ to be vague on upcoming products (which is he needs to do for business reasons), most of the posters here heave read into his remarks confirmation of exactly what they want to believe, for good or ill.

My only addition to this is that the only certainty is that there will eventually be a Monster Manual 2. There are simply too many D&D-specific IP monsters out there that weren't in the original MM that need updating. And virtually any DM worth his salt is going to pick up a book full of new foes to throw at his/her players...


----------



## TBeholder (Nov 25, 2015)

> And part of that is just driven by business realities, part of it is driven by our knowledge of certain facts that we've obtained through surveys, through talking to people at shows, that there is kind of a certain amount of material that people can actually absorb before the stuff that we're releasing no longer has any value and is no longer serving anybody. A lot of 3rd Edition products, I'm sure, and 4th Edition products, I'm sure, that maybe you've bought or your players have bought are sitting on shelves having never been used, or used precious little.



 That's one way to say it, yes...



> And so while Tyranny of Dragons, and Elemental Evil, and Rage of Demons, have all fundamentally been Forgotten Realms based, one of the things we are going to be doing in the future is looking out at some of our other worlds. That doesn't mean we won't come back to the Realms



 = "The damage is done, but we'll try to keep the worst hacks from using FR as their trash can... before it _completely_ turned into a sad joke"?



> And they were supporting a number of campaign settings that had held over from 2nd Edition, there was a Dragonlance team, there was a Forgotten Realms team, there was a Greyhawk team, every world still had its own team.... now there isn't dedicated teams for worlds, because there just aren't that many worlds that are actively supported any more. And so our team now numbers 15, and not only do we work on TRPG stuff, but we also support our novelists, we also provide support to our business partners working on digital games, miniatures, and game accessories. And we've also got part of our team whose brain space is dedicated to coming up with new ideas, new ways of getting D&D out there



 = "It's more dead than alive. Don't expect it to get off life-support any time soon."



> Very, very beneficial for us, because they give us enormous exposure.
> My story team consists of me, I have an art director named Richard Witters who I stole from the Magic team, who's brilliant... and I've got a storywriter named Adam Lee, who I also stole from Magic... and we're in the process of hiring a new concept artist.



 = "By now, it's a place for the obsessed, but more so for the desperate." MtG writers, really? If it was a horse, it would be mercifully shot in the head long ago. Twice.



> That's another thing about our stories, is that we don't want to be predictable. In fact, we've even changed out release plans so we don't even tell people.



 = "We really can't in good faith promise anything at this point, not until the typography confirmed they received the final product."



> Certainly gothic ... and Victorian, and that sort of feel.. the question is all about timing. When is the time to do it? When is it going to surprise and delight the most people?
> ...
> So, yeah, vampire, classic monster, yeah, we'll do a story with vampires... [more classic monster suggestions].. yeah, we'll do a story with giants.



 = "Now on the creative side: most decent writers are still looking at this collapsed card house like horses at fire, so we expect to run corny rip-offs of the cheesy rip-offs now."



> Cloak --
> ...
> Dagger --



 "I remember my better days..." Yup. We remember too, Chris. The ol' good times before someone turned _Warriors of Heaven_ into _Book of Exalted Vile Deeds_. My consolations.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 25, 2015)

Demetrios1453 said:


> My only addition to this is that the only certainty is that there will eventually be a Monster Manual 2. There are simply too many D&D-specific IP monsters out there that weren't in the original MM that need updating. And virtually and DM worth his salt is going to pick up a book full of new foes to throw at his/her players...




I have already pre ordered mine from the Kobold Tome of Beasts Kickstarter.

Or should I say that I helped to fund the Kickstarter and as reward for that funding I hope to receive a copy of the Tome of Beasts (becuase we all know that Kickstarter is not a store).


----------



## pukunui (Nov 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I have already pre ordered mine from the Kobold Tome of Beasts Kickstarter.



Tome of Beasts =/= Monster Manual 2, for the simple reason that it can't contain any WotC IP critters, which was the whole gist of the comment to which you were replying.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 25, 2015)

Demetrios1453 said:


> The problem is, since Chris _had_ to be vague on upcoming products (which is he needs to do for business reasons), most of the posters here heave read into his remarks confirmation of exactly what they want to believe, for good or ill.
> 
> My only addition to this is that the only certainty is that there will eventually be a Monster Manual 2. There are simply too many D&D-specific IP monsters out there that weren't in the original MM that need updating. And virtually and DM worth his salt is going to pick up a book full of new foes to throw at his/her players...




I hope you are right. I have picked up the first three adventures and haven't been impressed. If you want to get me excited don't do 2 more years of the same but a bit different give me a monster manual 2 and a PHB 2.

And the third party stuff is usually full of oddball creatures that don't have that d&d history I am looking for. stuff like Dark Creepers, Skulks, Chokers, undead, troll & giant variants, other celestials & fiends, demodands. This type of book seems like a no brainer that they already have half the work done for them.


----------



## TBeholder (Nov 25, 2015)

Demetrios1453 said:


> My only addition to this is that the only certainty is that there will eventually be a Monster Manual 2. There are simply too many D&D-specific IP monsters out there that weren't in the original MM that need updating. And virtually and DM worth his salt is going to pick up a book full of new foes to throw at his/her players...



 Not necessarily. They may run with "Monster Compendium, vol. 1 - 99" structure, whether sorted by actual campaign settings or just thematic.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 25, 2015)

Turbo Beholder said:


> That's one way to say it, yes...




Man you are "super fun"

None of that is true and you are just bitter about something.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 25, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Tome of Beasts =/= Monster Manual 2, for the simple reason that it can't contain any WotC IP critters, which was the whole gist of the comment to which you were replying.




If I ever get the time, I'm going to post my list of "100 older edition monsters I want to see updated in a MM2". The list itself won't be the time sink (it's done), it will be the explanations and reasoning for (some of) of the choices...


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 25, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Tome of Beasts =/= Monster Manual 2, for the simple reason that it can't contain any WotC IP critters, which was the whole gist of the comment to which you were replying.




Which of the 400 plus second rate (as in could not make the real Monster Manual) WotC IP critters are you most looking forward to seeing?


----------



## pukunui (Nov 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Which of the 400 plus second rate (as in could not make the real Monster Manual) WotC IP critters are you most looking forward to seeing?



What makes you say they're all second-rate? I'm sure there are some good ones that simply didn't make the cut due to space reasons and such. In fact, I know there were some, but I can't actually tell you which ones they are.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Which of the 400 plus second rate (as in could not make the real Monster Manual) WotC IP critters are you most looking forward to seeing?




Because flumphs are _everyone's_ idea of a first-rate monster, far more important in D&D than, say, the various types of Celestials - who have a spell to summon them, but currently only have _three_ choices if you do (coatl, pegasus, and, at higher levels, unicorn), instead of several types of archon, gaurdinal, or eladrin of the appropriate level just waiting to be updated...

As Pukunui says, the monsters that didn't make the MM aren't necessarily second-rate, there just wasn't room for them all. Long-term D&D monsters like derro, firbolg, gem dragons, and leucrotta had to be cut, simply because _something_ had to...


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 25, 2015)

pukunui said:


> What makes you say they're all second-rate? I'm sure there are some good ones that simply didn't make the cut due to space reasons and such. In fact, I know there were some, but I can't actually tell you which ones they are.




They are second rate because they are not in the Monster Manual.  It really does not matter why they did not make the cut unless you have a particular story that you want to tell about why *your* particular favourite did not make it.

Besides, unless you have some particular information to add, we have no evidence that there is a MM2 in the works any time soon along with no one knowing which creatures are going to be in it if it does appear.  Personally I can not see a MM2 fitting in to the new "Story" focused product line.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Personally I can not see a MM2 fitting in to the new "Story" focused product line.



Have you got a good theory as to why the next minis set is entitled "Monster Menagerie" then? Doesn't really sound like a storyline type of title to me, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 25, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Have you got a good theory as to why the next minis set is entitled "Monster Menagerie" then? Doesn't really sound like a storyline type of title to me, but I could be wrong.




Because some Wizard in the White Plume Mountains has assembled a Menagerie of Monsters?

Besides which, there was no "Monster Manual" miniatures - as far as I can see they were all based around the Adventures.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Because some Wizard in the White Plume Mountains has assembled a Menagerie of Monsters?




You are right. 
I am disappointed.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Besides which, there was no "Monster Manual" miniatures - as far as I can see they were all based around the Adventures.



Loosely. Yes, the sets so far have all been *named after* the storylines (Tyranny of Dragons, Elemental Evil, and Rage of Demons). That would suggest that the next storyline will be named "Monster Menagerie", but that just doesn't sound like something you'd call a storyline to me.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 25, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Loosely. Yes, the sets so far have all been *named after* the storylines (Tyranny of Dragons, Elemental Evil, and Rage of Demons). That would suggest that the next storyline will be named "Monster Menagerie", but that just doesn't sound like something you'd call a storyline to me.




I would have gone with "Iuzs Wacky Sword Coast Adventures", but that is just me.


----------



## delericho (Nov 25, 2015)

ccs said:


> Can't your local store print you a copy?




No. Firstly because I don't actually _have_ a local store any more, but more importantly because of copyright - which is exactly the same reason someone can't just bundle them all up into a Torrent for download.

Or, rather, I suppose they could. But not legally.


----------



## darjr (Nov 25, 2015)

If you were running for a store they could indeed print out the mods you were running. If you have no store then contact wotc customer service. They may be able to help. When I was organizing for a con and didn't have a store to sponsor they were going to help.


----------



## delericho (Nov 25, 2015)

darjr said:


> If you were running for a store they could indeed print out the mods you were running.




Sure. But then, if I were running for a store I'd also most likely have the password and so the problems wouldn't come up in the first place. But they can't just print copies for people who _aren't_ running the games.

Edit: My previous post could have been clearer, of course.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 25, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Loosely. Yes, the sets so far have all been *named after* the storylines (Tyranny of Dragons, Elemental Evil, and Rage of Demons). That would suggest that the next storyline will be named "Monster Menagerie", but that just doesn't sound like something you'd call a storyline to me.





I'll have to be honest: "Tyranny of Dragons," "Elemental Evil" and "Rage of Demons" also don't sound like names one would give a story, particularly: Perkins touched on the difficulties of finding storyline names, here, actually.

If they have an adventure with the Frogrmoth & Friends, "Monster Menagerie" might be very apropos as a name, or at least as good as their other naming efforts.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 25, 2015)

So...we've had...

*Tyranny of Dragons*: Adventure path Baddies: Dragons, draconic-themed cultists and creatures, culminating in/with Tiamat.
*Hoard of the Dragon Queen* (lvls 1-7)
*The Rise of Tiamat* (lvls 8-15)

*Elemental Evil*: Adventure path baddies: Elementals, elemental themed cultists and creatures, culminating with (I presume) the Evil Elemental Princes [or their avatars?]
*Princes of the Apocalypse* (lvls 1-15)

_Elemental Evil Player's Guide_

*Rage of Demons*: Adventure path baddies: Demons, demoninc themed cultists and creatures, culminating in/with various Demon Lords (Orcus is the only option for a direct combat scenario? I feel like I read that somewhere. THe other demon lords are sort of woven into the story but you don't directly engage them. Is that right?).
*Out of the Abyss* (lvls 1-15).

_Sword Coast Player's Guide_

Soooo, I'm gonna go with the following possibilities...either/or of the APs + player's guide...maaaybe they'll do the two before the player's guide, but I'd doubt it given the amount of clamor for additional world setting matieral.

*Ancients Awakening*: Adventure path baddies: Undead, undead-themed cultists and creatures, culminating in/with liches (maybe a certain vampire lord):
*Reigns of Terror* (lvls 1-15) Keraptis, Acererak, Strahd (Iuz). PCs thwart a spreading undead creating/causing disease, likely a cult to some undead/disease deity? vampire cult? etc..., then wander about going from lost tomb (White PLume Mountain) to hidden castle/demi-plane (Ravenloft, maybe) to lost tomb (Tomb of Horrors) seeking out the massive riches and forgotten magics of these ages old agents of evil.

IF based in Greyhawk, which I certainly think they should be/hope they are, throw Iuz in there as a behind the scenes ultimate mastermind or final battle or something. The "madness" tables and mechanics they teased out for Rage of Demons are applied throughout this AP in terms of "Fear/Horror."

*Strife of Giants:* Adventure path baddies: Giants!, giant-themed cultists and creatures, culminating in/with the various giant chiefs and lords of Hill, Frost, Fire (I'd add Cloud and Stone just to be more inclusive/complete/cover more levels than the original).
*Turmoil in the Hintermarch* (lvls 1-15):You know the deal, PCs go from Hill Giant lands to Frost Giant lands to Fire Giant lands, seeking to find out the cause/source of the new unrest behind the -thought to be failing/lost/long dead giantish people who are now returning to the lands of men and elves in force (and pillage massive -some might say "giant"- amounts of treasure, obviously). Instead of involving "the drow are behind it" (yawn. drow are soooo done in OotA), simply make it that the giants see the end of their kind/civilization fast-approaching and are motivated to war to reclaim their [ruling] place in the world. 

Then, _Greyhawk (or maybe just "Nyr Dyv") Player's Guide_


----------



## mflayermonk (Nov 25, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> I know people get tired of hearing this question/opinion, but how can the game be dead when you can create worlds, settings, adventures, and characters with the resources we have?
> 
> What do you need?




If you look at the 2e release schedule it had all kinds of books that support the game but give no story lines.
Such as,
Castles Guide
"DMGR2: The Castle Guide (1990), by Grant Boucher, Troy Christensen, Arthur Collins, and Nigel Findley, was the second book in the Dungeon Master's Guide Rules Supplements for AD&D 2e. It was released in May 1990...the Castle Guide was innovative at TSR in part because it took a much more realistic look at medieval history than most previous works from the company - which all tended to focus on fantasy realms that were at best pseudo-Medieval"
or books like DMGR4 Monster Mythology, Complete Book of Humanoids

As far as creating yourself-absolutely-but as a programmer I could create my own spreadsheet software but really its cheaper just to buy Excel.


----------



## mflayermonk (Nov 25, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> So...we've had...
> 
> *Rage of Demons*: Adventure path baddies: Demons, demoninc themed cultists and creatures, culminating in/with various Demon Lords (Orcus is the only option for a direct combat scenario? I feel like I read that somewhere. THe other demon lords are sort of woven into the story but you don't directly engage them. Is that right?).
> 
> ...




The Gord the Rogue novels had some elements in common to the Rage of Demons storyline. Iuz seems like a natural choice.

(For those who haven't read the novles the basic plot is that the demon lords take sides in looking for an ancient artifact of Tharizdun. 
Grazzt, Yeenoghu, and Kostchtchie  vs Iuz, Iggwilv, Zuggtmoy (and some Jubilex) fight for control of the artifact, with later appearance by Demogorgon and Orcus's vassals.)


----------



## mflayermonk (Nov 25, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> See also: Nate Silver.




Just don't take his advice about online poker.


----------



## Pauper (Nov 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I would have gone with "Iuzs Wacky Sword Coast Adventures", but that is just me.




Given the existing references to dinosaurs (Chult) and airships (Halruaa), I suspect it'll actually be "Iuz's Wacky *Shining South* Adventures", but that might just be my bias talking.

But it also means we may see a 'Shining South Adventurer's Guide' next year.

--
Pauper


----------



## Pauper (Nov 25, 2015)

rooneg said:


> I still think it's hilarious that their answer for "short adventures" is the Adventurer's League, and "you can also download them", except you can't.




Actually, you can -- at least two of them: DDEX 3-1 was published in Dragon+ #3 and DDEX 3-2 was published in Dragon+ #4.

If Perkins's comment was intended to acknowledge that WotC is trying to get AL adventures into the hands of the general gaming community, and that not only will the Dragon+ adventures continue, but other ways of getting high-quality AL adventures into the hands of DMs who aren't running Adventurers League, I think that's a good thing.

--
Pauper


----------



## scruffygrognard (Nov 25, 2015)

If WotC released full pdf conversions of classic, TSR-era, adventures I'd throw my money at them (especially if they offered print-on-demand versions with detached covers).  By full conversions I mean that the classic adventures would have 5th edition creatures, treasure, and traps/challenges in place of those written into the adventure.  The adventure could be run as written, with no need to convert anything on-the-fly or consult a separate conversion booklet.


----------



## darjr (Nov 25, 2015)

Yea, personally I desperately need more DMs.


----------



## GreenTengu (Nov 25, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> People are getting bored with this Edition? I don't know if you and your group of friends are representative of "people." Because when I run Adventurers League at conventions, we have no trouble filling tables. When I run at game stores, we have to politely turn people away because we don't have enough DM's (and we have 5 DM's -- that's a lot of players). Friends of mine who swore off D&D due to earlier editions are back. So if we were to use my set of "people," 5th Edition is booming in a way that hasn't been seen in a long time.
> 
> As for finishing adventures in 5 to 6 sessions... Either your sessions are 12-18 hours long or your groups is skipping over massive amounts of material. Try running them again and having your group chose different options.
> 
> Lastly, if you feel the snails-pace release schedule is keeping you from enjoying the game, buy something from a 3rd Party. Some really top-quality designers are writing for 5th Edition. Or hell, check out EN World's magazine. It's awesome and FILLED with material: https://www.patreon.com/ensider?ty=c&u=461304




Okay, that is all good and fine. But, I'll tell you think... WotC's boards were getting dead before they shut them down, there are less posts around here now than when the edition first launched (and notice most of them are about the SCAG and about half of them are negative), I am seeing less discussion and talk about the edition on the net, video channels on YouTube with people excitedly talking about the possibilities have fallen silent, I am seeing less and less people trying to start up online campaigns as the months roll on and I'm going to guess you probably had more than 5 DMs and were turning away a lot more players 6 months ago.

And projecting forward, go two more years into the future with the company only doing 2 releases per year. For precisely how long do you think people are going to remain excited or engaged with nothing new to sink their teeth into? For those who can't even play what they want to because their favorite race was never updated or their favorite class just isn't in the game or is horrendously busted and they are told to sit on their hands and maybe WotC will get around to releasing it 5 years from now.... how much longer before they decide its just not worth it and give up on the whole pen and paper model all together?

You'll soon enough find yourself down to 4 DMs and then 3.... and while you will still no doubt be turning away more players than you have spaces, the total number will decline (particularly when they realize they will never get to be in the only 15 available slots) and you'll start begging people to come and DM and offering them all sorts of rewards only to find that while people are fine with showing up and lazily tossing some dice around and moving some minis on some maps, they just simply aren't into it enough to actually put that much effort into it.

Oh! But your 55-year old buddy who played 1st edition showed up once or twice to your game store, so I guess all other evidence in the world be damned!.... I mean, really, what are you even getting at? People who played the game heavily 20 years ago are not exactly a market worth capturing if you want the game to have any lasting value. D&D 5E being a game that people play off-nights between Gin Rummy, Bingo and Shuffleboard is not exactly a hot selling point for the game.


----------



## rooneg (Nov 25, 2015)

Pauper said:


> Actually, you can -- at least two of them: DDEX 3-1 was published in Dragon+ #3 and DDEX 3-2 was published in Dragon+ #4.
> 
> If Perkins's comment was intended to acknowledge that WotC is trying to get AL adventures into the hands of the general gaming community, and that not only will the Dragon+ adventures continue, but other ways of getting high-quality AL adventures into the hands of DMs who aren't running Adventurers League, I think that's a good thing.




Thank you, that's super helpful. I agree, it would be great if they continued to release more short adventures like this, but I also think it'd be even better if they just stuck them on their website or something where people might actually find them.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 25, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> Okay, that is all good and fine. But, I'll tell you think... WotC's boards were getting dead before they shut them down, there are less posts around here now than when the edition first launched




This is not a correct statement.  There are more posts per day here now than there were when the edition launched.


----------



## mflayermonk (Nov 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> This is not a correct statement.  There are more posts per day here now than there were when the edition launched.



I'm pretty sure that increase in posts is from Corpsetalker complaining, and then the 4 additional posts per complaint about Corpsetalker complaining.


----------



## Charles Rampant (Nov 25, 2015)

My university gaming club had to turn away *fifteen* people this year, all players, and almost all keen on D&D I hear. Though part of this was a shortage of GMs in the society (lots of non-student GMs moved out of town), there is also a sensation that we just have loads of new people interested in D&D specifically. For the last few years we basically had one D&D-style table, usually Pathfinder; this year we have like four. Anecdotal data is fun!

I'm really interested to see any Undead themed AP. I have a fondness for Undead - I play Tomb Kings in Warhammer, or at least I did until they blew the world up - and I feel that I struggle to make use of Undead in D&D 5e. The Monster Manual options are either really low level fare, mid level ones that rely on save-or-suck effects to be interesting, or very high level ones that I doubt I'll get to use very often. I feel like I need more Undead from 5-9th levels that change the formula up a little. (Mind you, I'm still not used to running D&D games above 5th level, so that is part of my problem.) So I'd totally buy and pillage any adventure that offered either new Undead, or really clever uses of existing ones.


----------



## Pauper (Nov 25, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> WotC's boards were getting dead before they shut them down




I'll agree with this specific point, but argue that the reason had little to do with 5th Edition -- it was more due to WotC's neglect in maintaining adequate moderation of their boards, to the point where it was extremely difficult to have a non-toxic conversation there.



> For precisely how long do you think people are going to remain excited or engaged with nothing new to sink their teeth into?




Actually, the 'buzz' around new D&D products seems much bigger, since those products come out less frequently. I'd be interested to hear how the buzz for Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (which is still being talked about, despite having now been out for a few weeks) compares with that for, as an example, the Pathfinder Weapon Master's Handbook (which I had to look up on the Paizo site to know that it even existed). Or, if you think the two products aren't directly comparable (one being a combo setting-character guide while the other is strictly a character guide), then compare SCAG to the Pathfinder Occult Realms setting guide, which also came out this month, and again which I had no idea even existed before finding it on the Paizo site.

Just because WotC isn't following a plan you agree with doesn't mean they're following a bad plan.

--
Pauper


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> This is not a correct statement.  There are more posts per day here now than there were when the edition launched.




How much difference did the shutting down of the WotC forums make to total numbers?


----------



## pukunui (Nov 25, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> I'll have to be honest: "Tyranny of Dragons," "Elemental Evil" and "Rage of Demons" also don't sound like names one would give a story, particularly: Perkins touched on the difficulties of finding storyline names, here, actually.



They sound more like storyline names to me than "Monster Menagerie" does. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## darjr (Nov 25, 2015)

wait, Chris says that Out of the Abyss overlaps the other adventure paths?!?! And there are hints/alludes to them in Out of the Abyss? Really? Where? does anybody know? spoiler block please.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 25, 2015)

darjr said:


> wait, Chris says that Out of the Abyss overlaps the other adventure paths?!?! And there are hints/alludes to them in Out of the Abyss? Really? Where? does anybody know? spoiler block please.



Well, if you go by the date in _Archmage_, _Out of the Abyss_ also overlaps the Sundering. I think one of Bob's books also has a scene where some drow meet some dragons who are collecting treasure for Tiamat's hoard in the Underdark.

The only connection I'm aware of is this one:
[sblock]_Princes of the Apocalypse_ states that Vizeran DeVir, the renegade drow archmage who can help the PCs defeat the demon lords in _Out of the Abyss_, crafted the elemental weapons wielded by the four elemental prophets.[/sblock]


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 25, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> Oh! But your 55-year old buddy who played 1st edition showed up once or twice to your game store, so I guess all other evidence in the world be damned!.... I mean, really, what are you even getting at? People who played the game heavily 20 years ago are not exactly a market worth capturing if you want the game to have any lasting value. D&D 5E being a game that people play off-nights between Gin Rummy, Bingo and Shuffleboard is not exactly a hot selling point for the game.




Kinda rude.

My off nights are XCOM, Smashup, FATE, Call of Duty, and currently, Skylanders.  So what's your point?

(granted I do still play horseshoes on occasion, you might need to look it up)


----------



## Kite474 (Nov 25, 2015)

I'll admit from the announcement I am feeling nothing but disappointment. Hell it looks like we wont be even going to settings I enjoy until maybe a year or 2. 

But ultimately if this strategy is working for them I can find no reason to fault them.  It also looks like from previous responses on here /tg/ and GITP that people seem to be enjoying this strategy

I am also of up the increasing opinion that DND 5e may just not be the game for me. Which isn't so bad really and hey there are worse things in life.


----------



## delericho (Nov 25, 2015)

Entsuropi said:


> My university gaming club had to turn away *fifteen* people this year, all players...




You couldn't persuade some more of your members to take up the mantle of DM? It's not _that_ hard...


----------



## Kite474 (Nov 25, 2015)

To be fair being a DM is pretty daunting if your not the most creative of chaps if you home-brew and from my experiences its definitely less fun than being a player. Especially if players are anything like my group. Who knew self preservation instincts were so hard to come by?


----------



## Benji (Nov 25, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> You'll soon enough find yourself down to 4 DMs and then 3.... and while you will still no doubt be turning away more players than you have spaces, the total number will decline (particularly when they realize they will never get to be in the only 15 available slots) and you'll start begging people to come and DM and offering them all sorts of rewards only to find that while people are fine with showing up and lazily tossing some dice around and moving some minis on some maps, they just simply aren't into it enough to actually put that much effort into it.




This is largely conjecture. Also, a decline in interest in additions due to format is not equivalent to an lack of passion for the hobby as a whole - in fact I would that being turned off of additoonal becuase it doesn't suit your particular tastes is an abundance of passion for the hobby. But even it the conjecture were true, the last bit makes no sense - people's interest is based on DM's skill at delivering story through chosen medium and generating the game as 'worthwhile social interaction'. Also, if interest wanes, in theory the ratio of player would go down with DM's, meaning that the 'slot' idea is a bit off too.



TheHobgoblin said:


> Oh! But your 55-year old buddy who played 1st edition showed up once or twice to your game store, so I guess all other evidence in the world be damned!.... I mean, really, what are you even getting at? People who played the game heavily 20 years ago are not exactly a market worth capturing if you want the game to have any lasting value. D&D 5E being a game that people play off-nights between Gin Rummy, Bingo and Shuffleboard is not exactly a hot selling point for the game.




Actually, people who played 20 years ago a a great audience. They all have kids/grandkids the right age for playing and they have more disposable income. Also 20 year old gamers continuing to enjoy a game speaks to 'continuity quality' a word combo I just made up to express the value added to something when your realise that it's customers have been around a long time and still get satisfaction from it. It becomes a reliable brand then. 

Also Bingo makes a HELLVA lot of money. If D&D could make bingo money, we'd have all the releases we could ever want.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 26, 2015)

I'm happy that the team is releasing storylines to encourage shared stories and all that but I am disappointed they aren't releasing more material that allows us to tell our own stories. Surely if homebrew is such a big part of what's out there those people (like me) want adapted 5e D&D monsters, Player options maybe magic items and small adventures/encounters to adapt to their homebrew?

I get that a homebrew can adapt material from a storyline but my interpretation of the stats quoted means that essentially by releasing A big adventure more than 50% of their market (the homebrewers) will use only 15-50% of this material (if they get it). Not really 100% using 100%, although that statistic does justify slow release.

My understanding is that when judges guild approached TSR back in the day to make pre designed dungeons TSR was surprised people would buy pre made adventures and wouldn't just want to make up their own stuff. This approach (despite the knowledge of more than 50% being homebrew) is the direct opposite where they don't seem to quite get that people want materials with which to make their own adventure. It seems the story story story does not properly service more than half their customers who are trying to tell their own stories and aren't that excited by the latest WOTC story.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 26, 2015)

Couple of thoughts.

1.  About AL.  Running an AL adventure isn't hard.  You can do it with any VTT.  And, once you've done it once, you've got your AL password and access to all the modules for that season.  So, true, the modules aren't _free_, but, all they ask in return for what, 15 or 20 adventures, is about four or five hours of your time.  

I'm thinking that's not an unreasonable requirement.  Sure, they could make it 100% free, but, then, how is that supporting AL?  This way, at least anyone who DL's the adventures should have run at least one session.  That's direct support.

I guess my advice would be to stop bitching about how the adventures aren't free, give up a few hours of your time, and get the adventures.  Seems a pretty fair trade.

2.  On supplements.  Why do people keep ignoring the rather large library of 5e supplements out there?  There's a ton of stuff.  Over a hundred modules, several players books, supplements out the wazoo.  Yup, you won't get Mindflayer stuff, but, anything that appears in the SRD is fair game - and that includes most D&D monsters.  I mean, you want Leucrotta?  Hey, there's 5th Edition Foes right there for the taking.  The vast majority of D&D monsters that didn't make it into the Monster Manual are done for you.

I'm frankly baffled why people refuse to take advantage of what is available right now.


----------



## darjr (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Couple of thoughts.
> 
> 1.  About AL.  Running an AL adventure isn't hard.  You can do it with any VTT.  And, once you've done it once, you've got your AL password and access to all the modules for that season.  So, true, the modules aren't _free_, but, all they ask in return for what, 15 or 20 adventures, is about four or five hours of your time.
> 
> I'm thinking that's not an unreasonable requirement.  Sure, they could make it 100% free, but, then, how is that supporting AL?  This way, at least anyone who DL's the adventures should have run at least one session.  That's direct support.




This needs repeating. It's easy. It's good for the hobby. It'll be fun. And the rewards outweigh the cost.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> 2.  On supplements.  Why do people keep ignoring the rather large library of 5e supplements out there?  There's a ton of stuff.  Over a hundred modules, several players books, supplements out the wazoo.  Yup, you won't get Mindflayer stuff, but, anything that appears in the SRD is fair game - and that includes most D&D monsters.  I mean, you want Leucrotta?  Hey, there's 5th Edition Foes right there for the taking.  The vast majority of D&D monsters that didn't make it into the Monster Manual are done for you.
> 
> I'm frankly baffled why people refuse to take advantage of what is available right now.




OMG, all that Bloat - how much longer can the Game cope before cracking apart under the weight of it all - and maybe a Player might want to use something!


----------



## rooneg (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Couple of thoughts.
> 
> 1.  About AL.  Running an AL adventure isn't hard.  You can do it with any VTT.  And, once you've done it once, you've got your AL password and access to all the modules for that season.  So, true, the modules aren't _free_, but, all they ask in return for what, 15 or 20 adventures, is about four or five hours of your time.
> 
> ...




Who said anything about wanting them for free? I want to pay for them. I have good money here I'm willing to spend on this stuff, they just won't let me do it, just like they won't let me pay for PDFs of the PHB/DMG/MM.

Also, just to be clear, I'm absolutely aware that there are a wide variety of ways to obtain these modules, I just think it's really strange that there's no simple way to get them that someone can find without trolling through online forums asking questions. If you're not already involved in the AL it'd be easy to not even know these things exist, let alone what you'd have to do to get access to them. This could be easily solved if they just put them up on dndclassics.com for sale for $5 each.


----------



## darjr (Nov 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> OMG, all that Bloat - how much longer can the Game cope before cracking apart under the weight of it all - and maybe a Player might want to use something!




I think we both know I meant official bloat. But the d20 deluge shows that even third party stuff can weigh down an edition.

I just wish you weren't so angry. This edition is actually great, and I think you play it, no? And if any thing even in the Story Story Story regime you might just get some of what you want, third parties are certainly stepping up to the plate. Why wallow in anger?


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 26, 2015)

darjr said:


> I think we both know I meant official bloat. But the d20 deluge shows that even third party stuff can weigh down an edition.
> 
> I just wish you weren't so angry. This edition is actually great, and I think you play it, no? And if any thing even in the Story Story Story regime you might just get some of what you want, third parties are certainly stepping up to the plate. Why wallow in anger?




What anger?  It is time to embrace the no-content wanting, no option having, glorious one Story for all NWO.  It is certainly more relaxing.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> OMG, all that Bloat - how much longer can the Game cope before cracking apart under the weight of it all - and maybe a Player might want to use something!




Kinda missing the point no?  Everyone keeps complaining about how there isn't enough material for the system.  There's a metric assload of material for 5e.  There's about as many companies producing OGL material for 5e as there was for 3e in about 2005.  

So, why do we need a new OGL?  What would that help?  Why do we need books from WotC?  If you can't find books for what you want, that's on you.  They're out there.  They exist.  It would take about 30 seconds to find anything outside of specific setting books owned by WotC.  

So, what do you want?



rooneg said:


> Who said anything about wanting them for free? I want to pay for them. I have good money here I'm willing to spend on this stuff, they just won't let me do it, just like they won't let me pay for PDFs of the PHB/DMG/MM.
> 
> Also, just to be clear, I'm absolutely aware that there are a wide variety of ways to obtain these modules, I just think it's really strange that there's no simple way to get them that someone can find without trolling through online forums asking questions. If you're not already involved in the AL it'd be easy to not even know these things exist, let alone what you'd have to do to get access to them. This could be easily solved if they just put them up on dndclassics.com for sale for $5 each.




But, again, how is that supporting AL?  The POINT of those modules is to get people playing in the AL and create and build a community of gamers.  These modules aren't being produced to make money.  Heck, they're provided for free.  The entire point of these modules is to promote and support the AL.  If you want access to these modules, then you have to support the AL.  

If all you want is 5 dollar modules, there's about fifty or sixty available to you right now.  DrivethruRPG is your friend.  Again, how many modules do you need per year?  Over a hundred 5e modules produced in the first year. Most of them are around that 5-10 dollar mark and a lot of them are less.  So, I'll ask you the same question I just asked [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION], how much more do you need?


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> What anger?  It is time to embrace the no-content wanting, no option having, glorious one Story for all NWO.  It is certainly more relaxing.




Angry no but clearly bitter.


----------



## rooneg (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Kinda missing the point no?  Everyone keeps complaining about how there isn't enough material for the system.  There's a metric assload of material for 5e.  There's about as many companies producing OGL material for 5e as there was for 3e in about 2005.
> 
> So, why do we need a new OGL?  What would that help?  Why do we need books from WotC?  If you can't find books for what you want, that's on you.  They're out there.  They exist.  It would take about 30 seconds to find anything outside of specific setting books owned by WotC.
> 
> ...




I'm not interested in using them as a way to support AL. I think AL is great, don't get me wrong, and I play occasionally, but this interview also put the AL modules forth as (part of) an answer to the player base's desire for short 5e adventures. I'm just saying that as long as they're (mostly) restricted to use as part of AL they don't really answer that need for most people, since AL is at best a subset of the community.

As for 5e modules on DrivethruRPG, until there's a supported license from WotC it all feels kind of sketchy. I'd like modules that can refer to rules in the core books, quote monster stats, etc. Right now there seems to be a lot of hoop jumping to avoid that sort of thing.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Kinda missing the point no?  Everyone keeps complaining about how there isn't enough material for the system.  There's a metric assload of material for 5e.  There's about as many companies producing OGL material for 5e as there was for 3e in about 2005.
> 
> So, why do we need a new OGL?  What would that help?  Why do we need books from WotC?  If you can't find books for what you want, that's on you.  They're out there.  They exist.  It would take about 30 seconds to find anything outside of specific setting books owned by WotC.
> 
> So, what do you want?




What does it matter what I want, WotC does not owe me anything.  They are a publically traded company so they owe their shareholders more then they owe someone like me.  I do not have any contract where anyone at WotC promised me anything in exchange for purchasing the Three Core Books.

And you are right, why do we need a License to produce material compatible with 5e?  Did not having it somehow stop anyone from producing a metric assload of material (which is at least 25% more then an imperial assload of material)?  No, it did not.

And why do we need an electronic version of the whole rules when anyone will tell you that the Basic version is all that you really need to play, and besides now the characters are so easy that you can write them on the back of a 6x4 card like we used to do in 1974.

So all I really need is a mega Story that retreads all those other Stories that we have already seen about every six months or so that is hopefully tied in to as much DnD product as possible along with some random play test material every month and if I could get a free Magazine where I can check out all the latest advertisements then that would be about perfect.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> What does it matter what I want, WotC does not owe me anything.  They are a publically traded company so they owe their shareholders more then they owe someone like me.  I do not have any contract where anyone at WotC promised me anything in exchange for purchasing the Three Core Books.
> 
> And you are right, why do we need a License to produce material compatible with 5e?  Did not having it somehow stop anyone from producing a metric assload of material (which is at least 25% more then an imperial assload of material)?  No, it did not.
> 
> ...




Yeah you are super bitter. Can't you just try and enjoy what you have?


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 26, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Yeah you are super bitter. Can't you just try and enjoy what you have?




The irony that MonsterEnvy thinks I am super bitter is not lost on me.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 26, 2015)

rooneg said:


> I'm not interested in using them as a way to support AL. I think AL is great, don't get me wrong, and I play occasionally, but this interview also put the AL modules forth as (part of) an answer to the player base's desire for short 5e adventures. I'm just saying that as long as they're (mostly) restricted to use as part of AL they don't really answer that need for most people, since AL is at best a subset of the community.
> 
> As for 5e modules on DrivethruRPG, until there's a supported license from WotC it all feels kind of sketchy. I'd like modules that can refer to rules in the core books, quote monster stats, etc. Right now there seems to be a lot of hoop jumping to avoid that sort of thing.




Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you are interested in.  The fact of the matter is that AL adventures are there to promote the AL.  Gaining access to those modules is as simple as putting in 4-5 hours of work once every six months.  That's it.  Instead of costing you about 150 bucks to gain all those modules at 5 bucks a pop, you get to save that money and give back to the community.  It's not a bad deal.  Complaining that you don't want to is perfectly valid and fair, but, as far as WotC is concerned, getting you to give up your time is worth more to them than the money they might get from you.

And, as far as a supported license goes, it's right there.  It's called the OGL and it's doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to do.  Allow other people to provide D&D content.  Again, it's fair to complain that it doesn't have a logo on the cover, but, I'm not sure you can complain that there's no material available when there's buckets of material there and not a single peep from WotC saying that they care if you use it or not.



			
				Shasarak said:
			
		

> So all I really need is a mega Story that retreads all those other Stories that we have already seen about every six months or so that is hopefully tied in to as much DnD product as possible along with some random play test material every month and if I could get a free Magazine where I can check out all the latest advertisements then that would be about perfect.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...g-Other-Worlds-amp-More!/page24#ixzz3sZQrVb1v




Retread stories?  Really?  Princes of the Apocalypse is a retread of what exactly?  Sure, there are elements and nods to earlier works, but, I'm frankly drawing a blank on what this is retreading?  Out of the Abyss is recreating what?  What modules from D&D's history feature a gaggle (and that's the proper term for a group) of demon lords invading the Underdark and driving everyone insane?  I'm honestly quite curious here what you think is being rehashed.  'Cos, if it is a rehash, I'd really like to see the original.

Dragon+?  Ok, that one I'll totally give you.  Here's hoping they get better with time.  Only way is up right?  The last one wasn't too bad.  It did have lots of goodies in there.  Heck, I'm using the module they included with the last issue right now to build an adventure for Primal Thule.  So, for me at least, I did get some use out of it.


----------



## mflayermonk (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Out of the Abyss is recreating what?  What modules from D&D's history feature a gaggle (and that's the proper term for a group) of demon lords invading the Underdark and driving everyone insane?  I'm honestly quite curious here what you think is being rehashed.  'Cos, if it is a rehash, I'd really like to see the original.




Gygax's Gord the Rogue novels.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 26, 2015)

mflayermonk said:


> Gygax's Gord the Rogue novels.




Nah. There are a few conceptual similarities and overlapping characters/demons, but it's not remotely the same story or even the same general situation. They just both happen to involve schemes with demon lords on opposing sides.


----------



## ccs (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you are interested in.  The fact of the matter is that AL adventures are there to promote the AL.  Gaining access to those modules is as simple as putting in 4-5 hours of work once every six months.  That's it.  Instead of costing you about 150 bucks to gain all those modules at 5 bucks a pop, you get to save that money and give back to the community.  It's not a bad deal.  Complaining that you don't want to is perfectly valid and fair, but, as far as WotC is concerned, getting you to give up your time is worth more to them than the money they might get from you..




I imagine that you could trim that time down to about 15 minutes.  Just TPK the party in the 1st encounter....


----------



## delericho (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> So, why do we need a new OGL?  What would that help?




WotC asked companies to wait until they put out a license before publishing. Some people chose to respect that, despite it giving a competitive advantage to the ones who didn't. A new OGL would level the playing field for those guys.

A new OGL would also let the _next_ Green Ronin (or the next Paizo, or Malhavoc, or whatever) get started.

And a new OGL would mean that the likes of Necromancer and Goodman can stop tap dancing around the rules and instead apply that effort to making their products even better.



> Why do we need books from WotC?




Because only WotC can publish Eberron or Dark Sun materials.



> If you can't find books for what you want, that's on you.




Oh? Where's the 5e Eberron campaign setting guide, then?



> It would take about 30 seconds to find anything outside of specific setting books owned by WotC.




Even that's not true, because there are a hell of a lot of spells, monsters, and magic items that are WotC IP but not setting specific.  And while I _can_ convert or I _could_ work around the gaps, I'd really rather not.

At present the bulk of my prep for 5e games has been taken up with converting monsters, and it's a major drag on my enjoyment of the edition, to the point where I'm considering converting the campaign back to 3e. Not because 3e is the better game (it isn't) but because at least then I can focus on creating the adventure rather than fighting with the DMG's monster generation rules.

A Monster Manual 2, in particular, would be a _massive_ help. And while I understand why WotC haven't produced one, and aren't currently planning to do so, I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask, and to keep asking, for one.


----------



## TBeholder (Nov 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you are interested in.  The fact of the matter is that AL adventures are there to promote the AL.  Gaining access to those modules is as simple as putting in 4-5 hours of work once every six months.  That's it.  Instead of costing you about 150 bucks to gain all those modules at 5 bucks a pop, you get to save that money and give back to the community.  It's not a bad deal.  Complaining that you don't want to is perfectly valid and fair, but, as far as WotC is concerned, getting you to give up your time is worth more to them than the money they might get from you.
> 
> And, as far as a supported license goes, it's right there.  It's called the OGL and it's doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to do.  Allow other people to provide D&D content.  Again, it's fair to complain that it doesn't have a logo on the cover, but, I'm not sure you can complain that there's no material available when there's buckets of material there and not a single peep from WotC saying that they care if you use it or not.



 Indeed, a call for user content is strong. Or in context: after gutting, it's down to "Let it be a community project, but _we_ will be paid for it - _and_ decide what goes and what doesn't!" business model.
But while this may work for sandbox websites hijacked by some or other google-blessed backstabber, D&D is simply not in the same situation. It's something that once was demonstrably valuable, and by now... not much. Would you pay for a ticket on a galley where you'll have to work the oar and someone else decides the destination at the next turn? One can have something better for comparable price - or even for free.
That is, the prospect raises a simple question: why would anyone want to invest effort OR money in helping this department of Habro stay afloat now? What does 5e give that isn't available via Castles & Crusades or an unholy snowball of variant rules for d20? For the right to stamp their logo?


----------



## delericho (Nov 26, 2015)

Turbo Beholder said:


> What does 5e give that isn't available via Castles & Crusades or an unholy snowball of variant rules for d20? For the right to stamp their logo?




Nostalgia is a powerful draw, and is indeed tied a great deal to the name.

But also it does help that 5e genuinely is a very good game - I'd much rather see it succeed than be replaced by a 6e that may well be less to my taste. Or, indeed, just disappear entirely.


----------



## JohnLynch (Nov 26, 2015)

mflayermonk said:


> If you look at the 2e release schedule it had all kinds of books that support the game but give no story lines.
> Such as,
> Castles Guide
> "DMGR2: The Castle Guide (1990), by Grant Boucher, Troy Christensen, Arthur Collins, and Nigel Findley, was the second book in the Dungeon Master's Guide Rules Supplements for AD&D 2e. It was released in May 1990...the Castle Guide was innovative at TSR in part because it took a much more realistic look at medieval history than most previous works from the company - which all tended to focus on fantasy realms that were at best pseudo-Medieval"
> or books like DMGR4 Monster Mythology, Complete Book of Humanoids



I'm using the rules in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (2e resource) for creating magical items with 5e. What's stopping you from using The Castle Guide?


----------



## mflayermonk (Nov 26, 2015)

JohnLynch said:


> I'm using the rules in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (2e resource) for creating magical items with 5e. What's stopping you from using The Castle Guide?




Nothing is stopping me from using any older material. It was an answer to the question of "why can't you just use the old stuff?" and that was in the past, they released books with generic content, the Castles Guide is just an example. The 2e/3e/4e eras were full of those releases so some customers are used to that style.


----------



## mflayermonk (Nov 26, 2015)

JohnLynch said:


> I'm using the rules in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (2e resource) for creating magical items with 5e. What's stopping you from using The Castle Guide?




Sorry, I may have misinterpreted this-are you asking about the value of "official" vs adapted content?


----------



## JeffB (Nov 26, 2015)

delericho said:


> Even that's not true, because there are a hell of a lot of spells, monsters, and magic items that are WotC IP but not setting specific.  And while I _can_ convert or I _could_ work around the gaps, I'd really rather not..
> 
> At present the bulk of my prep for 5e games has been taken up with converting monsters, and it's a major drag on my enjoyment of the edition, to the point where I'm considering converting the campaign back to 3e. Not because 3e is the better game (it isn't) but because at least then I can focus on creating the adventure rather than fighting with the ....





Yep. Same issue here. Ive converted several things to 5e, but Its easier for me to just run an adventure in the edition it is designed for and use it as written. I have almost zero prep time these days, so as much as I like 5e,  its falling by the wayside compared to older editions, and especially Dungeon World, where I can just come up with something in 20 minutes based on a previous edition adventure or on my own.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 26, 2015)

JeffB said:


> Yep. Same issue here. Ive converted several things to 5e, but Its easier for me to just run an adventure in the edition it is designed for and use it as written. I have almost zero prep time these days, so as much as I like 5e,  its falling by the wayside compared to older editions, and especially Dungeon World, where I can just come up with something in 20 minutes based on a previous edition adventure or on my own.




Exactly!

Sometimes I find myself just breaking out the old 2nd edition rules and using those instead.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 26, 2015)

JeffB said:


> Yep. Same issue here. Ive converted several things to 5e, but Its easier for me to just run an adventure in the edition it is designed for and use it as written. I have almost zero prep time these days, so as much as I like 5e,  its falling by the wayside compared to older editions, and especially Dungeon World, where I can just come up with something in 20 minutes based on a previous edition adventure or on my own.




I can agree somewhat. While it hasn't made me want to bust out my 2e books yet, I find myself limiting my ideas to what is available. I don't mind converting monsters or magic items (since I can course-correct there if I need to mid-game) but I'm less inclined to do that with races, classes, or feats. Those end up creating a character's identity, and radical shifts mid-stream can ruin a character. So I don't have problem converting Ravenloft (the module), but I don't want to touch Ravenloft (the setting).


----------



## JohnLynch (Nov 26, 2015)

mflayermonk said:


> Sorry, I may have misinterpreted this-are you asking about the value of "official" vs adapted content?



I interpreted your original post as saying "I really want books like this from 2nd ed". I was wondering if there was a reason you couldn't simply use the 2nd ed resource with 5th edition for this very specific example.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 26, 2015)

delericho said:


> A Monster Manual 2, in particular, would be a _massive_ help. And while I understand why WotC haven't produced one, and aren't currently planning to do so, I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask, and to keep asking, for one.




We don't know what they are planning, seeing how tight-lipped they've been. They could announce a MM2 tomorrow for all we know.

I would be very surprised if we don't see a MM2 in at least the intermediate future. There are so many D&D IP monsters that need to be updated, and you're definitely not the only DM who is looking for those official updates. I can see how the profitability may drop off after too many MMs (by the time they got to the MM5 in 3e, most of the monsters were new and at least faintly ridiculous), but even First Edition shows that there should be a market for at least a MM2 and _Fiend Folio_...


----------



## RotGrub (Nov 27, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Sorry Chris but D&D is not World of Warcraft.
> 
> *You can't imagine Blizzard releasing six expansions a year. They don't ... they want to release a mammoth, not a bunch of mice.*
> 
> Sorry but you aren't comparing like for like.




It's worse than that.   They didn't learn their lesson.   It's rather sad because the things that I dislike most about 5e are all related that way of thinking.    


Hey Chris, how did using WoW as a model for D&D work out for you the last time?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 27, 2015)

Lol. WotC is apparently making more money out of 5e than any previous edition. All indications point to it being the dominant game in the market but apparently that's still doing it wrong. 

What would people accept as evidence that they are successful?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 27, 2015)

Hussar said:


> What would people accept as evidence that they are successful?




WotC making the _exact_ game they want for them, taking every last one of their tastes and preferences into account. Possibly with each book dedicated to them by name.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 27, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> WotC making the _exact_ game they want for them, taking every last one of their tastes and preferences into account. Possibly with each book dedicated to them by name.




As well as WotC designing adventures centered around a Mary Sue NPC named after them, who does all the action and receives all the (massive) rewards in the adventure, while the PCs are allowed to periodically give support and offer gushing praise to the NPC (this will be encouraged by XP rewards for doing so).


----------



## delericho (Nov 27, 2015)

Demetrios1453 said:


> We don't know what they are planning, seeing how tight-lipped they've been. They could announce a MM2 tomorrow for all we know.




Indeed.



> I would be very surprised if we don't see a MM2 in at least the intermediate future. There are so many D&D IP monsters that need to be updated, and you're definitely not the only DM who is looking for those official updates. I can see how the profitability may drop off after too many MMs




I can certainly understand that. Right now, I'd buy an MM2 sight-unseen, and I'd _probably_ buy an MM3. But once you get to 1,000 monsters in print, it does become a much harder sell. That said...



> (by the time they got to the MM5 in 3e, most of the monsters were new and at least faintly ridiculous)




Bear in mind that one man's trash is another's treasure - the monsters that I want probably don't match the monsters you want completely.

So, if I could dream, I think I would envisage a great big online database containing _all_ of the 10,000 or so monsters published for every edition of the game. Said database would, of course, have to accumulate over time, but it could gradually collect all of the lore (even the contradictory bits), plus stats for every monster for every edition of the game. That way, we could both find exactly the monster we need, even if they other guy thinks it's ridiculous. 

(And, yeah, in truth I consider paper to be a poor medium for presenting an option-heavy game like D&D. WotC seem to have problems with allocating the revenue from the 4e Compendium to the right teams, but it really was the highlight of that edition. IMO, of course.)


----------



## S'mon (Nov 27, 2015)

I kinda like how with everything being campaign-centric, I don't feel any pressure to buy their stuff beyond the three core books. OTOH I would really like a Monster Manual 2 with a big NPC section, or just an NPC Manual. A 96 page softcover of NPC stats would probably be ideal; hardbacks are bloody heavy to cart around.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 27, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I am disappointed they aren't releasing more material that allows us to tell our own stories.
> 
> Surely if homebrew is such a big part of what's out there, those people (like me) want adapted 5e D&D monsters, Player options, maybe magic items, and small adventures/encounters, to adapt to their homebrew?
> 
> ...




That is my feeling too. Let us tell our own stories.

Personally I need content that is more useful to homebrewers (like me), including world builders, written in a way that homebrewers can use as-is, without needing to rewrite entire books.

Especially it is important to be setting-neutral, if the majority do homebrew, and dont use the official storyline.

So far, the products with baked-in story and baked-in setting, has been unhelpful to me.

Write products in a way that make the personal choice of the world setting, and the selection of the story elements easier.

Make content that is less work for homebrewers to use.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 27, 2015)

Hussar said:


> There's about as many companies producing OGL material for 5e as there was for 3e in about 2005.
> 
> So, why do we need a new OGL?  Why do we need books from WotC?
> 
> If you can't find books for what you want, that's on you.  They're out there.  They exist.  It would take about 30 seconds to find anything outside of specific setting books owned by WotC.




I dont know where all of these mythical 5e OGL products are.

Products that *I* need in *my* own homebrew?

Maybe WotC can help me find and purchase all of these wonderful products?

Maybe WotC can make it easier for me build my own content?

Maybe WotC can allow *me* to use the 5e OGL.

Maybe WotC can even help me sell my own OGL content to others, if it turns out good?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 27, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I dont know where all of these mythical 5e OGL products are.




I assure you they are not mythical. They are quite real. 

Maybe someone with a bit more time than I right now will give you a few pointers. Necromancer Games, Frog God Games have produced various hardcovers, Goodman Games has adventures, Kobold Press has a few items, plus over 50 PDF publishers. And there's EN5ider, of course.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 27, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I assure you they are not mythical. They are quite real.
> 
> Maybe someone with a bit more time than I right now will give you a few pointers. Necromancer Games, Frog God Games have produced various hardcovers, Goodman Games has adventures, Kobold Press has a few items, plus over 50 PDF publishers. And there's EN5ider, of course.




Any assistance in locating indy 5e content is appreciated.

For my own needs, I need high quality 5e-compatable content that I can use to create my own worlds and my own stories.

I dont need someone elses worlds or someone elses stories.

I need products that make it easier for us to tell our own stories.

Even if WotC products stopped baking-in their world setting assumptions, it would make WotC products easier to use as-is.

Is there a way to satisfy the 5e players who need flavor and world setting and story - and at the same time, satisfy the homebrewers who are the majority who dont want baked-in flavor?

So far, I am happy that 5e is successful and many players are happy with it. But I am unhappy that I personally find it to require too much work to use 5e products for the adventures that I want to create.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 27, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Any assistance in locating indy 5e content is appreciated.
> 
> For my own needs, I need high quality 5e-compatable content that I can use to create my own worlds and my own stories.
> 
> ...




Well, I'm not going to specifically search for specific products to spec for you. But here's a start - take a look through these and see if anything strikes your fancy:

EN5ider (professionally produced magazine style articles)

https://www.patreon.com/ensider?ty=h&u=461304

Or RPGNow/DTRPG both have big 5E categories full of stuff. Over 250 items there.

http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_45326_0_0

Necromancer Games' hardcovers:

https://www.froggodgames.com/5th-edition

Kobold Press (them who made Tyranny of Dragons for 5E):

http://koboldpress.com/kpstore/product/southlands-heroes-for-5th-edition/

http://koboldpress.com/kpstore/product/midgard-heroes-for-5th-edition/

http://koboldpress.com/kpstore/product/the-ravens-call-5th-edition/

MerricB's big list of 5E adventures:

http://merricb.com/dungeons-dragons-5e/the-great-list-of-dd-5e-adventures/

That should be enough to get started with.  There's more, but those were the ones off the top of my head.


----------



## delericho (Nov 27, 2015)

S'mon said:


> A 96 page softcover of NPC stats would probably be ideal; hardbacks are bloody heavy to cart around.




Economies of scale _really_ hurt small products these days. At the moment, 100 pages from WotC costs $30, while for $50 you can get 250 pages (excluding core rulebooks, which are even more efficient... but they're all out now).

Given that choice, I'm afraid I'm always going to go for fewer, bigger products.


----------



## GreenTengu (Nov 27, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> By dismissing my anecdotal evidence, you have proven the point I was making -- anecdotal evidence is silly and doesn't amount to much more than personal experience and confirmation bias. Which is why polls and surveys are used, as the math behind them are sound and more representative of trends.




Okay, yeah... but the problem is that they don't seem to be following what the surveys have indicated they should do. The surveys certainly indicated that they should release a player's options book with the various racial and class concepts that weren't included in the PHB now that the game is a year old rather than maybe, possibly, remotely having a chance of including them in a single adventure path 5 years from now.


----------



## PMárk (Nov 27, 2015)

Actually, I think that making the AL scenarios downloadable for a price and after some time (3 months/half a year) would be a good idea. Not everybody want to GMing outside their home games, or have the time, or have an actual FLGS nearby or a thousand other reasons, but they could get a lot from pre-written short adventures. 

Or making a compendium at every season's end.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 27, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Is there a way to satisfy the 5e players who need flavor and world setting and story - and at the same time, satisfy the homebrewers who are the majority who don't want baked-in flavor?




No.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I dont know where all of these mythical 5e OGL products are.
> 
> Products that *I* need in *my* own homebrew?
> 
> ...




Head over to the publisher's forum on En World and then set the Show Thread prefix to 5th Edition.  I think you get this:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumd...ments&s=&pp=50&sort=lastpost&prefixid=dndnext

For those looking for new monsters, you have Inkwell Ideas new Fiendopedias which update various old school monsters and put them up in nice iittle themed bundles for a couple of bucks.

John Brazer Enterprises has a pretty meaty race book 5e Player Races Unleashed, with 6 new races and 9 new subraces for existing races.  

Just because you cannot be bothered to actually look up products doesn't mean they don't exist.  But, it goes a long, long way towards why it's not really in WotC's interest to get involved.  If the existing market is so small that no one knows about it, why bother trying to grow it?  

OTOH, if 3pp products start selling like gangbusters, maybe WotC will sit up and pay attention.  IOW, if you can't be bothered, why should they?


----------



## RotGrub (Nov 28, 2015)

I really have to disagree with Chris that all the products should be focused around a story.   What about releasing a large campaign setting that is full to the brim with a large percentage of content for players and DMs?   You don't need "a story to tell" to create a D&D product that stands out on the shelf.  Take the SCAG for example, its full of white space, large font, and large graphics.  There's more than enough non-content in that book to make it stand out on the shelf.    Sure, I may have picked up the core rule books for 5e, but I can't say that I'm not very disappointed with the direction of content for D&D.  I have yet to buy a single "epic" story line.   The reason is very simple, I like to create my own stories.    I want tools to create those stories with.  If it's a story I'm interested in I'll pick up a few D&D novels, not a D&D game book.     Of course, that's the WoW model,  every expansion has a large story associated with it.     

I'm not waiting for more adventures from Chris and I'm not at all interested in another pseudo players guide.   I have money to burn on D&D, but until I see something worth while I won't buy anything. I've been waiting for the campaign settings.   I guess, I'm just a very disappointed D&D fan at this point.   I need to accept that I won't see any campaign setting boxed sets (that DO stand out on the shelf) released for 5e.   At best I'll see a few large adventures and that's about it.   The game really has become a product of Chris/WotC's imagination and not our own.   It's sad because I think campaign settings are core components of D&D, and they sit at the same level of importance as a monster manual.


----------



## RotGrub (Nov 28, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Lol. WotC is apparently making more money out of 5e than any previous edition. All indications point to it being the dominant game in the market but apparently that's still doing it wrong.
> 
> What would people accept as evidence that they are successful?





They dumped the WoW model for the core books and that made them successful.    People are not upset with that part, they are disappointed with the content direction which IS the WoW model.   It has yet to be seen if that model will work for D&D over the next few years.   My bet is they'll just continue to upset and confuse the fans and Chris will have to keep yelling "we ARE updating the realms"  on twitter.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> They dumped the WoW model for the core books and that made them successful.    People are not upset with that part, they are disappointed with the content direction which IS the WoW model.   It has yet to be seen if that model will work for D&D over the next few years.   My bet is they'll just continue to upset and confuse the fans and Chris will have to keep yelling "we ARE updating the realms"  on twitter.




Umm, they  just said that they aren'T dumping the WoW model.  That's what the quote says - that WoW doesn't put out a bunch of little stuff every year - they put out big releases.  Which is exactly the model we're getting for 5e.  What WoW model did they dump for the core books?

Again, if you're looking for campaign settings, what's wrong with Primeval Thule, Midgard, Dark Plane or  Zodiac Empires?

That's four full settings for 5e that I could find in about 5 minutes for sale for you right now.  What more do you need?

People bitch endlessly about not having support, yet completely ignore the support that exists.  Is it that important that your book says WotC on the cover?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Nov 28, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> The game really has become a product of Chris/WotC's imagination and not our own.   It's sad because I think campaign settings are core components of D&D, and they sit at the same level of importance as a monster manual.




Isn't it a little ironic that you complain that the game is a product of their imagination rather than yours in the same post where you are asking them to come up with worlds for you?


----------



## delericho (Nov 28, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Your games require so many unique monsters that are not out right now that you'd be willing to adopt a different game system -- one you admit is inferior -- rather than to redress or rebuild existing monsters? Can't your games ease off the unique monster throttle just a bit? Maybe use some more common monsters? Or even uncommon ones?




As I said in the post you quoted, I could work around the gaps, but I'd rather not. The truth is that I hadn't realised just how poor the DMG's monster-building rules were until I got started. (Fortunately, this helps a great deal.)



> Heck, the current Monster Manual is a big book. Surely you haven't used every monster yet.




Every monster? No. But I've probably used most of them - I've been playing D&D for thirty years now, and the monsters in the 5e MM aren't so different from their previous versions to give a fundamentally different experience. Indeed, deliberately so.

If all that 5e has to offer is the "generic D&D experience", then it is of no use to me - I played that to death in 2nd Edition days. I don't believe that that is all the game has to offer, and indeed the core rulebooks themselves seem to promise more.

And, again, since the internet is woefully bad at nuance: I'm _asking_ for an MM2 because I _want_ one and because it would _help_ immensely; I'm not _demanding_ one, I don't _need_ one, and it's not like I _can't manage_ without.


----------



## delericho (Nov 28, 2015)

PMárk said:


> Actually, I think that making the AL scenarios downloadable for a price and after some time (3 months/half a year) would be a good idea.




Unlikely - as far as possible, they want everyone playing the current storyline, not the previous ones. (Sure, they'll take people playing ToD rather than Pathfinder, but the ideal for now is Rage of Demons.) So I'd actually expect to see them opening up the _current_ AL adventures for unrestricted use, rather than the ones from six months ago.

Most likely, though, I expect they'll continue as they have - fairly easy access to the current AL adventures for in-store use (and widespread unauthorised sharing of the password with WotC turning a blind eye), coupled with the release of one adventure per two months via the free Dragon+ magazine.


----------



## Uchawi (Nov 28, 2015)

I always get the feeling with these types of discussions from WOTC is they are stalling and trying to maintain interest so players believe they are doing something to fill the gap between releases. I guess it is like throwing darts on the wall while we wait. That is why you see inconsistencies depending on who is responding.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 28, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Surely you haven't used every monster yet. Or perhaps you could use one of the existing third party monster books?




I'm afraid this attitude is why Wizards will fail in the end. 

If you don't understand how gamers and their tastes work then you don't need to be in the biz. Not everyone likes exactly what's there so asking someone have they used everything is rather moot. I can't speak for everyone but I don't like all the monsters in the MM and if I don't like something then I won't use it. Same goes with their AP's.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 28, 2015)

I thought you said in another thread you were quitting D&D?


----------



## basilforth (Nov 28, 2015)

Thanks to the folks in this thread who have provided links to resources.   Very much appreciated.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 28, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> I've pretty much assumed that this would be the case. That AL will be the only outlet for modules. The biggest problem with AL being the only outlet for modules is that it limits it to AL groups only. No home groups can download them. I know they've thrown us a bone in Dragon+ but it still would be nice to have access through something other than only AL.




I'm resigned to converting OSR, 3e & Pathfinder etc stuff for my 5e games. Luckily this seems 
to work fantastically well. I don't give WoTC any money (except for the occasional 
dndclassics  purchase, which are more likely to be for my Classic D&D game anyway) but I am bringing in a lot of new players and unlike in the 4e era, 
every new player is a new PHB purchase and some money for WoTC. It's really impressive how 5e can get Dragonsfoot grognards who've not bought a D&D book since 1989 to open their wallets.


----------



## darjr (Nov 28, 2015)

That's interesting. I started a game at work mainly because some of the folks at work would not or could not make either encounters or one of my home games or AL games. They had all purchased at least the players handbook with the hope of someday getting a chance to play, I think the effort to make this edition stand around for a while has helped sales, especially for folks like them. I didn't think about it in quite that way until now.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 28, 2015)

darjr said:


> I think the effort to make this edition stand around for a while has helped sales, especially for folks like them. I didn't think about it in quite that way until now.




I'm afraid 5th edition isn't unique in this so I'm not sure why you are giving it the credit. No edition of D&D ended after a year and a half.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 28, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I thought you said in another thread you were quitting D&D?




You thought wrong.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 28, 2015)

Demetrios1453 said:


> I would be very surprised if we don't see a MM2 in at least the intermediate future. There are so many D&D IP monsters that need to be updated, and you're definitely not the only DM who is looking for those official updates. I can see how the profitability may drop off after too many MMs (by the time they got to the MM5 in 3e, most of the monsters were new and at least faintly ridiculous), but even First Edition shows that there should be a market for at least a MM2 and _Fiend Folio_...




The main problem with a MM2 is that you take your sales of the original MM and the you multiply that by a fraction.  Now that fraction could be 0.9 or 0.1 but either way you are not making as much money from that second MM then you are from the first one.

And a Fiend Folio?  Take the sales of MM2 and multiply it by a fraction.  And that is how your sales slowly bleed away with time.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 28, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I'm afraid this attitude is why Wizards will fail in the end.
> 
> If you don't understand how gamers and their tastes work then you don't need to be in the biz. Not everyone likes exactly what's there so asking someone have they used everything is rather moot. I can't speak for everyone but I don't like all the monsters in the MM and if I don't like something then I won't use it. Same goes with their AP's.




Which monsters in the MM do you like?


----------



## bedir than (Nov 28, 2015)

Uchawi said:


> I always get the feeling with these types of discussions from WOTC is they are stalling and trying to maintain interest so players believe they are doing something to fill the gap between releases. I guess it is like throwing darts on the wall while we wait. That is why you see inconsistencies depending on who is responding.




As someone who interviews people for a living the most common reason for differing responses to the same question is that you are asking different people. No matter what the company line is people's responses vary. If you want consistency in response the only way you will get it is via a press release.

It isn't a diabolical scheme that has Perkins, Mearls, Crawford, et al giving slightly different answers. They don't know 100% of the information and they aren't clones.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 28, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Lol. WotC is apparently making more money out of 5e than any previous edition. All indications point to it being the dominant game in the market but apparently that's still doing it wrong.




I always wondered about making the most money by producing the least content with the least possible staff.


----------



## darjr (Nov 28, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I'm afraid 5th edition isn't unique in this so I'm not sure why you are giving it the credit. No edition of D&D ended after a year and a half.




Please point out where I said 'a year and a half'


----------



## S'mon (Nov 28, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I'm afraid 5th edition isn't unique in this so I'm not sure why you are giving it the credit. No edition of D&D ended after a year and a half.




Yes, it's not edition durability. The reason my 4e D&D players have not bought a 4e PHB after 3+ years of play is that they think they don't need it, that the online charbuilder one player maintains a sub for gives them everything they need. This results in some absolutely horrific ignorance of the basics of the
 4e rules system - I have players of 26th level PCs who don't understand the 4e action 
economy. Whereas my new 5e players are rapidly getting the hang of the rules.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 28, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I always wondered about making the most money by producing the least content with the least possible staff.




With the high price points on the books ($50 RRP, and here in the UK no big amazon discount AIR) they must be making a nice fat profit margin on every PHB sale. A bit less on DMG & MM due to smaller print run, and much less on the adventures.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 28, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> I really have to disagree with Chris that all the products should be focused around a story.   What about releasing a large campaign setting that is full to the brim with a large percentage of content for players and DMs?   You don't need "a story to tell" to create a D&D product that stands out on the shelf.  Take the SCAG for example, its full of white space, large font, and large graphics.  There's more than enough non-content in that book to make it stand out on the shelf.    Sure, I may have picked up the core rule books for 5e, but I can't say that I'm not very disappointed with the direction of content for D&D.  I have yet to buy a single "epic" story line.   The reason is very simple, I like to create my own stories.    I want tools to create those stories with.  If it's a story I'm interested in I'll pick up a few D&D novels, not a D&D game book.     Of course, that's the WoW model,  every expansion has a large story associated with it.




It's not just WoW's module, its another giant fantasy game worth millions that is a lot closer to home: Magic: the Gathering. 

I just got back into magic after years of not-playing. (I think I quit around Mirage, if that means anything to anyone) so going into the game again, I'm amazed at how much the story of the game has changed: each set focuses around a particular world or story, with its own antagonists and heroes, but also with recurring characters (Planeswalkers) and interconnected results. The story appears via the card text, artwork, and in all the supplemental material as well, as well as ALL the promotional material. The current story is happening on the plane of Zendikar (a place that was visited many sets ago) where a group of Cthulioids named Elderazi are attempting to destroy the plane, forcing the five colors to unite to save it. After this story ends in April, they're returning to another previously visited plane; the realm of Innistrad (with a very gothic/horror theme). 

Now, what I see going on here is something that can very easily be adapted to D&D via ITS storylines. Specifically:

* Each major release is surrounded by a single story that forms its backdrop. The theme carries through its artwork, AL adventures, and major modules.
* Major recurring characters and new ones intermixed: ToD had Tiamat (very recognizable), EE had the elemental princes along with heavy focus on the prophets (who were new), RoD have drow, Drizzt, and of course the Demon Lords. Even the Core books had Iconic baddies (Accerack, Snurre, and Xanthar). 
* New mechanics introduced: We've didn't see much of this in ToD or EE (except elemental races), but RoD has the madness mechanic on display. I can see a horror one making use of Fear/Horror checks for example. 
* Multiversal "support": Planeswalkers visit a variety of planes, each with different themes (Greek Heroes, Asian Myth, Horror, etc). Sounds slightly similar to D&D's Multiverse of Worlds, especially when you consider the idea of "Stories linked to APs" filling a similar niche. Perhaps we get a Planar AP that uses Sigil/Planescape as a background, or Barovia/Ravenloft for another horror AP, and then Eberron for a Xen'drik story, or Greyhawk for an "Against Iuz" AP. Rather than full campaign guides with support supplements, we get enough story background to run the AP and if you like the setting and want to do more, get older material or make it up. 
* Cycling: Magic is widely supported by its Tournaments, key among them is Standard. Standard is constantly in flux; the cards you used in it last year aren't all available this year as new sets cycle in to replace old ones. I could easily see 5e books working like this; rather than continuous additions of splat that bloats the system, tying "rules" to settings could allow them to cycle out as the storyline finishes; once the Eberron AP is done, you don't have to worry about warforged or how the warforged interact with RoD's madness rules or the Purple Dragon Knight. (If you want to use them together, pull out your Rulings, not Rules hat). Already, AL is doing this with "Story Origins" so I can definitely see the trend continue. 

It will be a different style of game that 4e/3e had, and VERY different than AD&D, but the concept of trying everything to a story has worked for Blizzard via WoW and WotC via Magic, so I imagine they think it can work for D&D.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 28, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> It's not just WoW's module, its another giant fantasy game worth millions that is a lot closer to home: Magic: the Gathering.




Ironically, I just got done listening to the MTGgoldfish Podcast, and they were talking about the cost of Magic and compared it to Hearthstone (Blizzard's WoW-based online CCG). A few notes from the discussion.

* Magic dying due to low buy-in from "casuals" 
* Cost is keeping people from being competitive (competitive decks running hundreds of dollars)
* MTGO (online Magic component) is clunky and unintuitive, as well as expensive to buy a good deck with (with no crossover from paper to online)
* A belief WotC is married to paper-Magic and refuses to go digital.
* Blizzard is eating Wizard's lunch via Hearthstone right now. 
* Poor use of IP (such as leveraging the Planeswalkers for a League of Legends style game) or products dumped out with no fanfare (the Duel of the Planeswalker's board game). 
* Convenience cost to play (going to a tournament vs. 20 minutes online whenever). 

Damn near every complaint I heard could replace Magic with D&D, and Hearthstone with WoW. It kinda seems yet-again Wizard's is slow to adapt, Blizzard is going to steal their thunder, and WotC will be playing catchup again. 

With this in mind, I think its fair to say WotC is having a hard time with both of it major properties (D&D and MTG) and Blizzard is in a key place to yet again beat Wizards at their own game. That doesn't bode well for either of them...


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 28, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> The main problem with a MM2 is that you take your sales of the original MM and the you multiply that by a fraction.  Now that fraction could be 0.9 or 0.1 but either way you are not making as much money from that second MM then you are from the first one.
> 
> And a Fiend Folio?  Take the sales of MM2 and multiply it by a fraction.  And that is how your sales slowly bleed away with time.




It of course depends on what fraction is reasonably profitable. I wouldn't have the numbers of course, but I would think a profitable fraction for at least 1 or 2 more monster books would seem logical (as every edition has done so before, including 1st, when D&D was building its base and thus every book published was make-or-break). I imagine after 3 or so, you're probably getting to diminishing returns...

Monster books seem to sell well, given how many are published for each edition. Lots of DMs want and need monsters for their games, and many won't have the time and/or patience to create new monster,s or adapt old ones, using the (rather arcane) rules in the DMG. Sure, you can always go online for unofficial monsters, but I presume plenty, like me, would rather have official updates in hard copy, ready there for plug-and-play (yes, that's conjecture, but it seems logical in my opinion). There are still plenty of D&D IP monsters out there to be updated, and it would be nice to see that happen in a MM2....


----------



## Angel of the Dawn (Nov 29, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Sorry Chris but D&D is not World of Warcraft.
> 
> *You can't imagine Blizzard releasing six expansions a year. They don't ... they want to release a mammoth, not a bunch of mice.*
> 
> Sorry but you aren't comparing like for like.



You're missing his point entirely.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 29, 2015)

darjr said:


> Hmmmm... Interesting, cloak about an old stronghold of good alone in the wilderness that hasn't been heard from in a hundred years. That does sound like a prelude to undead and vampires. Cloak being the keyword.



As Chris says, the code names for the products/stories have nothing to do with the actual content. For example, the current Magic set, _Battle for Zendikar_ was named _Blood_ in development. The associated small set coming in February will be _Oath of the Gatewatch_, which had the codename _Sweat_. After that we have _Shadows over Innistrad_ (codenamed _Tears_), and whatever the associated small set will be (codenamed _Fears_).




Demetrios1453 said:


> by the time they got to the MM5 in 3e, most of the monsters were new and at least faintly ridiculous




One of the problems with monster books is that you usually put the coolest and most iconic monsters in the first one, when you have the least experience with monster design. Then when you've actually gotten good at designing monsters mechanically, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for concepts - for example, compare the design of the Elemental Magi from 3.5's Monster Manual V with the Ogre Mage from the Monster Manual.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 29, 2015)

*WotC's Chris Perkins Talks About... Everything! Upcoming Storylines, Products...*

In 4E they tried an alternate tack and saved certain iconic monsters for MM2. They see pilloried for doing that.

Sometimes you can't win against the Internet pundit who will tell you that everything you do is wrong, but you just go with the sales figures. You need to know when to dismiss the opinionated minority.


----------



## werecorpse (Nov 29, 2015)

Or they could release mm1 with what they see as the most popular and commonly used monsters (orcs, trolls, ghouls, dragons, Giants) then release mm2 about a year later with the ones that missed the mm1 (different trolls, dark stalkers, unusual fiends, undead) and ones that have been included in adventures (derro).

Like they did in 1e & 3e.

Just because they were pilloried for decisions in 4e doesn't mean every criticism for a different decision in 5e is therefore just internet trolls.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> In 4E they tried an alternate tack and saved certain iconic monsters for MM2. They see pilloried for doing that.




Could be a reflection of the "Gnome" effect also invented by 4e.


----------



## GreenTengu (Nov 29, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Saying the surveys indicate that they should release "a player's options book with the various racial and class concepts" is pretty specific. Can you point me to where you got that information?
> 
> Also, as you point out, the game is just over a year old. 16 months, to be exact. 11 products have been released in that time. That's an average of one product every 1.45 months. I'm not exactly sure it's time to say the sky is falling.




The July Survey
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/july-survey

It indicates that people want to play in Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun and Planescape. (They came in equal to forgotten realms).

It also indicated that people wanted to play Alchemists, Artificers and Shamans. Warlord was not even on the survey, but the fact that this board has had to be a whole separate forum to argue about just how it should be done indicates a desire to see a functional non-deity-based, non-musical and non-spellcasting class that can step into the healer role normally dominated entirely by clerics.

There is also indication there that there is indeed interest in playing about a dozen races, particularly the Aasimar and Goblin, that there are no official sanctioned mechanics for. Most of whom have been at least included in the monster manual increasingly balanced since 3.0 edition.

And yet there is no indication whatsoever that there are remotely any plans to address any of this in the next two years. Instead they feel is it far more important to build an exclusive class just for Elves because the Eldritch Knight just wasn't good enough for the mary-sue race. They just had to have their own special supped up exclusive class that only they could be.


----------



## Uchawi (Nov 29, 2015)

Morrus said:


> In 4E they tried an alternate tack and saved certain iconic monsters for MM2. They see pilloried for doing that.
> 
> Sometimes you can't win against the Internet pundit who will tell you that everything you do is wrong, but you just go with the sales figures. You need to know when to dismiss the opinionated minority.



The biggest beef with 4E (including monsters) was going against the norm or not being classic enough, which is an entirely different argument versus just wanting more. If 5E sales figures indicate at least new players continue to buy the game, then the majority will want more content with 5E. As to how quickly they release material is governed by WOTCs staff versus overall demand. If they had a surplus budget you would assume they would be on a hiring spree. But I believe the intent of 5E is just to keep the game relevant and then license, license, license.


----------



## Marandahir (Nov 29, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> The July Survey
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/july-survey
> 
> It indicates that people want to play in Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun and Planescape. (They came in equal to forgotten realms).
> ...




1. People won't play what they don't have the rules for. People could say that they want to play something but end up not playing it because they can't carry over their characters from one setting to the next. That survey has to be taken in a context with many other surveys, not the the least of which is the most recent one. It's hard to choose a second setting when they're all pretty low compared to FR. 

2. The Warlord Board on ENWorld is a result of a relative small number of players yelling loudly for something they want. ENWorld may be the biggest fan-forum for D&D, but it's still a small sliver of the group that takes the online surveys, let alone the entirety of the D&D install-base.

3. Aasimar have official sanctioned mechanics in the DMG. SCAG even referenced them. I'll give you Goblin though. Would like to see PC stats for them. Remember that 4e PC stats for Goblins didn't come until near the end of the life cycle of that edition. Yes, they had them in the back of the MM1, but they weren't fully written up until much later. 5e only rights up stats if they do them the full way (with the exception of a few sidebars and examples). 

4. Bladesinger, Battlerager, and Purple Dragon Knight have absolute restrictions in the Adventure League. The Adventure League also restricts you from playing Aasimar, Eladrin Elves, and Aarakocra. It also prevents you from playing a Goliath Totem Warrior Barbarian of the Elk or a Genasi Purple Dragon Knight. If you are NOT playing in the Adventure League, these restrictions are entirely fungible, and the SCAG mentions so outright. 

5. Bladesinger plays quite differently from Eldritch Knight. Its more comparable to the War Domain Cleric versus the Paladin, or how you can build a Ninja-type character via the Monk Way of Shadow, the Assassin Archetype for Thieves, or a number of other different combinations (such as the Trickster Domain Cleric for a particularly devout organization of Ninjas). 5e D&D has sets absolute territory for classes but lets subclasses muddy the waters and step on each others toes, to allow different paths to similar, but ultimately different, characters.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 29, 2015)

darjr said:


> They also have sales numbers from drivethru. And if you look you can almost see what's selling there. Like they post em on the site and everything.




But those are suspect. I'm sure I am not alone I. That I have no interest in pdfs. It's either print or nothing. I'd rather track down an old copy and pay more then a cheap pdf.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2015)

carmachu said:


> But those are suspect. I'm sure I am not alone I. That I have no interest in pdfs. It's either print or nothing. I'd rather track down an old copy and pay more then a cheap pdf.




But, do you honestly believe you are the standard we should be following here though?  I mean, if we're trading anecdotes, I haven't bought a dead tree book, outside of 5e core, in about ten years.  And, I suspect I'm not alone.  Trying to extrapolate from personal experience is tricky at best.



werecorpse said:


> Or they could release mm1 with what they see as the most popular and commonly used monsters (orcs, trolls, ghouls, dragons, Giants) then release mm2 about a year later with the ones that missed the mm1 (different trolls, dark stalkers, unusual fiends, undead) and ones that have been included in adventures (derro).
> 
> Like they did in 1e & 3e.
> 
> Just because they were pilloried for decisions in 4e doesn't mean every criticism for a different decision in 5e is therefore just internet trolls.




However, you have a problem with diminishing returns.  1e sure, saw three hardcover monster books in ten years.  That's a far cry from 3e's new monster book just about every year.  There were what, 5 3e Monster Manuals plus the Fiend Folio, so, yeah, pretty much a monster book every year.  Thing is, they could easily follow the 1e pattern still.  It's only been one year.  Fiend Folio didn't come out until '81, so, WotC still has a few years before span has elapsed.  It was '83 before D&D had three Monster Manuals, so, depending how you count, that's about five years after release.  

IOW, give it time.  I'm sure we'll see a Monster Manual 2 sometime down the line.  Just not next year.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 29, 2015)

Hussar said:


> However, you have a problem with diminishing returns.




I think that's a bit of a fallacy. 

Do you honestly think their AP's are selling the same or better than the corebooks? No they are not so therefore, they have been getting diminishing returns from the beginning. Also, this method is just a ridiculous as the ones that were there during 4th edition. If your whole strategy is based on only putting out products that do better or the same as your initial ones then you will fail. Why exactly would another AP right now do better than a MM II? If homebrew is at the top of the list then an MM II would sell quite nicely.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2015)

Who said better than core books?

It's not unreasonable to this no that a MM3 sells less than a MM2.  Is there any indication that Out of the Abyss is doing worse than Princes?


----------



## Angel of the Dawn (Nov 30, 2015)

carmachu said:


> But those are suspect. I'm sure I am not alone I. That I have no interest in pdfs. It's either print or nothing. I'd rather track down an old copy and pay more then a cheap pdf.



Well, what a statement that makes. We're very proud of you and all. But how are .pdf sales "suspect"? Because you don't like .pdfs they somehow don't count? So by that logic, I can completely disregard all discussion of Pathfinder or Palladium sales because I don't buy them?


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 30, 2015)

I actually believe it's the opposite of what Wizards says. 

I believe Wizards wants D&D under one single Forgotten Realms umbrella in order to make more money from non table top related merchandise. I believe they are pushing their agenda and not because other book products will sell less. I say the reason we aren't getting other published settings and more non setting specific options is because the more of those we get, the more people will play their homebrew and will leave AL and Forgotten Realms. I would actually say, from the table top game perspective, that it would make them more money to put out other settings and non setting options. They see their big pay off down the road coming from, well it can't be the video game because that bombed so it must be the movie.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 30, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I believe Wizards wants D&D under one single Forgotten Realms umbrella in order to make more money from non table top related merchandise.



 Yes, WotC want to make as much money with as little investment as possible. Who if denying that?


Corpsetaker said:


> I believe they are pushing their agenda and not because other book products will sell less.



 Ignoring 3 editions worth of FR outselling all other settings, you are saying that WotC is deliberately putting effort and money into a product they knew will sell less than another product they could make with the same effort and money?


Corpsetaker said:


> I say the reason we aren't getting other published settings and more non setting specific options is because the more of those we get, the more people will play their homebrew and will leave AL and Forgotten Realms.



 Well, AL is not making them money and WotC is making the same money whether you buy the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide or the Great Kingdom Adventurer's Guide (except that the would sell less copies of the later)


Corpsetaker said:


> I would actually say, from the table top game perspective, that it would make them more money to put out other settings and non setting options.



 Because the past proved that, ... oh wait


Corpsetaker said:


> They see their big pay off down the road coming from, well it can't be the video game because that bombed so it must be the movie.



 Where even a complete boycott of every active 5e player (500k? 750k?) would be non-noticeable by box office standards?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 30, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> They see their big pay off down the road coming from, well it can't be the video game because that bombed so it must be the movie.




Oh please.  Like WotC will see a penny of whatever a potential D&D movie would make.  Hasbro would be the producing corporation of the movie, not the Wizards of the Coast.  Hasbro owns the property, Hasbro would make the deal with a movie studio, the Hasbro Corporation would claim any and all risk and any and all reward on the failure or success of a film.

How about we just use our brains and K.I.S.S.?  WotC has set their first couple years of product in the Forgotten Realms because the Forgotten Realms is their most popular setting, end of story?


----------



## mykesfree (Nov 30, 2015)

I had a chance to reread the transcript.  Is anyone else getting from it that there might be a RPG product release at the end of March? PotA came out in April, so it would make sense for something to come out then.


----------



## mankyle (Nov 30, 2015)

Has anyone noticed that in the new map of the sword coast there area a lot of cities that don't appear BUT...

All the ancestral mound of the Uthgardt barbarians are present?

I think that gives credibility to that what Chris Perkins said that in one of the next adventures the characters will visit ancestral mounds of some barbarians....

we will see soon. I think that they will announce a new product for the christmas season


----------



## Reinhart (Nov 30, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Oh please.  Like WotC will see a penny of whatever a potential D&D movie would make.  Hasbro would be the producing corporation of the movie, not the Wizards of the Coast.  Hasbro owns the property, Hasbro would make the deal with a movie studio, the Hasbro Corporation would claim any and all risk and any and all reward on the failure or success of a film.
> 
> How about we just use our brains and K.I.S.S.?  WotC has set their first couple years of product in the Forgotten Realms because the Forgotten Realms is their most popular setting, end of story?




Actually, while the profit of a D&D movie will not be seen purely as WotC income, the plurality of the D&D team now are brand managers. So while it may not be counted as direct D&D sales, the money that Hasbro makes from D&D movies, t-shirts, and video games really is the metric they count and what justifies their paychecks. What are the sane reasons to print Forgotten Realms at the exclusion of all else? Well yes, clearly it's the most popular setting, but more importantly it's the most well-known D&D setting outside of the actual table-top game. The reason to avoid promoting other settings is to combat brand dilution. 

Hasbro wants to recreate the success it's had with its other brands going mainstream. With Tranformers, G.I. Joe, and even My Little Pony, there is a known cast of characters, setting, and a (somewhat) coherent mythology to build stories that are distinctly about those IP. And yet, what is a D&D movie really going to be about? D&D, as an intellectual property, is comprised of dozens of esoteric references to totally unrelated worlds and characters. No one story is likely to capture the essence of D&D and and any attempt to capture D&D without focusing on known characters and setting is likely to come across as a generic hodge-podge of Tolkien derivative fantasy. The Forgotten Realms may be a bit generic, but it does have a distinct history and cast of popular characters. I think Hasbro wouldn't mind if the rest of the world thought that Forgotten Realms was synonymous with D&D. It will never convince the table-top gamers of that, but it doesn't matter so long as the Realms make D&D something more accessible to the public than a set game rules. For that reason alone I suspect every upcoming D&D video game, novel, and eventually movie, will likely be based on that setting.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> I think Hasbro wouldn't mind if the rest of the world thought that Forgotten Realms was synonymous with D&D. It will never convince the table-top gamers of that, but it doesn't matter so long as the Realms make D&D something more accessible to the public than a set game rules. For that reason alone I suspect every upcoming D&D video game, novel, and eventually movie, will likely be based on that setting.




Doubt it.  The general public knows nothing about the Forgotten Realms.  The closest any non-gamer person out there _might_ know to something related to the Realms is the name 'Drizzt Do'Urden', as that's the ONLY Realms character or reference that has perhaps penetrated the general pop culture lexicon.  Hell... I'd venture a guess that it's all the early 80s adventure modules that have more name recognition to the general public than anything else Realms related.  Ravenloft would get recognized before Elminster.  Tomb of Horrors would get recognized before Waterdeep.  Which means by your way of thinking, the movie should be about either of those two adventures set in Greyhawk.

But they're not going to do that, because it isn't any specific D&D name that matters-- it's the D&D name itself.  That's it.  They'll worry about a story and characters first, D&D tropes second, then any possible nerd identifiers third (unless they make a Drizzt Do'Urden movie, in which case I'd push the nerd identifier into second position.)  So I don't think Hasbro's even coming _close_ to worrying about keeping the "Forgotten Realms" name "out there" in the tabletop sphere so that it's on our minds if/when they make a movie.  One, because there's no guarantee any name or reference will actually be IN the eventual D&D movie... and two, none of the movie-going audience would recognize the darned things anyway.

You know what will become the icons of the D&D brand when all is said and done?  Whatever characters and references appear in the D&D movie if the thing ends up being successful.  Heh... you think you hate all the Realms stuff now because its so overdone?  Just wait until a generic D&D movie comes out and makes money, and then hear every other person and their mother talk about _those_ names and ideas as the entirety of Dungeons & Dragons.  You won't be able to get them to understand the concept of the Realms at that point if you tried.


----------



## RotGrub (Dec 1, 2015)

Is anyone here honestly getting much out of the Adventure Modules WotC is has published for 5e?  Do you actually care about this grand story that Chirs is talking about?   Do you not think you'd get more out of an actual campaign setting?

At the moment, my 5e core books are collecting dust.   The reason is that I have no interest in converting my campaign settings to 5e.  I just don't have the time.    I'd rather just continue playing 2e.    The SCAG was a nice try to placate the FR fans looking for a realms fix, but it just doesn't' go far enough in my opinion.  

It's very clear to me why Monte Cook vacated the design team early on.  The direction post launch is not healthy for the game.


----------



## RotGrub (Dec 1, 2015)

hawkeyefan said:


> Isn't it a little ironic that you complain that the game is a product of their imagination rather than yours in the same post where you are asking them to come up with worlds for you?




Not at all. The worlds that fans love have already been created and they are a huge part of D&D.  All I'm asking is for them to convert/update them to 5e.   The problem is that they are just  assuming that we want them to create a story in a particular campaign setting without first giving us to the tools to do it ourselves.  The core books and even the SCAG make references to a number of campaign settings and yet we are being spoon fed bits of content stuffed in the adventure modules.    

They'll learn the hard way I guess.  When each "Story" returns less and less they'll rethink it all.  It might take 2-3 years, but they'll refocus.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Dec 1, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> Is anyone here honestly getting much out of the Adventure Modules WotC is has published for 5e?  Do you actually care about this grand story that Chirs is talking about?




Yeah, I am getting enough out of the 5E adventure modules. I like 'em (a little) better than Paizo's, and I'm having fun running them for my friends.

The grand story itself doesn't matter to me, but that's only because their "other media" games and books haven't been very good. A quality product in either of these categories would change my attitude pretty quickly, much as (for example) the baldur's gate crpg made me care about their dumb Time of Troubles storyline.


----------



## darjr (Dec 1, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> Is anyone here honestly getting much out of the Adventure Modules WotC is has published for 5e?  Do you actually care about this grand story that Chirs is talking about?   Do you not think you'd get more out of an actual campaign setting?
> 
> At the moment, my 5e core books are collecting dust.   The reason is that I have no interest in converting my campaign settings to 5e.  I just don't have the time.    I'd rather just continue playing 2e.    The SCAG was a nice try to placate the FR fans looking for a realms fix, but it just doesn't' go far enough in my opinion.
> 
> It's very clear to me why Monte Cook vacated the design team early on.  The direction post launch is not healthy for the game.




Yes, I'm running a group through Rise of Tiamat now. They all started in our Encounters group with Hoard.

I've got a group that is in the middle of Prophets now, that'll pick up after Rise.

I've organizied for a store that has three tables (actually it's the second location, the first, when I went to the knew location, had three tables wednesday and a table tuesday). We're playing Abyss right now. I'm going to need another GM soon because our tables are almost full and I think more folks are showing up.

I have run the boxed set so many times now (at cons and other events) that the books in it are falling apart. It's open for AL play and some of the seperate episodes make great adventures all by them selves. I'm going to need another boxed set. I'm glad their cheap.

I had another group in Prophets that didn't follow the plot, but still that book was hugely useful. It's a bit of a setting in itself, and is chock a block full of individual pieces that serve as adventures, most of which could, with little effort, be dropped in just about anywhere.

These books in fact are stuffed with adventures that could be pulled and worked into a different campaign. No more work than it would take to put a small single adventure into a campaign.

If you look at them as a collection of adventures you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 1, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You know what will become the icons of the D&D brand when all is said and done?  Whatever characters and references appear in the D&D movie if the thing ends up being successful.  Heh... you think you hate all the Realms stuff now because its so overdone?  Just wait until a generic D&D movie comes out and makes money, and then hear every other person and their mother talk about _those_ names and ideas as the entirety of Dungeons & Dragons.  You won't be able to get them to understand the concept of the Realms at that point if you tried.




I'm trying to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt on competently managing a brand. The thing is, it's just as plausible they'll go your route. The difference though is that won't likely be a success either. See their recent disaster with reinventing Jem and the Holograms with barely a nod to what the original fan-base wanted. Let's hope for all our sakes they produce something with a little more charm next time.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 1, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> Is anyone here honestly getting much out of the Adventure Modules WotC is has published for 5e?  Do you actually care about this grand story that Chirs is talking about?   Do you not think you'd get more out of an actual campaign setting?
> 
> At the moment, my 5e core books are collecting dust.   The reason is that I have no interest in converting my campaign settings to 5e.  I just don't have the time.    I'd rather just continue playing 2e.    The SCAG was a nice try to placate the FR fans looking for a realms fix, but it just doesn't' go far enough in my opinion.




I am getting plenty out of them. And my campaign actually spans multiple campaign settings. I have enough old material from past editions that I definitely do not feel the need for campaign guides for the other settings. Sure, some conversion notes would be cool, but I am getting by fine without them. 

I have taken the Adventure Paths and adapted parts to suit my needs. I find it hard to believe that what's hding you back from running your campaign is a campaign setting. So if you had a campaign setting, you'd be coming up with a bunch of homebrew adventures, but without one, you've got nothing? Seems weird.



RotGrub said:


> Not at all. The worlds that fans love have already been created and they are a huge part of D&D.  All I'm asking is for them to convert/update them to 5e.   The problem is that they are just  assuming that we want them to create a story in a particular campaign setting without first giving us to the tools to do it ourselves.  The core books and even the SCAG make references to a number of campaign settings and yet we are being spoon fed bits of content stuffed in the adventure modules.
> 
> They'll learn the hard way I guess.  When each "Story" returns less and less they'll rethink it all.  It might take 2-3 years, but they'll refocus.




You said it yourself...the worlds already exist.

The core books show you exactly what you need to use the system how you want. The DMG shows you how to design races. You can create Muls and Thri-Kreen if you'd like. It's not even that hard. 

The most important tool is something you can't buy, though.

On your last point, I do agree to an extent. They'll do what they are doing for as long as they think it will work, and then they'll try something else. I don't think that their strategy would ever be to do one thing only forever and evar!! Of course they'll change it up.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Dec 1, 2015)

darjr said:


> Yes, I'm running a group through Rise of Tiamat now. They all started in our Encounters group with Hoard.
> 
> I've got a group that is in the middle of Prophets now, that'll pick up after Rise.
> 
> ...




Virtually every chapter in _Out of the Abyss_ could be taken out individually and be easily re-purposed as stand-alone adventures with minimal re-working. Heck, one could almost run an entire _campaign_ just on the Gracklestugh stuff alone!


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Doubt it.  The general public knows nothing about the Forgotten Realms.  The closest any non-gamer person out there _might_ know to something related to the Realms is the name 'Drizzt Do'Urden', as that's the ONLY Realms character or reference that has perhaps penetrated the general pop culture lexicon.  Hell... I'd venture a guess that it's all the early 80s adventure modules that have more name recognition to the general public than anything else Realms related.  Ravenloft would get recognized before Elminster.  Tomb of Horrors would get recognized before Waterdeep.  Which means by your way of thinking, the movie should be about either of those two adventures set in Greyhawk.
> /snip




I think you are very wrong there.  You don't regularly top NYTimes best seller lists for thirty years without getting your name into the general public.  Salvatore, whether you like Drizz''t or not, is on the same level as writers like Jim Butcher or Charlaine Harris.  Heck, I can go into a public library here in Japan and see Salvatore books prominently displayed in translation.  He's in every book store, when a lot of English language authors most certainly aren't.  

If you think Tomb of Horrors has more recognition than Waterdeep, I think you are very mistaken.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2015)

Why is it bad that WotC is trying to bring everything under the FR umbrella.  Isn't this exactly the same as the Paizo model?  Paizo has brought a number of different settings under the umbrella of Golarian and it seems to be doing pretty well.  You've got traditional fantasy, horror fantasy, steampunk fantasy, etc. all presented in a variety of Paizo Adventure Paths.

Why is it good business sense when Paizo does it, but, terrible business sense when WotC does pretty much exactly the same thing.  Just with a much larger budget and a lot more cross media promotion.  The biggest selling D&D video games have all been set in the Realms.  Every single one of them.  Why on earth would anyone think that a Ravenloft video game would be more successful than a gothic horror video game set in FR?

As far as Sword Coast Legends goes, what evidence do we have that it "bombed" as [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] claims?  I mean, a quick Google scan shows IGN panning it and HardcoreGamer liking it.  Seems pretty middle of the road.  Not a runaway success, of course, but, that's not the measure of success.  Did it make money?


----------



## spectacle (Dec 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> As far as Sword Coast Legends goes, what evidence do we have that it "bombed" as [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] claims?  I mean, a quick Google scan shows IGN panning it and HardcoreGamer liking it.  Seems pretty middle of the road.  Not a runaway success, of course, but, that's not the measure of success.  Did it make money?




Poor reviews, both from the media and users: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sword-coast-legends

Only slightly more than 70K people own the game: http://steamspy.com/app/325600 
Compare that to the 450K who have Baldur's Gate Enhanceed Edition and the nearly 600K who own Pillars of Eternity. 70K sales would be decent sales for a no-name indie studio releasing a brand new unknown game, but for a D&D game it is terrible. Sword Coast Legends has completely failed to appeal to more than a tiny fraction of the existing fanbase.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2015)

Do those steam numbers include Xbox and PlayStation?  I honestly don't know.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Dec 1, 2015)

I think those numbers are Steam only. 

I want to note that there are tons of people on GoG who'd still buy the game if the PC version was released DRM-free. There's quite some hidden frustration towards WotC going on there because they didn't release it on GoG, even though GoG is actually the go-to store for these kinds of games.

At least 621 customers gone: http://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/sword_coast_legends


----------



## wedgeski (Dec 1, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> Is anyone here honestly getting much out of the Adventure Modules WotC is has published for 5e?  Do you actually care about this grand story that Chirs is talking about?   Do you not think you'd get more out of an actual campaign setting?



I have a _Princes_ campaign underway, I'm about to join a _Rise of Tiamat_ game, and I'll be launching an _Out of the Abyss_ campaign in a fortnight.

No, I don't very much care for any meta-story that WotC is constructing, but the material they're releasing is finding heavy use at my table.

No, I wouldn't get more out of a campaign setting. You think I could run two campaigns where I had to do all of the adventure design?


----------



## spectacle (Dec 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Do those steam numbers include Xbox and PlayStation?  I honestly don't know.



It's PC only at the moment, console versions are possibly coming next year.


----------



## Angel of the Dawn (Dec 1, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I believe they are pushing their agenda <snip>



...and this, where conspiracies and agendas are ascribed to a faceless Other, is where any possibility of intelligent discussion ends. It's fine to not like SCAG, or to like it, but statements like this are not reasonable. First person blocked since I've gotten to ENWorld. =/


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I think you are very wrong there.  You don't regularly top NYTimes best seller lists for thirty years without getting your name into the general public.  Salvatore, whether you like Drizz''t or not, is on the same level as writers like Jim Butcher or Charlaine Harris.  Heck, I can go into a public library here in Japan and see Salvatore books prominently displayed in translation.  He's in every book store, when a lot of English language authors most certainly aren't.
> 
> If you think Tomb of Horrors has more recognition than Waterdeep, I think you are very mistaken.




I agree with you wholeheartedly on Salvatore, which is why I had Drizzt as the only FR name to achieve that kind of general culture penetration.  But to the predominant part of the general public who don't read, play or experience anything that might even be tangentially related to D&D (the general public who HAS to be convinced to see a D&D movie for it to have any sort of fnancial success, because the D&D nerds alone wouldn't accomplish it)... the term 'Dungeons & Dragons' is known, but little else in that sphere is.  'Drizzt Do'Urden' might be the second-most known.  After that... we're talking _maybe_ the name 'Forgotten Realms', _maybe_ the name 'Greyhawk', _maybe_ 'Ravenloft', 'Tomb of Horrors'.  But individual cities in any of the campaign settings?  Extremely unlikely.

So the writers of the D&D movie script could make up a town name and have it have as much meaning to the people in the theater as using a name like 'Waterdeep'.  Sure... all the nerds in the crowd might eat up the idea of seeing 'Waterdeep' in screen... but Hasbro won't be going into production strictly with the idea of catering to us.

At least not to the original point of Hasbro *forcing* WotC to keep releasing Forgotten Realms _game product_ right now just on the off-chance it might have a slight connection to a film down the road (even if game players are tired of seeing FR used for game product.)  I don't think the Hasbro suits are looking NEARLY that close at things in the little D&D division of Wizards of the Coast.

I think WotC is releasing Realms product right now, because Realms product is what sells.  Despite the claims of some folks here on the boards.


----------



## delericho (Dec 1, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So the writers of the D&D movie script could make up a town name and have it have as much meaning to the people in the theater as using a name like 'Waterdeep'.  Sure... all the nerds in the crowd might eat up the idea of seeing 'Waterdeep' in screen... but Hasbro won't be going into production strictly with the idea of catering to us.




Except that they _are_ retooling the existing script to move the action into the Forgotten Realms. If it didn't make any difference, they wouldn't bother going to that trouble.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 1, 2015)

This isn't just about "off chances" of later profit. This is about brand management. Hasbro wants D&D to work like all the other popular IP now, and the only way that's going to happen is if it's accessible and digestible. Supporting multiple settings is a clear path to brand dilution. It makes the history and identity of D&D murkier and frankly less interesting to most people. Hasbro doesn't need to *force* WotC to do this because it's already changed the focus of the D&D team to brand management. They can come to this conclusion on their own if they have any competence. After all, brand managers have to think about how best to market D&D as a license that _other_ companies want to work with.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2015)

delericho said:


> Except that they _are_ retooling the existing script to move the action into the Forgotten Realms. If it didn't make any difference, they wouldn't bother going to that trouble.




Won't make any difference for the 80% of the potential audience they'll hope to attract in order for the movie to be successful... but will certainly matter to the 20% who will understand the references.

But for us 20%?  We already KNOW all those references.  We've experienced those references for decades now.  Does anyone really think Wizards of the Coast is dictating their entire game publishing strategy on the off-chance a Realms name will get referenced in some movie however-many years down the line?  ESPECIALLY considering (to the original argument) that WotC most likely gains no real financial benefit if a movie produces and does really well (because all of that movie income goes directly to Hasbro Corporate.)

A really successful D&D movie is good for WotC because it keeps the D&D "brand" active, and thus the D&D department gets to keep making game product.  But WotC isn't going to get more money from Hasbro to spend on their D&D department if a D&D movie does well.  So any money they earn from the D&D department is due to the D&D department _itself_, and thus they'll make their game publishing decisions based on what's best for their game publishing-- and not what is best for any eventual movie.  And up to this point, what has been best for them seems to be publishing Forgotten Realms material because Forgotten Realms players have been buying it.  And that will continue to be the case right up until they think they've saturated the market enough and then choose to move over to a different setting.

And then if/when a Forgotten Realms movie gets released in like six years, they can publish a D&D game product based upon anything/everything that appears in the movie at that point.


----------



## delericho (Dec 1, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Does anyone really think Wizards of the Coast is dictating their entire game publishing strategy on the off-chance a Realms name will get referenced in some movie however-many years down the line?




Do I believe that's the _sole_ factor in their thinking? No, of course not. Do I believe that that is _one of_ the factors in their thinking? Yes I do.

One of the problems that is brought up every time a D&D movie is discussed is that D&D doesn't have any in-built story. One of the reasons for the current storyline-driven approach is that it solves this - they're generating IP that is much easier to then adapt to use in video games, movies, novels, and whatever other media than a "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" would be. That's almost certainly not the _only_ reason for this strategy, but it is, at least, a side benefit from it.



> ESPECIALLY considering (to the original argument) that WotC most likely gains no real financial benefit if a movie produces and does really well (because all of that movie income goes directly to Hasbro Corporate.)




And, again, for all that Hasbro is largely hands-off when it comes to D&D, it would be absurd to suggest that the needs of the parent company play no part in WotC's decision making.  At the very least, Mearls reports to Greg Leeds, who has to justify himself to the parent company. So when presented with a choice of strategies, one of which neatly aligns with the parent companies ambitions for the brand and one which does not, it's very likely they'll err on the side of the easy choice.

Again, I don't think that's the _only_ factor in decision making, and indeed it's probably not even the _main_ one. But I'll bet it is _one of_ the factors.



> A really successful D&D movie is good for WotC because it keeps the D&D "brand" active, and thus the D&D department gets to keep making game product.  But WotC isn't going to get more money from Hasbro to spend on their D&D department if a D&D movie does well.




Sure they will. A strong brand will get more support, whether it's strong because the books are selling great or because the movie is a hot property right not. Hasbro aren't stupid, despite what some posters here seem to think.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2015)

delericho said:


> Do I believe that's the _sole_ factor in their thinking? No, of course not. Do I believe that that is _one of_ the factors in their thinking? Yes I do.




Which I'm willing to go along with.  One factor in their thinking?  Sure.  However my responses were to people who were suggesting the _primary_ reason we weren't seeing any new campaign settings being published was *because* the D&D department / WotC / Hasbro Corporate had to keep the Realms active for the eventual movie.  *If only* it wasn't for that cursed movie, we'd be getting things like Planescape or Dark Sun _right now!_

As opposed to what I believe... which is that the D&D department is publishing Forgotten Realms game books right now for the simple reason that Forgotten Realms game books are popular and they sell.


----------



## delericho (Dec 1, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Which I'm willing to go along with.  One factor in their thinking?  Sure.  However my responses were to people who were suggesting the _primary_ reason we weren't seeing any new campaign settings being published was *because* the D&D department / WotC / Hasbro Corporate had to keep the Realms active for the eventual movie.  *If only* it wasn't for that cursed movie, we'd be getting things like Planescape or Dark Sun _right now!_
> 
> As opposed to what I believe... which is that the D&D department is publishing Forgotten Realms game books right now for the simple reason that Forgotten Realms game books are popular and they sell.




Yep, I can agree with that on all counts.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 1, 2015)

I Hate All Life said:


> ...and this, where conspiracies and agendas are ascribed to a faceless Other, is where any possibility of intelligent discussion ends. It's fine to not like SCAG, or to like it, but statements like this are not reasonable. First person blocked since I've gotten to ENWorld. =/




Thank god I got put on his ignore list.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Why is it bad that WotC is trying to bring everything under the FR umbrella.  Isn't this exactly the same as the Paizo model?  Paizo has brought a number of different settings under the umbrella of Golarian and it seems to be doing pretty well.  You've got traditional fantasy, horror fantasy, steampunk fantasy, etc. all presented in a variety of Paizo Adventure Paths.
> 
> Why is it good business sense when Paizo does it, but, terrible business sense when WotC does pretty much exactly the same thing.  Just with a much larger budget and a lot more cross media promotion.  The biggest selling D&D video games have all been set in the Realms.  Every single one of them.  Why on earth would anyone think that a Ravenloft video game would be more successful than a gothic horror video game set in FR?
> 
> As far as Sword Coast Legends goes, what evidence do we have that it "bombed" as [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] claims?  I mean, a quick Google scan shows IGN panning it and HardcoreGamer liking it.  Seems pretty middle of the road.  Not a runaway success, of course, but, that's not the measure of success.  Did it make money?




Golarion is the only setting Pathfinder has ever had so why would you think they would do anything any different? D&D has already exposed it's fans to multiple settings that all have their own uniqueness that people have enjoyed through the years. It's kind of like a restaurant giving you a food you find is your favourite and then taking it off the menu. 

My problem is giving us all this false jargon about why they are doing it this way when all things seem to point in IP identity in order to create another Marvel or DC IP that includes toys, movies, games, costumes, etc... They want to keep everyone under the same umbrella for what's coming down the road.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 1, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Which I'm willing to go along with.  One factor in their thinking?  Sure.  However my responses were to people who were suggesting the _primary_ reason we weren't seeing any new campaign settings being published was *because* the D&D department / WotC / Hasbro Corporate had to keep the Realms active for the eventual movie.  *If only* it wasn't for that cursed movie, we'd be getting things like Planescape or Dark Sun _right now!_
> 
> As opposed to what I believe... which is that the D&D department is publishing Forgotten Realms game books right now for the simple reason that Forgotten Realms game books are popular and they sell.




It's not just the movie. It's the toys, games, video games, costumes, lunch boxes, t-shirts, etc..... They are trying to establish an IP identity because it doesn't have one at the moment. They keep the table top game running because it is iconic. That's mainly the reason why Marvel and DC comics are still going. They make tons more money on everything else but they keep the comics going because it is synonymous to the brand.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> It's not just the movie. It's the toys, games, video games, costumes, lunch boxes, t-shirts, etc..... They are trying to establish an IP identity because it doesn't have one at the moment. They keep the table top game running because it is iconic. That's mainly the reason why Marvel and DC comics are still going. They make tons more money on everything else but they keep the comics going because it is synonymous to the brand.




Different point.  Keeping D&D running as a game to keep the D&D brand running?  Absolutely.  Right there with you.  But that's 'Dungeons & Dragons' the IP.  But forcing the Forgotten Realms setting to continue being published because they want 'Forgotten Realms' to equal the market presence of 'D&D'?  Absolutely no point.  D&D is the brand.  The extremely niche brand that only specific tabletop gamers and isolated video gamers and fantasy novel readers know and care about.  Individual components of D&D are never going to reach D&D's level... which is exactly why people several years ago who said Pathfinder was surpassing D&D as the "default" for RPGs were crazy-- it might have been played more amongst those within the niche, but the name itself had absolutely no market penetration into the general public.  And the same is true for 'Forgotten Realms'.  That name means nothing to the public in terms of roleplaying games, just like 'Pathfinder' means nothing.  Everything begins and ends with 'Dungeons & Dragons'.  *At least* until a potential Forgotten Realms movie is made and actually becomes a financial powerhouse.  Then-- and only then-- would the names and tropes of the Realms (if used in the big budget powerhouse blockbuster movie) become the default icons of Dungeons & Dragons.

But until that point... where the only people who know the names of things involving the Realms (excluding Drizzt) are the people who already play the game... WotC has no need to push Realms at the expense of their own bottom line financially and creatively.  Because we in the niche already know that which we need to know of the Realms if/when a movie gets made.  So if it makes sense to the D&D department to switch over to a different setting for an upcoming book, then the're probably going to do so.  Because they can always come back to the Realms once the movie gets released to try and capitalize on it in whatever tiny way they can.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 1, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> Is anyone here honestly getting much out of the Adventure Modules WotC is has published for 5e?  Do you actually care about this grand story that Chirs is talking about?   Do you not think you'd get more out of an actual campaign setting?
> 
> At the moment, my 5e core books are collecting dust.   The reason is that I have no interest in converting my campaign settings to 5e.  I just don't have the time.    I'd rather just continue playing 2e.    The SCAG was a nice try to placate the FR fans looking for a realms fix, but it just doesn't' go far enough in my opinion.
> 
> It's very clear to me why Monte Cook vacated the design team early on.  The direction post launch is not healthy for the game.




I don't even own any of them yet and I'm definitely getting something out of them.  My DM has adapted the rise of tiamat storyline to his own setting and I'm playing that (we finished the hoard of the dragon queen and will move on at some point when that game gets back from hiatus).  However through playing it I've seen that it's also fairly useful as a repository for monsters, NPCs, magic items, dungeon maps, and various other tidbits and ideas for my own game.  

I used inspiration from the hoard of the dragon queen adventure and decided to do some caravan adventure shenanigans of my own in the homebrew campaign that I'm running (which will lead to a 3.5e adventure I'm planning on running while adapting it to 5e on the fly), and the only reason I haven't picked up all of the APs for just the same kind of inspiration and thievery is because 1 of them is still in my future as a player, and I don't want to read ahead, and also because I'm monetarily strapped at the moment.  Other than that those books are solid gold as far as DM toolkit is concerned.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 1, 2015)

spectacle said:


> Poor reviews, both from the media and users: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sword-coast-legends
> 
> Only slightly more than 70K people own the game: http://steamspy.com/app/325600
> Compare that to the 450K who have Baldur's Gate Enhanceed Edition and the nearly 600K who own Pillars of Eternity. 70K sales would be decent sales for a no-name indie studio releasing a brand new unknown game, but for a D&D game it is terrible. Sword Coast Legends has completely failed to appeal to more than a tiny fraction of the existing fanbase.




Not to mention all the other bad reviews it has gotten. I have posted links to them over on the Sword Coast Legends section of these forums.


----------



## PMárk (Dec 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Why is it bad that WotC is trying to bring everything under the FR umbrella.  Isn't this exactly the same as the Paizo model?  Paizo has brought a number of different settings under the umbrella of Golarian and it seems to be doing pretty well.  You've got traditional fantasy, horror fantasy, steampunk fantasy, etc. all presented in a variety of Paizo Adventure Paths.




AGAIN: Golarion has a far wider setting as themes goes than FR from the get-go, especially because they have only one setting and incorporated every major DnD genre into that. And that's good, I like Golarion, but FR is not Golarion. Put every setting into FR would degrade those settings. 

I ask you personally: why are you dislike the notion of multiple settings? It's fine to like FR, I like FR too, but it seems to me that you actively campaigning for the "killing" of other settings, or at least promoting the lack of support for them and the integrating them into FR and I don' get it. If there would be options and support for other people who don't want the same as you, you would probably still get your thing.

I won't even go to the seeming of you don't even know the settings you complaining against, as your comments on RL in the other topic demonstrate, at least in the case of RL.

 Please realize that because you don't use, or like other settings and won't mind to throwing these unnecessaries into the trashbin, a lot of people actualy like them and using them and wanting SOME support for them and their (our) opinion is as valid as your.


----------



## PMárk (Dec 1, 2015)

And one minor thing in addition to the Golarion-FR comparison: Paizo have a full AP featuring Ustalav (with a lot of background info in the adventures and in additional gazetteers at the end of each), a 64 page campaign setting supplement dedicated to Ustalav, a 38 page player companion (Blood of the Night), and a lot of additional things in other books, like monsters in bestiaries (like the Lovecraftian Great Old Ones and their cults whose first appeared in the Ustalav AP), additional highly connected supplements (classic horrors revisited, undead revisited), Novels (like the most recent one) and I'm sure I'm leaving out things. IF RL would get the fraction of this support ( the majority of fluff we already have), I would be happy and call it a day.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 1, 2015)

Most RPGs are fairly closely tied to a particular setting: Shadowrun, Numenera, Star Wars (in various incarnations), Paranoia, Dragon Age, Ars Magica, Feng Shui, Legend of the Five Rings, and so on. I'd actually guess that it's more common with multiple games sharing one setting from different perspectives (e.g. old World of Darkness, FFG's Star Wars) than using the same game for multiple settings.

Most cases of a game having multiple settings are "generic" games that get a single sourcebook or so for a particular setting, like GURPS or FATE. In these cases, the settings are often fairly divergent - you'd be more likely to have a space opera setting sourcebook, a fantasy setting sourcebook, and a horror setting sourcebook than three different fantasy sourcebooks with different geographies. Also, many of the games that do exist with multiple settings have started as a single-setting game and then, when proved popular, been retooled to be generic (Dragon Age to Fantasy Age, Runequest to Basic Roleplaying, Deadlands to Savage Worlds).

In other words, D&D having many official settings is an abberation. I'd be sad, but not surprised, to see Wizards focusing exclusively on one setting.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 1, 2015)

The big problem WotC has right now is that their mouths wrote checks their asses cannot cash. They've talked about the "multiverse". They referenced it in the Core books, gave blurbs on settings they haven't supported for years, and tried their damnedest to sound like they were embracing not a "best of" setting (like Nentir Vale was) but every setting. That set a level of expectation. I mean, in just the last year or so, we had a reference to "D&D's setting is the multiverse", an "Eberron playtest doc", "Krynn Minotaur playtest", hints dropped about Ravenloft and Iuz/Greyhawk, even a reference to Mystara's Rakasta as a PC race, yet we still have no idea if anything is actually COMING of all this. It's been one long tease, and I think after a year of stringing people along, it'd be freaking nice for them to say "Yes, we are going to release materials for other settings sometime in the next few years" or "no, we're devoting all our energies to FR for the foreseeable future." I'd be happy with either answer; but for the love of [Insert deity] QUIT STRINGING US ALONG!


----------



## PMárk (Dec 1, 2015)

WoD's one settingness, especially in the case of CWoD is arguable, but even when we assume it's one setting, there are unique splatbooks, city books, chronicles and so on in every gameline. But yeah, I agree that the case of DnD with it's many settings isn't common, BUT DnD was the first RPG and lots of the later games settings are originated in one of DnD's. 

I also wouldn't be surprised they focusing on FR. But the question is not that every setting gaining a full campaign setting and full support. Just some support to keep these alive.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 2, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Golarion is the only setting Pathfinder has ever had so why would you think they would do anything any different? D&D has already exposed it's fans to multiple settings that all have their own uniqueness that people have enjoyed through the years. It's kind of like a restaurant giving you a food you find is your favourite and then taking it off the menu.
> 
> My problem is giving us all this false jargon about why they are doing it this way when all things seem to point in IP identity in order to create another Marvel or DC IP that includes toys, movies, games, costumes, etc... They want to keep everyone under the same umbrella for what's coming down the road.




What false jargon?  They've been pretty forthcoming here.  They've flat out said, FR is the way forward for the foreseeable future.  They have said in multiple places that the way forward is through multiple channels - games, toys, etc.  So, yeah, of course they're keeping things under one umbrella.  I'm not sure what the problem is here.



PMárk said:


> AGAIN: Golarion has a far wider setting as themes goes than FR from the get-go, especially because they have only one setting and incorporated every major DnD genre into that. And that's good, I like Golarion, but FR is not Golarion. Put every setting into FR would degrade those settings.
> 
> I ask you personally: why are you dislike the notion of multiple settings? It's fine to like FR, I like FR too, but it seems to me that you actively campaigning for the "killing" of other settings, or at least promoting the lack of support for them and the integrating them into FR and I don' get it. If there would be options and support for other people who don't want the same as you, you would probably still get your thing.
> 
> ...




See, the problem here is you presume that because I think that going with a single setting is a better idea, that I somehow dislike the other settings.  Other than Planescape (which I do not like) I have zero problems with other D&D settings.  I've played in them, and I've borrowed ideas from them.  But, I do think that multiple settings is not going in WotC's economic interests.  There simply isn't enough market to justify trying to bang out a new setting based on their current business model.  Look at the poll on the front page of En World right now.  You've got Homebrew, the FR then everyone else.  There are three TIMES more FR players than Ravenloft, at least according to that poll.

Why on earth would I sell books for Ravenloft players?  Would it not make far more sense for WotC to strip mine the Ravenloft IP and then set a new AL season, new AP, possibly new players guide in FR inspired by Ravenloft?  Same as they did with Elemental Evil and Tyranny of Dragons.  The latest AP doesn't apparently draw too much from D&D at all, fair enough, but, I'll bet dollars to donuts the next one does.

Hell, I don't even particularly LIKE FR.    I'm an inveterate home brewer.  My next campaign will be set in Primeval Thule.  I'm currently playing in a Dragonlance campaign.  I get what you want.  I understand it.  But, I also recognise that there is no way in hell it's going to happen, so, why not look for compromises so you at least get _something_



Remathilis said:


> The big problem WotC has right now is that their mouths wrote checks their asses cannot cash. They've talked about the "multiverse". They referenced it in the Core books, gave blurbs on settings they haven't supported for years, and tried their damnedest to sound like they were embracing not a "best of" setting (like Nentir Vale was) but every setting. That set a level of expectation. I mean, in just the last year or so, we had a reference to "D&D's setting is the multiverse", an "Eberron playtest doc", "Krynn Minotaur playtest", hints dropped about Ravenloft and Iuz/Greyhawk, even a reference to Mystara's Rakasta as a PC race, yet we still have no idea if anything is actually COMING of all this. It's been one long tease, and I think after a year of stringing people along, it'd be freaking nice for them to say "Yes, we are going to release materials for other settings sometime in the next few years" or "no, we're devoting all our energies to FR for the foreseeable future." I'd be happy with either answer; but for the love of [Insert deity] QUIT STRINGING US ALONG!




Again, you know why.  They cannot confirm or deny anything until the absolute last minute because if they do, and then plans change, they get pilloried.  Look at the hoopla about the Elemental Evil player's guide.  The last five or six years has proven that there is a very vocal group of fans who will get out the torches and pitchforks if they even smell the whiff that WotC isn't being 100% forthright and honest.  And even when they are being forthright and honest, it doesn't matter because those same people will still make lots of noise that WotC is lying, or using marketing speak, or false jargon.

You only have to look at threads like this one to answer your own question.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Again, you know why.  They cannot confirm or deny anything until the absolute last minute because if they do, and then plans change, they get pilloried.  Look at the hoopla about the Elemental Evil player's guide.  The last five or six years has proven that there is a very vocal group of fans who will get out the torches and pitchforks if they even smell the whiff that WotC isn't being 100% forthright and honest.  And even when they are being forthright and honest, it doesn't matter because those same people will still make lots of noise that WotC is lying, or using marketing speak, or false jargon.
> 
> You only have to look at threads like this one to answer your own question.




I think you're letting WotC off a little TOO much here.

There is a big difference between "We intend to release some support for the Ravenloft setting at some point" and "We will be releasing the _Ravenloft Adventurer's Guide_ in the summer of 2017, mark your calendars!" The first is a suggestion that something might happen down the road, the second is a specific product with a specific timetable. I don't want the latter; I'll settle for the former. 

I'd love to have WotC come out of and say "We are working on a psionics book, another setting book, and more APs right now, details to come." or "We're working hard on completing the next FR sourcebook; where will we take you next?" or "Guess what, we don't see any support beyond Forgotten Realms for the next few years; we'll re-evaluate that stance then to determine how things are going." I don't need product details or Amazon mockups, I just would love to know what is being discussed at those staff meetings sometimes. 

I mean, if WotC has such little faith in their audience or their product that they can't even hint at their existence, then maybe there is something wrong with their business model...


----------



## HobbitFan (Dec 2, 2015)

Remathilis pretty much covered what I was going to say.  

One comment I would add.  If Story is indeed king and the hardback APs are their centerpieces, why don't the adventures demonstrate more creativity and imagination?  The adventures are pretty well done but they're not groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination.  I would expect adventures planned to relaese with a new edition would be well, alot less average than these have been.  Doing stuff like revisiting the Temple of elemental Evil is reaching for pretty low hanging fruit.


----------



## PMárk (Dec 2, 2015)

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> > See, the problem here is you presume that because I think that going with a single setting is a better idea, that I somehow dislike the other settings.  Other than Planescape (which I do not like) I have zero problems with other D&D settings.  I've played in them, and I've borrowed ideas from them.  But, I do think that multiple settings is not going in WotC's economic interests.  There simply isn't enough market to justify trying to bang out a new setting based on their current business model.  Look at the poll on the front page of En World right now.  You've got Homebrew, the FR then everyone else.  There are three TIMES more FR players than Ravenloft, at least according to that poll.
> ...


----------



## PMárk (Dec 2, 2015)

I should say "completely axing". Don't giving full support like old days is ok.Completely throwing out settings or starving them to death isn't. I think, with some creativity, they could give the other settings fare enough support.


----------



## darjr (Dec 2, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> Remathilis pretty much covered what I was going to say.
> 
> One comment I would add.  If Story is indeed king and the hardback APs are their centerpieces, why don't the adventures demonstrate more creativity and imagination?  The adventures are pretty well done but they're not groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination.  I would expect adventures planned to relaese with a new edition would be well, alot less average than these have been.  Doing stuff like revisiting the Temple of elemental Evil is reaching for pretty low hanging fruit.




It only takes general ideas from it. Other than that it is very different.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 2, 2015)

Thing is, since D&D has already exposed us to multiple settings and then decide to go with only one setting then they have already split the fanbase. Even during 4th edition we had four settings - Forgotten Realms, Nentir Vale, Dark Sun, and Eberron. What about all the fans those settings brought in? 

Looks to me like they are trying to reach out to mostly new fans and send them in the direction of their future merchandise. 4th edition tried to reach out to this mysterious hoard of new fans and look how that turned out.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Thing is, since D&D has already exposed us to multiple settings and then decide to go with only one setting then they have already split the fanbase. Even during 4th edition we had four settings - Forgotten Realms, Nentir Vale, Dark Sun, and Eberron. What about all the fans those settings brought in?
> 
> Looks to me like they are trying to reach out to mostly new fans and send them in the direction of their future merchandise. 4th edition tried to reach out to this mysterious hoard of new fans and look how that turned out.




Tabletop RPGs are an ageing, shrinking market. If WotC doesn't bring in new, younger fans the hobby will die. They're the only company with the ability to do that at any kind of large scale. [edited out personal comment; that was inappropriate of me]


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 2, 2015)

Nothing wrong with this.

Forgotten Realms: 1 thick campaign guide + player's guide.

Ravenloft: 1 thick campaign guide + players guide.

Dragonlance: 1 thick campaign guide + players guide.

Greyhawk: 1 thick campaign guide + players guide.

Spalljammer: 1 thick campaign guide + players guide.

Planescape: 1 thick campaign guide + players guide.

Dark Sun: 1 thick campaign guide + players guide.

Eberron: 1 thick campaign guide + players guide. 

Hire out various companies such as Sasquatch, Green Ronin, etc to handle the adventures or bring back Dungeon mag.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 2, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Tabletop RPGs are an ageing, shrinking market. If WotC doesn't bring in new, younger fans the hobby will die. They're the only company with the ability to do that at any kind of large scale. I'm not saying this to you, so much, as I know you are unable to engage in any rational or meaningful way, but others are reading the thread.




There is nothing wrong with bringing in new fans, never said there was. Please don't put words in my mouth. But if that is mainly what you are banking on then the hobby will die because there are just as many old fans as there are new fans.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 2, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> II'd love to have WotC come out of and say "We are working on a psionics book, another setting book, and more APs right now, details to come." or "We're working hard on completing the next FR sourcebook; where will we take you next?" or "Guess what, we don't see any support beyond Forgotten Realms for the next few years; we'll re-evaluate that stance then to determine how things are going." I don't need product details or Amazon mockups, I just would love to know what is being discussed at those staff meetings sometimes..




And I think you're not being honest here.

WotC has already released playtest articles for psionics *and* Eberron.  So you, I, and everybody *already knows* they are working on and looking into those things.  THAT'S your confirmation right there.  So what does them saying "We're working on a psionics book" give you that you don't already know from them releasing a playtest article telling us how they're working on psionics?  Nothing.  There is _nothing_ different.  Which tells me that if that playtest article isn't enough for you... then apparently you actually DO want something more than just a statement from them saying "We're working on a psionics book".

And *even if* Mike was to release a statement on Twitter tomorrow morning stating "We're working on a psionics book"... what does that actually DO for you?  Absolutely nothing.  You can't do anything with that statement other than file it away and wait.  Wait for the book to come out.  Which is exactly the same thing you are doing right now knowing they are playtesting psionics from the UA article.  So Mike releasing a statement serves absolutely no point.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 2, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Nothing wrong with this.
> 
> Forgotten Realms: 1 thick campaign guide + player's guide.
> 
> ...




Go onto dndclassics.com and you can buy almost all of those things right now.  Fluff's all the same, and you can build the specialized class and race mechanics yourself, like a good little DM.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> There is nothing wrong with bringing in new fans, never said there was. Please don't put words in my mouth. But if that is mainly what you are banking on then the hobby will die because there are just as many old fans as there are new fans.




I think you're confusing "replying to you" with "putting words in your mouth". To be clear, people are allowed to reply to you.

As an aside, I edited out the personal comment I made; apologies.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 2, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I think you're letting WotC off a little TOO much here.
> 
> There is a big difference between "We intend to release some support for the Ravenloft setting at some point" and "We will be releasing the _Ravenloft Adventurer's Guide_ in the summer of 2017, mark your calendars!" The first is a suggestion that something might happen down the road, the second is a specific product with a specific timetable. I don't want the latter; I'll settle for the former.
> 
> ...




Yeah, well, look at the hullabaloo about the conversion guide.  There's a monthly thread here talking about the OGL complete with quotes from WotC people that they would like to make an OGL being taken as gospel that they have an ironclad promise to make an OGL for 5e.  The schmitt hitting the windmill over the cancellation of the Elemental Evil player's guide.  All the crap not that long ago about "outsourcing".  

No matter what WotC says, people will deliberatly twist and massage it until it fits with their own personal narrative of WotC being this souless entity that is sucking the life out of D&D.  Considering this has been going on for about twenty years now, it's a wonder there's any juice left.  I, for one, do not blame WotC in the slightest for simply clamming up and only letting things out of the bag once they are absolutely sure it's going to happen.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, well, look at the hullabaloo about the conversion guide.  There's a monthly thread here talking about the OGL complete with quotes from WotC people that they would like to make an OGL being taken as gospel that they have an ironclad promise to make an OGL for 5e.  The schmitt hitting the windmill over the cancellation of the Elemental Evil player's guide.  All the crap not that long ago about "outsourcing".




Ok, come on there is more then one thing going on here.

Yes, we know that certain highly placed members of the DnD Design team have spoken about some kind of license for DnD, but they are not able to do it solely within the DnD team.  Obviously there is legal involved and who knows what other Managerial types that need to have their say as well. The truth is that we are heading into almost a year and a half after release with no sign of anything yet.  No one is holding their breath waiting for anything at this point.  If you are going to publish then you have published already and if you are not then you are doing your own thing.

Obviously you can not have any schmitt hitting the windmill over the cancellation of the Elemental Evil player's guide because you can not cancel products that you never ever announced.

And the conversion guide was affected by long term jury duty, so who could have seen that coming?

As for the confusion with "out sourcing", well how can anyone be expected to know what the current terminology corporate is using for "hiring a lot of freelancers to create your product for you".  No need to get defensive about a common practice used in the industry, is there?



> No matter what WotC says, people will deliberatly twist and massage it until it fits with their own personal narrative of WotC being this souless entity that is sucking the life out of D&D.  Considering this has been going on for about twenty years now, it's a wonder there's any juice left.  I, for one, do not blame WotC in the slightest for simply clamming up and only letting things out of the bag once they are absolutely sure it's going to happen.




Heh, I remember when WotC used to be able to announce their release schedule a year in advance and actually stick to it but it is only fair in this new fast moving time to wait until the last possible moment to announce your product.  After all if you were a true DnD "fan" then you would either be too busy playing in the current story line to even have time to worry about what is coming next or trying to adjust your home brew world setting to get as much juicy Sword Coasty goodness in there as possible.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 2, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Nothing wrong with this.
> 
> Forgotten Realms: 1 thick campaign guide + player's guide.
> 
> ...




So that's 16 books. Over how long a period do you release all these books? Which world do you start with? If you bring back Dragon Magazine, do you do it as an online resource only, or go back to print? Do you also produce adventures for all these settings? If so, how many? Do you hire freelancers for that as well?

I'm curious how you would approach all this.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 2, 2015)

I'm sorry, but the "can't announce things or the fans will riot" is bs. Lots of things get announced and then canned; the tech industry is littered with press releases for product that never came to fruition. If WotC can't handle that because it hurts their feelings, then find better PR people. 

To me, it really looks like WotC has no idea how to go forward. They know what NOT to do: no glut of settings, no splat of the month, no 16 page modules, etc, but they don't know what to DO yet. They tried story tied sourcebooks (failed to materialize), free download crunch (no money in that) 10 months of UA (of which, 2 things made it into finished form: swashbuckler and storm sorcerer) and one supplement book about something everyone took for granted (FR update). 

WotCs other side, Magic, announced at least three products so far for 2016. They know what's on the docket until April. Wouldn't it be nice to know what D&D products were coming out between now and April? My guess is none. 

The problem isn't that D&D isn't doing well or that there isn't enough product, is that WotC isn't sure where to go next and they are trying to assure us that things are going smooth while they are trying to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Due to this, there is no long term vision beyond the "next product or two". Do they really think they can keep an audience with just innuendo and silence?

I guess they think they can.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 2, 2015)

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I think his point wasn't that if products were cancelled people would flip, although that may play a part, but rather there is a marketing sweet spot that they have found to be effective and that's more like a 3 to 4 month period rather than the longer ones of days past.

I do think they can keep an audience with such an approach. Yes, some folks will complain and some may even walk away from D&D I suppose, but both of those things are unavoidable regardless. 

I actually prefer shorter notice of releases. I really don't need to know a year out that an adventure or sourcebook is coming out. I don't really see why people feel that need.

If it's just to know that there's a plan in place and that the game is going strong...I would think that so much of what he said in his speech would support that.


----------



## wedgeski (Dec 2, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> To me, it really looks like WotC has no idea how to go forward. They know what NOT to do: no glut of settings, no splat of the month, no 16 page modules, etc, but they don't know what to DO yet. They tried story tied sourcebooks (failed to materialize), free download crunch (no money in that) 10 months of UA (of which, 2 things made it into finished form: swashbuckler and storm sorcerer) and one supplement book about something everyone took for granted (FR update).



Their vision is clear. Two stories a year, crunch tied in with the story themes, the odd ancillary product in response to the market, and experimental stuff online. It's the marketing you seem to have a problem with.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 2, 2015)

wedgeski said:


> Their vision is clear. Two stories a year, crunch tied in with the story themes, the odd ancillary product in response to the market, and experimental stuff online. It's the marketing you seem to have a problem with.




If the vision is clear, why is it so hard to communicate it? 

Let's take the Eberron playtest: it was the first UA and is coming up on its first birthday in a month or so. We got three races, a subclass, and a rather complex feat. We gave feedback on it via surveys, tweets, and messageboards, and they said things needed work. Fair enough. 

Then, silence.

Most people assumed it meant an Eberron book is in the works. Makes sense, right? Except that doesn't jive with the "Realms in the foreseeable future" mantra surrounding the APs. Why playtest a bunch of stuff that doesn't seem to connect to any product? The Waterborne UA stuff was a hodgepodge of stuff that did see print (swashbuckler and storm sorcerer), didn't (marine fighting style) and very specific setting material (Krynnotaurs). Why give us a Krynn-specific race to playtest if Krynn isn't somewhere on the docket? Yet, it was stated that ToD was an attempt to capture a Dragonlance-style game "in the Realms" which again seems like conflicting viewpoints. Why waste design time on races and rules that won't see print anytime in the next year or so? 

We had a finished "picture" of the Mongrelfolk flavor-text (from a monster or possibly racial writeup) that everyone assumed would be in OotA, except that monster wasn't. Nor was it in SCAG. We're not talking a UA or some draft doc; it looked like finished typeset on the parchment background. Where did the mongrelfolk go? Is it for another AP? MM2? Were they cut from OotA? Was it all a fever dream? Or how about how many people were expect a Rage of Demons Player's Companion after the EE one. Couldn't WotC have said "not this time, but we have something else in the works" knowing the SCAG was full steam ahead? (For that matter, what happened to the Monster Supplement for OotA like the other two APs had for those who were running under the Basic Rules only. So much for that notion.)

Again and again, WotC seems to lack either some grand vision for what they want out of TT or the ability to communicate it to its fans. As you said, its 2 APs per year, and maybe something else if we finish it. It doesn't speak of a clear vision, it speaks of the bare minimum and a lot of uncertainty.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 2, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> If the vision is clear, why is it so hard to communicate it?




Because the D&D team kinda sucks at marketing? Heck, a couple of their brand managers probably have that job title simply because of seniority and a desire to shrink the amount of payroll allocated to game design. But just because WotC is only funding 2-3 books set in the Forgotten Realms each year doesn't mean that's the only thing the D&D team is actually thinking about and playing in their free time. Unearthed Arcana is probably the most off-the-cuff and direct window into the sorts of stuff that they're playing with in their own campaigns. Just ignore the B.S. surveys and don't hold your breath for anything to get actually printed.

Edit: I guess where I disagree is the uncertainty. The D&D team is no longer structured to put out a lot of products and aim at more than one deadline. I'm pretty sure a few years back someone in management "switched their paradigm from waterfall to agile." I'm sorry for those of you who understand that last sentence.  They're just not the RPG company they used to be. There is definitely tighter rein on the process and a greater focus on just "the next story," which is always 6 or so months down the road. 

I'm not saying you have to like this new business model and I understand if you don't. I just don't think it's really that murky and it's unlikely to change regardless.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> Because the D&D team kinda sucks at marketing? Heck, a couple of their brand managers probably have that job title simply because of seniority and a desire to shrink the amount of payroll allocated to game design.




Let's not just make stuff up, eh?


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 2, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Let's not just make stuff up, eh?




Sorry, I don't mean that to be taken as a fact. That's why I use the word probably. I just have some experience with wrangling budgets. When one department's funding shrinks and another's grows what often happens is a bunch of non-redundant managers get shuffled into new job descriptions under the growing department. Nothing sinister, just the way teams are prone to adapt.


----------



## GobiWon (Dec 3, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Different point.  Keeping D&D running as a game to keep the D&D brand running?  Absolutely.  Right there with you.  But that's 'Dungeons & Dragons' the IP.  But forcing the Forgotten Realms setting to continue being published because they want 'Forgotten Realms' to equal the market presence of 'D&D'?  Absolutely no point.  D&D is the brand.  The extremely niche brand that only specific tabletop gamers and isolated video gamers and fantasy novel readers know and care about.  Individual components of D&D are never going to reach D&D's level... which is exactly why people several years ago who said Pathfinder was surpassing D&D as the "default" for RPGs were crazy-- it might have been played more amongst those within the niche, but the name itself had absolutely no market penetration into the general public.  And the same is true for 'Forgotten Realms'.  That name means nothing to the public in terms of roleplaying games, just like 'Pathfinder' means nothing.  Everything begins and ends with 'Dungeons & Dragons'.  *At least* until a potential Forgotten Realms movie is made and actually becomes a financial powerhouse.  Then-- and only then-- would the names and tropes of the Realms (if used in the big budget powerhouse blockbuster movie) become the default icons of Dungeons & Dragons.
> 
> But until that point... where the only people who know the names of things involving the Realms (excluding Drizzt) are the people who already play the game... WotC has no need to push Realms at the expense of their own bottom line financially and creatively.  Because we in the niche already know that which we need to know of the Realms if/when a movie gets made.  So if it makes sense to the D&D department to switch over to a different setting for an upcoming book, then the're probably going to do so.  Because they can always come back to the Realms once the movie gets released to try and capitalize on it in whatever tiny way they can.




That's the point. They want the D&D brand to be synonymous with the people and places of the Forgotten Realms. Marvel would be nothing without it's iconic superheroes. They want people who have some brand awareness of D&D to explore the "world of D&D" which, for good or bad, right now is Forgotten Realms. When or if the movies and video games reach the masses, they want the new, larger fan base to be able to reference a common setting, not a hodge podge of worlds that have little connection to one another.


----------



## carmachu (Dec 3, 2015)

I Hate All Life said:


> Well, what a statement that makes. We're very proud of you and all. But how are .pdf sales "suspect"? Because you don't like .pdfs they somehow don't count? So by that logic, I can completely disregard all discussion of Pathfinder or Palladium sales because I don't buy them?




Perhaps I phrased it poorly, using myself as an example.  Perhaps better would be, what percentage of gamers buy PDF's, because if its again just a percent of a percent, it would be suspect.


----------



## carmachu (Dec 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, do you honestly believe you are the standard we should be following here though?  I mean, if we're trading anecdotes, I haven't bought a dead tree book, outside of 5e core, in about ten years.  And, I suspect I'm not alone.  Trying to extrapolate from personal experience is tricky at best.




perhaps using myself as an example(although much like you, I dont think I'm alone), might not be the best idea.....but then, what should be asked is what percent of gamers are buying PDF's? If its similar to folks that play other worlds, would it be suspect then? A percent of a percent?


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 3, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> That's the point. They want the D&D brand to be synonymous with the people and places of the Forgotten Realms. Marvel would be nothing without it's iconic superheroes. They want people who have some brand awareness of D&D to explore the "world of D&D" which, for good or bad, right now is Forgotten Realms. When or if the movies and video games reach the masses, they want the new, larger fan base to be able to reference a common setting, not a hodge podge of worlds that have little connection to one another.




I actually wouldn't have a problem with this. I'd miss my Eberron or Ravenloft, but I could live with a "FR = D&D's setting" setup if need be.

I just wish they'd SAY that rather than this half-arsed "multiverse" thing, especially if we're not going to see official support for it.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 3, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I just wish they'd SAY that rather than this half-arsed "multiverse" thing, especially if we're not going to see official support for it.




The beauty with the half-arsed "multiverse" thing is that it lets them do what they want without having to promise anything.

It is like when a Parent tells their Child "Maybe".  Most of the time it just means "No" but occasionally "Not Yet"


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 3, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I actually wouldn't have a problem with this. I'd miss my Eberron or Ravenloft, but I could live with a "FR = D&D's setting" setup if need be.
> 
> I just wish they'd SAY that rather than this half-arsed "multiverse" thing, especially if we're not going to see official support for it.




Well, to add to rampant cynicism in this thread  , I believe there's a legal reason to include the "multiverse" and mention of other campaign settings.

U.S. Trademarks - which I think campaign settings falls under - are "living" in that they last as long as the trademark is used in commerce and defended against infringement.

So regardless of whatever their plans are or when they choose to communicate those plans, it's in their interest to maintain control of their trademarks.

.....

I will say I'm disheartened to hear the derision directed at Chris Perkins describing his words as (paraphrasing) "meaningless marketing". 

When I think of people in the D&D industry who've done the most for the game and the brand, Chris Perkins definitely is in my top 10.


----------



## darjr (Dec 3, 2015)

Well his words speak for themselves. It clearly isn't meaningless marketing but a man doing what he loves for the love if it. Nothing in this thread has taken that away. He could easily work for a video game company and make much more.


----------



## ZzarkLinux (Dec 3, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I actually wouldn't have a problem with this. I just wish they'd SAY that (FR is the WotC main goto setting) rather than this half-arsed "multiverse" thing, especially if we're not going to see official support for it.




I think it goes back to that one statement Mearls&Co said "WotC will focus on One Setting at a time, and it will be a big focus for that timeframe" (anyone have the link?).

So all that we get for now is lip service. (At least the other settings got Lip Sevice from the talk. GPL, Warlords, and Alignment didn't even get lip service). And I think the lack of other settings has more to do with their release schedule than anything. They dont want to release competing products in the same period

They learned this from 4e where they had "Martial Power", " Divine Power", "Primal Power", and " Arcane Power" books all sitting on the shelf at the FLGS. Well, LittleBoyBlue is only getting one DnD book for Christmas, so the others are going to eat shelf space. And I'm only buying one product: WotC can eat crow if they think I'm going to buy the same Power book series 4 times.

Talk is cheap. Lip Service is free. But duplicate competing books will sink a business. They're going to ride Realms until the value of FR is "off the shelf", then they'll switch gears. I predict that's when we'll start to see " Return to the Temple of Elemental Eberron" Adventure with "Elemental Eberron Player Guide". Then once thay horse is dead, they'll switch to " Out of the Mist: Escape from the RavenDark" and "Escape from RavenDark Player's Guide".

 And not a moment sooner.

Edit: Typos


----------



## delericho (Dec 3, 2015)

ZzarkLinux said:


> They learned this from 4e where they had "Martial Power", " Divine Power", "Primal Power", and " Arcane Power" books all sitting on the shelf at the FLGS.




If that was the lesson they learned from "* Power", then they learned the wrong thing. The fundamental problem with those books was that the DDI made them obsolete before they were published. 5e doesn't have a DDI, so the lesson isn't applicable.

That's not to say that 5e splatbooks would be a good idea, of course. But using 4e's version as an argument against them would be to build on a faulty foundation.

A failure to build an igloo in the Sahara isn't an argument against building one in the Arctic!


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

delericho said:


> If that was the lesson they learned from "* Power", then they learned the wrong thing. The fundamental problem with those books was that the DDI made them obsolete before they were published. 5e doesn't have a DDI, so the lesson isn't applicable.
> 
> That's not to say that 5e splatbooks would be a good idea, of course. But using 4e's version as an argument against them would be to build on a faulty foundation.
> 
> A failure to build an igloo in the Sahara isn't an argument against building one in the Arctic!




You are right about DDI have an impact. 

What I don't think Wizards understands is the fact that not everyone plays all the classes. They seem to have this mindset that they need to hold back on options because we haven't use the ones that we already have. Some people aren't going to use some of those options ever. I know some people that will not play certain classes or certain races so specific class handbooks are what they are looking for. 

That's the nature of D&D and always has been.


----------



## delericho (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> What I don't think Wizards understands is the fact that not everyone plays all the classes.




WotC know that very well indeed. They have detailed statistics showing that the "big four" classes and the "big four" races are used more often than the others by an order of magnitude.

They're not holding back on splatbooks because they want people to use all the existing options.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 3, 2015)

delericho said:


> WotC know that very well indeed. They have detailed statistics showing that the "big four" classes and the "big four" races are used more often than the others by an order of magnitude.
> 
> They're not holding back on splatbooks because they want people to use all the existing options.



Yet when we ask for more options, people ask if we've used all the ones we have already... (Came up once already regarding monsters and MM2 in this thread.)


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

delericho said:


> WotC know that very well indeed. They have detailed statistics showing that the "big four" classes and the "big four" races are used more often than the others by an order of magnitude.
> 
> They're not holding back on splatbooks because they want people to use all the existing options.




I still feel they are holding out on non setting splatbooks because they want to keep most people playing in FR and not their own homebrew games. 

I just don't buy into the whole "getting the most out of everybook" spin. The nature of this game is the way it is. Not all people play rogues so they aren't going to buy a "Rogues Handbook" but there are plenty of others who do and who will buy it. The game needs to be created in order to meet different tastes and game groups. It is not the ideal money maker and they knew that and yet they are trying to get the most money out of it which means less for the fans. 

When I look back at all the 2nd edition stuff and I here how bad is was for TSR I then say to myself - "Well look at how good it turned out for the fans." I have no problem with making profit and I think Wizards has been a profitable company for a long time, it just stinks when they are most likely being told they aren't making enough profit. 

They don't tell us anything because they want to keep us around and waiting.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> Because the D&D team kinda sucks at marketing? Heck, a couple of their brand managers probably have that job title simply because of seniority and a desire to shrink the amount of payroll allocated to game design. But just because WotC is only funding 2-3 books set in the Forgotten Realms each year doesn't mean that's the only thing the D&D team is actually thinking about and playing in their free time. Unearthed Arcana is probably the most off-the-cuff and direct window into the sorts of stuff that they're playing with in their own campaigns. Just ignore the B.S. surveys and don't hold your breath for anything to get actually printed.
> 
> Edit: I guess where I disagree is the uncertainty. The D&D team is no longer structured to put out a lot of products and aim at more than one deadline. I'm pretty sure a few years back someone in management "switched their paradigm from waterfall to agile." I'm sorry for those of you who understand that last sentence.  They're just not the RPG company they used to be. There is definitely tighter rein on the process and a greater focus on just "the next story," which is always 6 or so months down the road.
> 
> I'm not saying you have to like this new business model and I understand if you don't. I just don't think it's really that murky and it's unlikely to change regardless.




I too think they switched over to an agile development schedule.  Which isn't bad.  It's a different way of going about collaborative writing, but it does seem like they are working on some kind of iterative design schedule.  The thing about agile development though is that you can't give release dates out because release dates need to be somewhat fluid, and once you give the release dates out to the fans the release date becomes less fluid and more set in stone.  The reason we don't get release dates until about a month or three before release is because by that point they know they don't have a ton of work left and can reliably put out their product, basically the book is with the printer by then.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 3, 2015)

Quickleaf said:


> .....
> 
> I will say I'm disheartened to hear the derision directed at Chris Perkins describing his words as (paraphrasing) "meaningless marketing".
> 
> When I think of people in the D&D industry who've done the most for the game and the brand, Chris Perkins definitely is in my top 10.




For truth, and justice's sake....


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 3, 2015)

darjr said:


> Well his words speak for themselves. It clearly isn't meaningless marketing but a man doing what he loves for the love if it. Nothing in this thread has taken that away. He could easily work for a video game company and make much more.




And again...


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

darjr said:


> Well his words speak for themselves. It clearly isn't meaningless marketing but a man doing what he loves for the love if it. Nothing in this thread has taken that away. He could easily work for a video game company and make much more.




LOL!!!

I'm sorry but this is funny. 

These decisions look nothing like they are made from someone who "loves" the game but "loves" profit.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> I'm sorry but this is funny.
> 
> These decisions look nothing like they are made from someone who "loves" the game but "loves" profit.




Keep the comments non-personal, please.  You have no way of knowing what somebody else loves.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 3, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> That's the point. They want the D&D brand to be synonymous with the people and places of the Forgotten Realms. Marvel would be nothing without it's iconic superheroes. They want people who have some brand awareness of D&D to explore the "world of D&D" which, for good or bad, right now is Forgotten Realms. When or if the movies and video games reach the masses, they want the new, larger fan base to be able to reference a common setting, not a hodge podge of worlds that have little connection to one another.




My argument is that this won't happen UNTIL something _outside_ our little niche world of games becomes so huge that everyone outside our world uses IT as their touchstone.  Forgotten Realms as an entity won't become known to the general non-gaming public UNLESS a 5-star movie gets released and becomes so huge that those FR parts of the movie become the icons and tropes that people associate with the game itself.  Forcing all of us within the niche gaming world to only deal with the Realms RIGHT NOW does not do anything outside our world.  You need a vehicle outside the world to bring it into the stratosphere first.

I mean look... tropes from _Game of Thrones_ did not enter the cultural landscape until AFTER the tv show became a smash hit.  Until that point no one knew anything about it, and no one cared about it.  Hell... the violence against women in the books was completely glossed over and ignored by the culture at large UNTIL it appeared onscreen in the tv show and the rest of America actually saw what Martin had written about and they all stood up and said "Wha-- wha-- WHAT?!?"  And now it's this huge thing.  But without that vehicle outside the niche world of "fantasy novel writers and readers" to illustrate it though?  It's never really known or commented on by the general public.

So there is no point in Hasbro or WotC forcing those of us IN the niche gaming circle of D&D to just deal with the Realms in the hopes that the Realms become the universal brand tropes (rather than "D&D" in general)... because we and our game don't impact the culture at large.  Once a film or a tv show or something of that nature breaks through though?  Then OUR niche gaming world gets impacted HUGE.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I still feel they are holding out on non setting splatbooks because they want to keep most people playing in FR and not their own homebrew games.
> 
> I just don't buy into the whole "getting the most out of everybook" spin. The nature of this game is the way it is. Not all people play rogues so they aren't going to buy a "Rogues Handbook" but there are plenty of others who do and who will buy it. The game needs to be created in order to meet different tastes and game groups. It is not the ideal money maker and they knew that and yet they are trying to get the most money out of it which means less for the fans.
> 
> ...




No they don't tell us anything because that's the development model they are using.  They are using an iterative design process that doesn't allow for totally set in stone release dates, and therefore they can't tell us what the release dates are because they don't know the release date until well into a books production.  They could be working on ten products right now, and they won't have word on when they are ready for release until they are ready for release.  It's this fun way of designing and delivering things where you don't make promises you can't keep.

They aren't trying to force people into using the realms, they in fact know that the bulk of users, especially long time users, run in homebrew settings.  At best they are keeping it all in the realms for the new players so they don't have the confusion of a campaign setting change.  For us old players, we can take any adventure and slot it into our home brew campaigns and settings.  That's what every gaming group I know has done with the adventures.

There isn't some massive conspiracy here it is just agile iterative design, and at beast a wish to keep it simple for the newbies, and of course to make as much money as they can which means selling the best selling setting there is.

Second ed was terrible for the players mainly in the fact that the company making D&D went under.  Well in this case there is no one to buy the IP if the D&D division of wizard's fails, because Hasbro won't ever let  wizard's let go of the IP it will just stop being made at all.  So yes they have to be smarter about what products they spend money on creating, and releasing, because they can't afford to dump thousands into the production of a book that will only sell hundreds of copies.  The flood of the second ed era was actually pretty terrible from a business management standpoint, and it nearly killed the game.

These people have a very clear view of what is on the horizon for D&D they just don't feel a need to share about everything on the horizon because some things may fall off that horizon for no other reason than that they decide the product isn't coming together in a way they like it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> They don't tell us anything because they want to keep us around and waiting.




And if you continue to do so... then whose problem is it, really?

WotC can't "learn their lesson" until folks like you actually stop waiting.  But if you don't... then you're proving to them that what they are doing is the right thing.  So really, the situation is a fault of your own making.  Which I find delightfully ironic.


----------



## delericho (Dec 3, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Yet when we ask for more options, people ask if we've used all the ones we have already... (Came up once already regarding monsters and MM2 in this thread.)




Well, yes. I was the person who was asked that question.

But here's the thing: random people on the internet asking that question is not the same as WotC holding back the books for that reason. DM Magic is no more responsible for WotC's strategic choices than I am. (Well, unless there's something he's not told us.  )


----------



## ZzarkLinux (Dec 3, 2015)

delericho said:


> If that was the fundamental problem with those books was that the DDI made them obsolete before they were published. 5e doesn't have a DDI, so the lesson isn't applicable.
> 
> That's not to say that 5e splatbooks would be a good idea, of course. But using 4e's version as an argument against them would be to build on a faulty foundation.




I agree DDI hurt book sales, but the other point stands too. I think we both agree that WotC lumps settings in with Splat Books. And they have a tight control on splat due to diminishing returns...

They dont think a DrangonLance Setting book will sell well. But maybe if they wait a few years (or cycles), then they might print a "Rise of Krynn" and "Tyrany of the Lance" big adventure book and eek out a profit.



SkidAce said:


> For truth, and justice's sake....



I'm glad he has contributed a lot. But that is technically Appeal to the Author (or some other fallacy) and won't appease the people complaining about the lack of concrete release dates and slow release schedule.

I guess RELEASE SCHEDULE is the next "Warlord" topic that keeps hijacking threads.
Maybe we should petition Morrus to open a "Temporary Release Schedule Subforum" over there with the Warlord 
Another cellar for all the trolls, gold, and coals on that topic.

Edit: Typos


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

ZzarkLinux said:


> They dont think a DrangonLance Setting book will sell well.




I don't think it's this. I believe it's "Dragonlance won't sell as well as Forgotten Realms" so we won't put it out. Thing is, nobody knows just how well DL would do because we have never had that setting coupled with this ruleset. It could be a smash hit. 

Also, just because something sells less than something else doesn't mean it didn't sell well.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 3, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> My argument is that this won't happen UNTIL something _outside_ our little niche world of games becomes so huge that everyone outside our world uses IT as their touchstone.




You're not wrong about that, but that "something" almost always springs up from an existing coherent product. You may not see the point of Hasbro "forcing" you to play in the Realms but what they need right now is a consistent setting and some compelling characters and stories that people will remember. And what you're seeing is how they're trying to create it. And it's not just a table-top RPG for Hasbro. You'll notice that the last three D&D board games were set in the Forgotten Realms. Both of the D&D MMO's are now set in the Forgotten Realms, even though one of them started off in Eberron. The only D&D novels being published right now are set in the Forgotten Realms. The recent D&D comic books were set in the Forgotten Realms. Sword Coast Legends, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights are all named after the Forgotten Realms.

Some of this is just the "accident of history." I'm not claiming this Realms-centered policy is the reason for all of the above. After all, many of those video games predate this change. Regardless, it shows you where the licensing has been happening. And now that WotC is more about contracting and licensing it's no surprise that D&D is growing more and more hitched to one setting. And even though I prefer other D&D settings, the Forgotten Realms is exactly what D&D needs from a brand management perspective. Love them or hate them, Drizz't and Elminster give something consistent for D&D media to be about.

Now, one of the major hurdles that WotC is still struggling with is simply cultivating a sense of authenticity. You want your existing fan-base to be engaged and positive when it comes time to extend your brand into other demographics, and that's hard to do when both your fans and brand are fragmented. The reaction to both 4th Edition D&D and Sword Coast Legends demonstrates that a significant portion of the fan-base have certain expectations and aren't going to accept and endorse something just because it has D&D or Forgotten Realms on the cover. What Hasbro doesn't want is to make a D&D movie and have no one excited for it. That's essentially what happened with Jem and the Holograms, it could well cost them more than everything they've made off of 5th Edition.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

Orlax said:


> No they don't tell us anything because that's the development model they are using.  They are using an iterative design process that doesn't allow for totally set in stone release dates, and therefore they can't tell us what the release dates are because they don't know the release date until well into a books production.  They could be working on ten products right now, and they won't have word on when they are ready for release until they are ready for release.  It's this fun way of designing and delivering things where you don't make promises you can't keep.
> 
> They aren't trying to force people into using the realms, they in fact know that the bulk of users, especially long time users, run in homebrew settings.  At best they are keeping it all in the realms for the new players so they don't have the confusion of a campaign setting change.  For us old players, we can take any adventure and slot it into our home brew campaigns and settings.  That's what every gaming group I know has done with the adventures.
> 
> ...




They won't shelve D&D. 

They won't do this because what will happen is the game will go on just not with the name D&D and apparently there are a lot of people who don't care if the name is on it. The d20 system is a free for all so other companies could continue to use that system and modify it to their needs. We would also have other 3pp companies still producing stuff so shelving the D&D brand really makes no sense. Also let's not forget the iconic nature of the name itself. 

They won't shelve it. I can safely say this won't happen.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> You're not wrong about that, but that "something" almost always springs up from an existing coherent product. You may not see the point of Hasbro "forcing" you to play in the Realms but what they need right now is a consistent setting and some compelling characters and stories that people will remember. And what you're seeing is how they're trying to create it. And it's not just a table-top RPG for Hasbro. You'll notice that the last three D&D board games were set in the Forgotten Realms. Both of the D&D MMO's are now set in the Forgotten Realms, even though one of them started off in Eberron. The only D&D novels being published right now are set in the Forgotten Realms. The recent D&D comic books were set in the Forgotten Realms. Sword Coast Legends, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights are all named after the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> Some of this is just the "accident of history." I'm not claiming this Realms-centered policy is the reason for all of the above. After all, many of those video games predate this change. Regardless, it shows you where the licensing has been happening. And now that WotC is more about contracting and licensing it's no surprise that D&D is growing more and more hitched to one setting. And even though I prefer other D&D settings, the Forgotten Realms is exactly what D&D needs from a brand management perspective. Love them or hate them, Drizz't and Elminster give something consistent for D&D media to be about.
> 
> Now, one of the major hurdles that WotC is still struggling with is simply cultivating a sense of authenticity. You want your existing fan-base to be engaged and positive when it comes time to extend your brand into other demographics, and that's hard to do when both your fans and brand are fragmented. The reaction to both 4th Edition D&D and Sword Coast Legends demonstrates that the a significant portion of the fan-base have certain expectations and aren't going to accept and endorse something just because it has D&D or Forgotten Realms on the cover. What Hasbro doesn't want is to make a D&D movie and have no one excited for it. That's essentially what happened with Jem and the Holograms, it could well cost them more than everything they've made off of 5th Edition.




I would also like to add the fact that you don't see the Forgotten Realms logo on this stuff anymore. This shows that they want FR under the D&D logo instead of having the D&D logo and the FR logo.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> They won't shelve D&D.
> 
> They won't do this because what will happen is the game will go on just not with the name D&D and apparently there are a lot of people who don't care if the name is on it. The d20 system is a free for all so other companies could continue to use that system and modify it to their needs. We would also have other 3pp companies still producing stuff so shelving the D&D brand really makes no sense. Also let's not forget the iconic nature of the name itself.
> 
> They won't shelve it. I can safely say this won't happen.




I wouldn't bet on them not shelving it.  Especially if it just keeps losing them money.  No way they keep the product line going if iy becomes a massive drain on resources.  That's why they don't have a giant D&D budget, they probably got some start up capital for getting 5e going and are probably on a 'keep a certain section of your profits, but you still pay the Piper', scenario.  They don't have the capital to waste on printing books that won't sell, and if they crumble on their own I don't think Hasbro is coming around to bail them out anymore.  At some point you have to cut your losses.  They are sink or swim at this point and if they sink, they sink, and D&D dies.  So they are being conservative with their budget, and I can't blame them for that.  They lose nothing by shelving D&D all they do is sit and make sure no one violates their IP, and when someone does violate their IP they sue the crap out of them.  That makes way more money than actually producing anything does.  Especially if the team keeps printing crap that won't sell enough to justify the effort going into it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I don't think it's this. I believe it's "Dragonlance won't sell as well as Forgotten Realms" so we won't put it out. Thing is, nobody knows just how well DL would do because we have never had that setting coupled with this ruleset. It could be a smash hit.
> 
> Also, just because something sells less than something else doesn't mean it didn't sell well.




We've had a version of Dragonlance for every single edition of the game until 4th.  Not once did it manage to do better than Forgotten Realms.  It was so sideline by 3e that WotC couldn't even be bothered producing it themselves but farmed out the IP to MWP.  Why would you think that DL would suddenly be a breakout hit in 5e?

But, again, you're ignoring the fact that WotC has limited production capablities.  They have a choice - leverage a known product, FR, where they have a pretty good idea how much it's going to sell, or bank on a setting that couldn't arouse enough interest during 3e, despite a full line of support - MWP published 10, by my count, 3.5E Dragonlance books, and never even managed to make more than a tiny ripple in the market.

So, again, why would you think that a DL book would be a smash hit?

And that's the problem with all these old settings.  Yes, they have a fanbase, but, there just isn't enough of a fanbase to come even close to the level of sales that WotC is looking for.

I mean, I've mentioned this before, but, look at the front page poll.  There's just about as many people playing in FR as homebrew.  No other setting is even close.  We're talking FR having two or three times more players than any other setting.  Good grief, DL has almost one TENTH the players that FR has, according to that poll.  Who in their right mind would bank on that property becoming a "smash hit"?  Ironically, I AM one of those 60 some people who are playing Dragonlance currently.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 3, 2015)

Or, if WotC (and Hasbro) find that D&D isn't profitable enough, they could license it out to another company.

At this point, as a D&D player who doesn't care for the support that the game is getting, I'd rather see a company like Cubicle 7 produce the game.  My gut tells me that WotC no longer has the resources to develop products like campaign settings or "plug and play" adventures that can be dropped into any setting.  Instead they are forced to focus on the Forgotten Realms and story arcs set in The Realms due to personnel and budgetary constraints.


----------



## Pauper (Dec 3, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I always wondered about making the most money by producing the least content with the least possible staff.




It's homeopathic D&D! Once they fire the last D&D staffer, they'll dominate the market!

--
Pauper


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

scruffygrognard said:


> Or, if WotC (and Hasbro) find that D&D isn't profitable enough, they could license it out to another company.
> 
> At this point, as a D&D player who doesn't care for the support that the game is getting, I'd rather see a company like Cubicle 7 produce the game.  My gut tells me that WotC no longer has the resources to develop products like campaign settings or "plug and play" adventures that can be dropped into any setting.  Instead they are forced to focus on the Forgotten Realms and story arcs set in The Realms due to personnel and budgetary constraints.




Hasbro will never let D&D off the chain, or they won't ever offer it for a reasonable licencing fee.

Look at it like this,  1 they have a ton of old product up on drive through RPG for PDF, and they can keep selling that with pretty much no investment. 2 they have the licensing back for movies and are already in the works for a dnd movie.  3 they have all the rights for all of the D&D video games and those are still seemingly doing all right.  They have done so much with the IP that can carry on and make them money with little to no investment that licencing or selling the IP isn't a thing they will do.  WotC running out of money for the tabletop game, and the game top game being shelved because of that is definitely a thing that can happen though.


----------



## GobiWon (Dec 3, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I actually wouldn't have a problem with this. I'd miss my Eberron or Ravenloft, but I could live with a "FR = D&D's setting" setup if need be.
> 
> I just wish they'd SAY that rather than this half-arsed "multiverse" thing, especially if we're not going to see official support for it.




The people who run D&D are coming from the same place we are. I feel that there is still a lot of love for these different settings among the team. We might get glimpses of them in the coming years but only as they interact with the Forgotten Realms. The realities of business necessitate that they focus on the Realms, but the team is human and I feel that they are working to sneak bits and pieces in when they can.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 3, 2015)

Orlax said:


> I too think they switched over to an agile development schedule.  Which isn't bad.  It's a different way of going about collaborative writing, but it does seem like they are working on some kind of iterative design schedule.  The thing about agile development though is that you can't give release dates out because release dates need to be somewhat fluid, and once you give the release dates out to the fans the release date becomes less fluid and more set in stone.  The reason we don't get release dates until about a month or three before release is because by that point they know they don't have a ton of work left and can reliably put out their product, basically the book is with the printer by then.




I do not believe that there is an "agile development schedule" in book production and/or licensing.  The only thing I would describe as "agile" that WotC is currently doing is their monthly Unearthed Arcana articles and questionnaires.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 3, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Hasbro will never let D&D off the chain, or they won't ever offer it for a reasonable licencing fee.




And you know when Greg Leeds tells you that, it has to be as official as it gets.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I do not believe that there is an "agile development schedule" in book production and/or licensing.  The only thing I would describe as "agile" that WotC is currently doing is their monthly Unearthed Arcana articles and questionnaires.




You can apply agile development to pretty much any type of development: software, hardware, game, doesn't really matter what it is, if there is a development cycle it can be made an agile development environment.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> And you know when Greg Leeds tells you that, it has to be as official as it gets.




I'm just going off what I'd do if I owned the IP.  I'm unaware if this has actually been said by anyone officially.  I just know I wouldn't let go of the D&D label for a long time.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 3, 2015)

Orlax said:


> I'm just going off what I'd do if I owned the IP.  I'm unaware if this has actually been said by anyone officially.  I just know I wouldn't let go of the D&D label for a long time.




Ok, so you would rather sit on DnD then try to license it out.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> They don't tell us anything because they want to keep us around and waiting.




He talked for like 45 minutes. Just because he didn't say what you wanted to hear and he didn't specifically confirm certain things, I don't think that means he didn't tell us anything. He told us plenty, and implied a whole lot more.



Corpsetaker said:


> I don't think it's this. I believe it's "Dragonlance won't sell as well as Forgotten Realms" so we won't put it out. Thing is, nobody knows just how well DL would do because we have never had that setting coupled with this ruleset. It could be a smash hit.
> 
> Also, just because something sells less than something else doesn't mean it didn't sell well.




I think in the case of Dragonlance it's more a question of what's the point of releasing another setting that is a kitchen sink, Tolkienesque fantasy setting that doesn't really stand out from FR or Greyhawk. 

If they're going to publish alternate settings their going to need to pick one based on what it offers that is different from FR.

And yes, I know there are some differences between Krynn and Toril, but they're all pretty superficial.



Shasarak said:


> Ok, so you would rather sit on DnD then try to license it out.




Businesses do that all the time. I don't know if Hasbro would do it with D&D, and I don't see it happening anytime soon or anything...but if the brand became not profitable, then they'd likely shelve it. Doing that means they can wait a few years and try to relaunch things. 

I don't know if they'd license it out for fear of something happening like how D20 basically became Pathfinder.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Ok, so you would rather sit on DnD then try to license it out.




Didn't say I wouldn't license it out I just said I'd never license it for a price anyone is capable of paying up front.  See the problem with licensing it out is I make you pay for the license, but if you take that license, and run with it, and somehow turn it into a million dollar industry I don't get a dime of those profits.  I get the original licensing fee and that's it.  So as the wizard's CEO I'm going to want to make sure that licensing fee can pay the Piper I need to pay for as long as I'm licensing the IP to someone else for.  Unfortunately no small time publisher can actually handle the cost of the license and therefore effectively I'm not going to license it because it would be a terrible business decision for me to do so.  Even moreso because even if someone worked up the cash to license the IP they could just completely wreck it and any value the brand had and now I don't even have something worth licensing out for puttng into tv shows or movies or video games.  That means any licensing deal would need to include some level of oversight, and at that point I may as well just run a bare bones crew that contracts out to freelancers to put out highly regulated and quality controlled content... Wait that sounds familiar.


----------



## darjr (Dec 3, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> I'm Chris Perkins in disguise.




I KNEW it!!


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 3, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Didn't say I wouldn't license it out I just said I'd never license it for a price anyone is capable of paying up front.  See the problem with licensing it out is I make you pay for the license, but if you take that license, and run with it, and somehow turn it into a million dollar industry I don't get a dime of those profits.  I get the original licensing fee and that's it.  So as the wizard's CEO I'm going to want to make sure that licensing fee can pay the Piper I need to pay for as long as I'm licensing the IP to someone else for.  Unfortunately no small time publisher can actually handle the cost of the license and therefore effectively I'm not going to license it because it would be a terrible business decision for me to do so.  Even moreso because even if someone worked up the cash to license the IP they could just completely wreck it and any value the brand had and now I don't even have something worth licensing out for puttng into tv shows or movies or video games.  That means any licensing deal would need to include some level of oversight, and at that point I may as well just run a bare bones crew that contracts out to freelancers to put out highly regulated and quality controlled content... Wait that sounds familiar.




Do you really think that not licensing your product is significantly different then setting the license so high that no one will want to license it?


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Do you really think that not licensing your product is significantly different then setting the license so high that no one will want to license it?



Someone didn't read the whole post, I address that in the middle where I say: "Unfortunately no small time publisher can actually handle the cost of the license and therefore effectively I'm not going to license it because it would be a terrible business decision for me to do so."

Yes sitting on it would be way better for me since I can sit on it, and without any further investment still have it print money for me.  Heck I'm surprised they haven't gotten the old toon on Netflix, or something, to get some more money printing.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 3, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Someone didn't read the whole post, I address that in the middle where I say: "Unfortunately no small time publisher can actually handle the cost of the license and therefore effectively I'm not going to license it because it would be a terrible business decision for me to do so."




It just sounds to me like Doctor Evil asking for "a kajillion bajillion dollars." 

Frankly the DnD license is not worth even a kajillion dollars because everyone can rip off what ever parts of DnD they want and not have to pay a thing.  How much licensing does World of Warcraft pay for its DnD setting and characters?  How much does Skyrim pay for its setting?  How much are Pathfinder and 13th Age paying for their license?

Brands and IP are just not ever green products that you can sit on any more.



> Yes sitting on it would be way better for me since I can sit on it, and without any further investment still have it print money for me.  Heck I'm surprised they haven't gotten the old toon on Netflix, or something, to get some more money printing.




You do not see the old cartoon because Hasbro does not own the rights as per the Chris Perkins talks about everything interview.


----------



## bogmad (Dec 3, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Heck I'm surprised they haven't gotten the old toon on Netflix, or something, to get some more money printing.



[ninja'd!]
Oh, I'm sure they would, but they don't own the rights. CBS or whatever network it was on owns it.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> It just sounds to me like Doctor Evil asking for "a kajillion bajillion dollars."
> 
> Frankly the DnD license is not worth even a kajillion dollars because everyone can rip off what ever parts of DnD they want and not have to pay a thing.  How much licensing does World of Warcraft pay for its DnD setting and characters?  How much does Skyrim pay for its setting?  How much are Pathfinder and 13th Age paying for their license?
> 
> ...




Yeah but whoever does own the rights could be making money off of it by licensing it out to Netflix the why they haven't is still a valid question it just isn't a question for them. D&D might not be a billion dollar license but it is certainly at least a million dollar one, and no small publisher is going to take on a million dollar license for a product they literally can't win on.  No matter what if you print a D&D book, about half the vocal internet community will absolutely hate it.  Write your own thing and you don't need to worry because the niche you wrote for is the only audience you need to worry about pleasing. Rather that than spending a butt ton of money just to be allowed to write something you are quite possibly going to get threatened over, no matter what you do with it.  See that's the other half of the problem the d&d license is worth a ton of money (print a phb and print money no matter what), but it is unfortunately career damaging to work on it.  For instance given your appreciation for the current D&D team, will you ever buy books attached to Mearls ever again after he gets done with D&D? If he came out with some solo project would you be pumped to see it?  Unfortunately a large set of the hardcores won't, because they dislike his handling of D&D.  D&D is a highly profitable, but also highly risky IP.  That's just not a gamble anyone is  or should be willing to take, especially given how the RPG market is at the moment (way too much competition for a small company to take such a gamble).  Anyone big enough that they could handle the risk is already doing fine on their own product line and had no need to take on the extra risk and workload grabbing a D&D license would bring.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

This is all the more reason why I would kill to see D&D in the hands of a gaming company who is happy just making the game and making a little profit.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 3, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> You just described Wizards of the Coast.




LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to laugh at this by response as well as the "laugh at this post feature".


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2015)

Considering how many times WotC has gotten bitten in the bum by licensing, are you really surprised that they aren't in a hurry to do so again, now that they have all their properties under one roof?

Let's stroll down memory lane shall we?  First we have the movie licensing, negotiated in the latter days of TSR, WotC had nothing to do with this one.  Result, three absolutely abysmal movies and a multi-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit to finally get the rights back.

Dungeon and Dragon - fantastic magazines.  When they decide, due to falling subscription rates, to bring it in house and do it digital, all things they were perfectly entitled to do, there's an online orgy of anger, comparisons of WotC to baby killing and rapists.   MASSIVE overreaction.

Video games - License to Atari results in a series of failed video games, after an initially successful one (Neverwinter Nights).  Spend nearly ten years getting the video game rights back, multi-million dollar lawsuit.

I'm sure there's more.  Heck, things like the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon where CBS owns the rights to the characters.  I have to wonder who TSR's lawyer was at the time.

Like I said, why would WotC lose control of properties yet again, when so many times, licensing out stuff has done nothing but bit them on the petoot?


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> This is all the more reason why I would kill to see D&D in the hands of a gaming company who is happy just making the game and making a little profit.




So a failing company.  You can't make D&D and just skim for small releases.  You have to be ready to pony up for large scale printings that may not pay off entirely for a year or two.  That's the only way to meet demand, and again you are still going to damage your career either way.  Anyone more worried about "just making the game" rather than making a game that will sell by the but ton isn't going to be able to properly meet demand and then they will be universally panned for that fact.  Even worse they will likely not make a game with mass apeal either, and they will be panned for that as well.

As it stands the only way to work D&D is with a big corp. When we say it's obvious they love the game it's because we see they've sold their soul to do the best they can to protect the game and keep it alive (potentially saccing careers in the process) and they do their best to keep the dream alive that they will get out all the settings they clearly want to, and all the adventures they want to, but they also understand that they need to build cash first, and then they can hopefully have the fun.  The reason we get hodgpodges of rules in ua every month is because that's the only time Mike can get away with putting it stuff that doesn't need to worry about making money and is just him having a quick bit of fun every month, and even that has to include stealth playtests of content they plan on putting out soon.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Considering how many times WotC has gotten bitten in the bum by licensing, are you really surprised that they aren't in a hurry to do so again, now that they have all their properties under one roof?
> 
> Let's stroll down memory lane shall we?  First we have the movie licensing, negotiated in the latter days of TSR, WotC had nothing to do with this one.  Result, three absolutely abysmal movies and a multi-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit to finally get the rights back.
> 
> ...




This too!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Dec 3, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> the folks who work at Wizards of the Coast love what they do, love the game, and make choices that will see them continue to do what they love in the field they love



I'm sure they both do.  And at least some of the 500+ folks who work on things other than D&D at WotC hopefully like their jobs, too.

WotC's still a unit of Hasbro, though, so D&D is still corporate IP and is necessarily managed as such.  
That it lets a couple of game designers live their dream is nice, though.  
Good for them.



> In the end, what's so hard to understand about the following: Not everything they do will appeal to everybody, but everything they do is in the best interest of keeping D&D alive. I want D&D alive. Ergo, I support the decisions they make.



It's a big leap of faith from believing someone's heart is in the right place or their motives sincere (or even pure) to believing they're infallible.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 4, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Considering how many times WotC has gotten bitten in the bum by licensing, are you really surprised that they aren't in a hurry to do so again, now that they have all their properties under one roof?
> 
> Let's stroll down memory lane shall we?  First we have the movie licensing, negotiated in the latter days of TSR, WotC had nothing to do with this one.  Result, three absolutely abysmal movies and a multi-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit to finally get the rights back.




How can WotC get bitten by licensing that they did not even do?  It is not as if it was a big surprise to them that they could not make movies.  It is not even as if that was the worst licensing agreement of all time.



> Dungeon and Dragon - fantastic magazines.  When they decide, due to falling subscription rates, to bring it in house and do it digital, all things they were perfectly entitled to do, there's an online orgy of anger, comparisons of WotC to baby killing and rapists.   MASSIVE overreaction.




Well this is just patently false - WotC never decided to bring Dungeon and Dragon magazine in house because of falling subscription rates.  It was because they felt they could make more money by bundling the baby killing and whatever in an on-line subscription then they could by licensing out their baby killing and expecting people to do their own whatevering.



> Video games - License to Atari results in a series of failed video games, after an initially successful one (Neverwinter Nights).  Spend nearly ten years getting the video game rights back, multi-million dollar lawsuit.




So who do we blame for WitC legal not being able to write up a licensing agreement?

It is not as if DnD has had any decent games since Baldurs Gate and ToEE anyway so no great loss there.



> I'm sure there's more.  Heck, things like the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon where CBS owns the rights to the characters.  I have to wonder who TSR's lawyer was at the time.




I suspect that TSR did not have anything to do with the cartoon other then vague managerial oversight, most likely because they were focused on important projects like buying Needle Work companies or getting their second Gold-Plated Jacuzzi installed.



> Like I said, why would WotC lose control of properties yet again, when so many times, licensing out stuff has done nothing but bit them on the petoot?




My first recommendation would be not to hire The Three Stooges or Uncle Joe or who ever was doing legal for Lehman Brothers.  That would be a good start.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 4, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Yeah but whoever does own the rights could be making money off of it by licensing it out to Netflix the why they haven't is still a valid question it just isn't a question for them.




Is this not exactly what you want to see happen?  The longer they sit on their IP the more money they will make in the long run, right?



> D&D might not be a billion dollar license but it is certainly at least a million dollar one, and no small publisher is going to take on a million dollar license for a product they literally can't win on.  No matter what if you print a D&D book, about half the vocal internet community will absolutely hate it.  Write your own thing and you don't need to worry because the niche you wrote for is the only audience you need to worry about pleasing. Rather that than spending a butt ton of money just to be allowed to write something you are quite possibly going to get threatened over, no matter what you do with it.  See that's the other half of the problem the d&d license is worth a ton of money (print a phb and print money no matter what), but it is unfortunately career damaging to work on it.  For instance given your appreciation for the current D&D team, will you ever buy books attached to Mearls ever again after he gets done with D&D? If he came out with some solo project would you be pumped to see it?  Unfortunately a large set of the hardcores won't, because they dislike his handling of D&D.  D&D is a highly profitable, but also highly risky IP.  That's just not a gamble anyone is  or should be willing to take, especially given how the RPG market is at the moment (way too much competition for a small company to take such a gamble).  Anyone big enough that they could handle the risk is already doing fine on their own product line and had no need to take on the extra risk and workload grabbing a D&D license would bring.




If it is so hard to make DnD stuff then why are we still seeing DnD stuff?  Turns out that even if you make a so-so product that gets panned by half the internet critics, it can still sell 100 thousand units.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 4, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Is this not exactly what you want to see happen?  The longer they sit on their IP the more money they will make in the long run, right?
> 
> 
> 
> If it is so hard to make DnD stuff then why are we still seeing DnD stuff?  Turns out that even if you make a so-so product that gets panned by half the internet critics, it can still sell 100 thousand units.




When we are talking about sitting in an IP I mean not producing any new content and letting the existing content continue to make you money.  Licensing out the D&D cartoon for streaming would be lucrative as it's literally a payment and they do nothing but show off your product.  Licensing the D&D game on the other hand leads to someone else defining an era of your product line for you and you have little to no control over that era.  However even if you do get a decent deal and you have some oversight you're running the exact same deal you've got now except you aren't the one making the profits, again that's a dumb idea.  These are two very different IPs with very different licensing.  Comparing the two in that manner is a shady conversation tactic that draws equivalencies that don't exist.

The whole problem that corpse had here is that they aren't putting out enough stuff, and aren't making the right stuff.  My position is that they are making what they can to meet their business needs and that they can't just make everything because that is a terrible business model that would result in the shelving of the table top game.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 4, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Wait, what? Baby killing? Did your auto correct crap the bed or something?




No, just [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] trying to give WotC a free pass for killing Dragon/Dungeon by Godwinning the thread.

Dont worry about it, no real Babies were killed in the making of this Parody.


----------



## delericho (Dec 4, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Well this is just patently false - WotC never decided to bring Dungeon and Dragon magazine in house because of falling subscription rates.  It was because they felt they could make more money by bundling the baby killing and whatever in an on-line subscription then they could by licensing out their baby killing and expecting people to do their own whatevering.




While you're right that the motivation for bringing the magazines home was about using them as a pillar of the DDI, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is right that there was an absurd over-reaction to them choosing to do so - because WotC were indeed well within their rights; because the license agreement had expired naturally anyway (and so they didn't _cancel_ it; they just didn't _renew_ it); and indeed because WotC allowed Paizo a several month extension to their license to allow them to see out the "Savage Tide" AP.

I was sad to see the magazines leave Paizo, and extremely disappointed to see them cease print publication. Indeed, I consider their failure to renew the license the single worst mistake they've made in their ownership of D&D, since I believe it was this, much more than the OGL, that led to Pathfinder, and led to Paizo changing from being their #1 cheerleaders to their #1 competitors.

But WotC actually went above and beyond in their handling of the situation. They really didn't deserve the rage directed at them.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 4, 2015)

delericho said:


> While you're right that the motivation for bringing the magazines home was about using them as a pillar of the DDI, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is right that there was an absurd over-reaction to them choosing to do so - because WotC were indeed well within their rights; because the license agreement had expired naturally anyway (and so they didn't _cancel_ it; they just didn't _renew_ it); and indeed because WotC allowed Paizo a several month extension to their license to allow them to see out the "Savage Tide" AP.
> 
> I was sad to see the magazines leave Paizo, and extremely disappointed to see them cease print publication. Indeed, I consider their failure to renew the license the single worst mistake they've made in their ownership of D&D, since I believe it was this, much more than the OGL, that led to Pathfinder, and led to Paizo changing from being their #1 cheerleaders to their #1 competitors.
> 
> But WotC actually went above and beyond in their handling of the situation. They really didn't deserve the rage directed at them.




Did not deserve the rage for killing Dragon?

I can not even agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## delericho (Dec 4, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Did not deserve the rage for killing Dragon?




It would almost certainly have been dead by now anyway. At least it was allowed to go out on a high.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 4, 2015)

delericho said:


> It would almost certainly have been dead by now anyway. At least it was allowed to go out on a high.




Go out on a high?

Am I really the only one who remembers what actually happened to Dragon...when it got to the stage when they could not even be bothered to package it into a single "Dragon" pdf?

But you are right.  How could I expect Dragon magazine to survive when even DnD itself was dead in the water for two years?  Now that *would* be crazy.


Hey, I did think of one good thing about the Dragon license - it proves that WotC *can* write a license where they do not lose control of their IP for years requiring a lawsuit to get back.


----------



## delericho (Dec 4, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Go out on a high?
> 
> Am I really the only one who remembers what actually happened to Dragon...when it got to the stage when they could not even be bothered to package it into a single "Dragon" pdf?




Ah. Sorry - for me, Dragon ended with #359. I consider eDragon to be something else entirely, and as for Dragon+...



> Hey, I did think of one good thing about the Dragon license - it proves that WotC *can* write a license where they do not lose control of their IP for years requiring a lawsuit to get back.




Yep, no argument there.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 4, 2015)

True, no lawsuit.  Crucifixion by the fandom, but, true, no lawsuit.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 4, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> How can WotC get bitten by licensing that they did not even do?  It is not as if it was a big surprise to them that they could not make movies. o who do we blame for WitC legal not being able to write up a licensing agreement?
> 
> It is not as if DnD has had any decent games since Baldurs Gate and ToEE anyway so no great loss there ...
> 
> I suspect that TSR did not have anything to do with the cartoon other then vague managerial oversight ...




So the important thing to remember is that TSR was the firm that licensed out the TV rights to Marvel Productions, video game rights to Atari, and movie rights to Sweat Pea. For all my criticism of WotC, they had zip to do with that beyond their decision to acquire TSR in that state. The "problem" with most Hollywood style of licensing deals is they tend to come with renewal options. Options, as a legal and economic term, are legally binding promises. It means that if the licensee wants to continue the license at the time the contract has expired, and the licensee meets the renewal requirements, the lincensor cannot deny them. I use "problem" in quotes because many licensees aren't willing to work without them. Who wants to build a reputation and brand just to have it taken away from them? Of course, the licensor is still getting paid for all these extensions. They are, however, stuck with their original terms and that's why Hasbro has been so unhappy. TSR didn't have the advantages that Hasbro can leverage, so what looked good to TSR doesn't look so good to Hasbro. Also, TSR's licensing agreements were from a time when video games and fantasy movies weren't quite the huge commercial juggernauts they are now. 

TSR was the first to dilute the D&D brand with too many settings and product lines, but some of those licensing agreements also contributed to D&D's brand dilution. We all can see now that the licensing agreement with Sweetpea wasn't great for the brand. And while Bioware's use of the D&D license was pretty outstanding, the products Atari made with other studios haven't been so great. For the past couple of decades there was very little coordination and consistency between the various D&D product lines. Right now, if you ran into an advertisement for a game expansion with the D&D logo on it, you'd have to already be very familiar with the brand to know which of these it's for:

1. A "generic" expansion for the current rules of the D&D tabletop RPG.
2. A supplement for one of D&D's countless fantasy settings.
3. One of D&D's several board games.
4. One of D&D's two totally separate MMO's.
5. One of D&D's other video games (currently Sword Coast Legends, Arena of War, and Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition.)

And technically, all of the above categories have gotten some sort of expansion recently, even though Forgotten Realms is the only setting being explicitly used for all of them. So it's not just the D&D community that's fragmented by settings and editions, there's also fragmentation of the product which creates confusion about the identity of the D&D brand. Only a D&D enthusiast is likely to be up to speed with all of these and so only D&D enthusiasts can actually parse whether the new product is actually valuable to them or not.

So what's WotC doing about it? Well, their options are limited for those products which are already out the gate. They seem to be trying to make good with what they've got. Instead of marketing products for each individual fragment of the brand they're trying to make product launches that involve as many as possible. Who is Rage of Demons for? Well it's for Neverwinter Online, Sword Coast Legends, the Forgotten Realms novel fans, and the table-top RPG. Now this tactic is still far from perfect. There's still a confusing mess even for people familiar with the products. For instance, there was a Rise of Tiamat article in Dragon+ written by the Neverwinter Online team that involved their new currency system and then inserted three different stat-blocks for dragons from three totally different games. And remember how some of us thought that Out of the Abyss would include Drizz't or a scenario with Orcus commanding an army of alhoons? Yeah, I'm sure that they factor into at least one of those Rage of Demons products, but I'm still unclear which. And let's not forget that despite WotC's "deep involvement" with Sword Coast Legends it was wildly different from what many of the fans expected it to be.

Basically, there's definitely an intent to streamline and unify D&D to make it more marketable, but the reality is that D&D is still pretty darn messy.


----------



## GobiWon (Dec 4, 2015)

Orlax said:


> The whole problem that corpse had here is that they aren't putting out enough stuff, and aren't making the right stuff.  My position is that they are making what they can to meet their business needs and that they can't just make everything because that is a terrible business model that would result in the shelving of the table top game.




This is the truth. As much as I would like every D&D setting to be detailed with a book as beautiful and well crafted as 3.5 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book, I understand that it would be a bad business decision. It would be like telling Ford to mass produce the Ford GT Supercar even though demand for such a product is in the 10s not 1000s and then wondering why Ford has not lowered the price of their offering so more people can buy it. You are mad just because a company isn't willing to go into the poorhouse to produce what you want them to produce.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 4, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> This is the truth. As much as I would like every D&D setting to be detailed with a book as beautiful and well crafted as 3.5 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book, I understand that it would be a bad business decision. It would be like telling Ford to mass produce the Ford GT Supercar even though demand for such a product is in the 10s not 1000s and then wondering why Ford has not lowered the price of their offering so more people can buy it. You are mad just because a company isn't willing to go into the poorhouse to produce what you want them to produce.




Not a good analogy because Ford puts out many different models to choose from.


----------



## GobiWon (Dec 4, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Not a good analogy because Ford puts out many different models to choose from.




You might not like the Ford Taurus as much as you like the Ford GT, but Ford is going to focus their energy on producing thousands of units of Tauruses because that is what they can sell a ton of and make a profit on.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 4, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> This is the truth. As much as I would like every D&D setting to be detailed with a book as beautiful and well crafted as 3.5 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book, I understand that it would be a bad business decision. It would be like telling Ford to mass produce the Ford GT Supercar even though demand for such a product is in the 10s not 1000s and then wondering why Ford has not lowered the price of their offering so more people can buy it. You are mad just because a company isn't willing to go into the poorhouse to produce what you want them to produce.




It's not madness and it's not going into the doghouse. 

That is the nature of this industry and it's D&D that began it and exposed many different people through many years. Multiple settings still make wizards money it's just how you go about doing it. Nobody says you have to go the 2nd edition route. We get a lot of one extreme to the next without exploring the middle. 

Multiple settings have not much to with cost because I believe Wizards is smart enough to pull it off. The problem is gaining brand identity. At this moment there is really no difference between D&D, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Conan, and many of the other fantasy genres. You can't sell "D&D" to the public without giving it a face or multiple faces. Just like "Marvel" couldn't just sell "Marvel" to the populace, you have to pull specific things from "Marvel" in order to grab peoples attention and those things were Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, etc.... 

To make it easier for them to gain brand identity they needed to look at the setting that is the most popular and that is Forgotten Realms. It does have an iconic character they could build off of and go from there. Wizards have already said they are thinking long term and they have their sights on something bigger than the RPG down the road. It's not that multiple settings will cause them to lose money, it's that they think there is something down the road that will make them lots more money.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 4, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> You might not like the Ford Taurus as much as you like the Ford GT, but Ford is going to focus their energy on producing thousands of units of Tauruses because that is what they can sell a ton of and make a profit on.




Not sure where you are going with this. One model of a car may get produced more, but I can still get the newest model of a more expensive model even though they may make less. 

You aren't using a good analogy.


----------



## GobiWon (Dec 4, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> It's not madness and it's not going into the doghouse.
> 
> That is the nature of this industry and it's D&D that began it and exposed many different people through many years. Multiple settings still make wizards money it's just how you go about doing it. Nobody says you have to go the 2nd edition route. We get a lot of one extreme to the next without exploring the middle.
> 
> ...




You are right about consolidating the IP. They do want to associate the Realms and their iconic characters with D&D for the long term strategy beyond just the table top game.


----------



## GobiWon (Dec 4, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Not sure where you are going with this. One model of a car may get produced more, but I can still get the newest model of a more expensive model even though they may make less.
> 
> You aren't using a good analogy.




Sure Ford produces 10 of these cars a year. That's not practical for WotC. They could produce what you want, but it would be either so expensive that you wouldn't buy it or priced so low that they wouldn't make a profit. Ford gets away with making the GT because they can write it off to marketing cost and R&D. The fact that they sell 1000s of Tauruses allows them to lose money on the GT. WotC doesn't have that luxury.


----------



## wedgeski (Dec 4, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> To make it easier for them to gain brand identity they needed to look at the setting that is the most popular and that is Forgotten Realms. It does have an iconic character they could build off of and go from there. Wizards have already said they are thinking long term and they have their sights on something bigger than the RPG down the road. It's not that multiple settings will cause them to lose money, it's that they think there is something down the road that will make them lots more money.



If this is true then tell me this: why is it "Sword Coast Legends" and not "Forgotten Realms Legends"..? Why is it "Princes of the Apocalypse" and not "Forgotten Realms: Elemental Evil"..? Why "Out of the Abyss" and not "Forgotten Realms: Madness of the Underdark"..?

For a company so hell bent on forging a FR brand identity, they sure seem to suck at it.


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 4, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Sure Ford produces 10 of these cars a year. That's not practical for WotC. They could produce what you want, but it would be either so expensive that you wouldn't buy it or priced so low that they wouldn't make a profit. Ford gets away with making the GT because they can write it off to marketing cost and R&D. The fact that they sell 1000s of Tauruses allows them to lose money on the GT. WotC doesn't have that luxury.




So what I am hearing here is that just because Ford can make the products their customers want, we should not expect WotC to do the same?  :Scratches head:


----------



## Orlax (Dec 4, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> So what I am hearing here is that just because Ford can make the products their customers want, we should not expect WotC to do the same?  :Scratches head:




Yeah pretty much.  Ford had a ton of money and a product line that does so well that it can provide the profits to cover the losses of the other product line.  WotC doesn't have that luxury because of how Hasbro silo's the products.  MtG money is MtG money.  D&D money is D&D money, and never the two shall meet.  Because of this D&D can't split it's own purchasing stock by immediately labeling books as books half the customers don't want by placing them in a specific setting.  I mean to my understanding the scag is designed in such a way that I could take elements from it and stand the sword coast up in my homebrew game (hence why it isn't marked as a forgotten realms book).


----------



## Shasarak (Dec 4, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Yeah pretty much.  Ford had a ton of money and a product line that does so well that it can provide the profits to cover the losses of the other product line.  WotC doesn't have that luxury because of how Hasbro silo's the products.  MtG money is MtG money.  D&D money is D&D money, and never the two shall meet.  Because of this D&D can't split it's own purchasing stock by immediately labeling books as books half the customers don't want by placing them in a specific setting.  I mean to my understanding the scag is designed in such a way that I could take elements from it and stand the sword coast up in my homebrew game (hence why it isn't marked as a forgotten realms book).




Not to mention having to pay off two years worth of development fees as well.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 4, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Not to mention having to pay off two years worth of development fees as well.




Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 4, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> /snip
> 
> Multiple settings have not much to with cost because I believe Wizards is smart enough to pull it off. The problem is gaining brand identity. At this moment there is really no difference between D&D, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Conan, and many of the other fantasy genres. You can't sell "D&D" to the public without giving it a face or multiple faces. Just like "Marvel" couldn't just sell "Marvel" to the populace, you have to pull specific things from "Marvel" in order to grab peoples attention and those things were Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, etc....
> 
> To make it easier for them to gain brand identity they needed to look at the setting that is the most popular and that is Forgotten Realms. It does have an iconic character they could build off of and go from there. Wizards have already said they are thinking long term and they have their sights on something bigger than the RPG down the road. It's not that multiple settings will cause them to lose money, it's that they think there is something down the road that will make them lots more money.




Sorry, but, you are wrong about Marvel.  Dropping the Marvel brand on something automatically generates a lot of interest.  Why do you think you get a couple of minutes of Marvel branding at the beginning of Guardians of the Galaxy?  Why do you think it's "Marvel's Agents of Shield", "Marvel's Jessica Jones", "Marvel's The Avengers"?  The Marvel brand, in and of itself, is extremely valuable.  

Very similar actually to the D&D brand.  Slapping a D&D logo on any RPG book guarantees additional sales.  That's why we had the D20 STL.  Being able to use D&D trade dress was seen as extremely valuable.  Now, OGL products have largely gotten around that and the STL is gone, but, again, being able to put a D&D logo on something is very, very valuable.  

Look at the difference in how various Marvel properties are marketed depending on whether they are being done by Marvel Studios or not.  The X-Men movies didn't mention Marvel at all.  Nor did the Fantastic Four movies.  The Sam Raimi Spider Man movies barely mention Marvel.  Compare to any of the actual Marvel Studios production where you have that Marvel Action! clip at the begining.  And the fact that it's almost always Marvelsinsert property here).


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 4, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, you are wrong about Marvel.  Dropping the Marvel brand on something automatically generates a lot of interest.  Why do you think you get a couple of minutes of Marvel branding at the beginning of Guardians of the Galaxy?  Why do you think it's "Marvel's Agents of Shield", "Marvel's Jessica Jones", "Marvel's The Avengers"?  The Marvel brand, in and of itself, is extremely valuable.
> 
> Very similar actually to the D&D brand.  Slapping a D&D logo on any RPG book guarantees additional sales.  That's why we had the D20 STL.  Being able to use D&D trade dress was seen as extremely valuable.  Now, OGL products have largely gotten around that and the STL is gone, but, again, being able to put a D&D logo on something is very, very valuable.
> 
> Look at the difference in how various Marvel properties are marketed depending on whether they are being done by Marvel Studios or not.  The X-Men movies didn't mention Marvel at all.  Nor did the Fantastic Four movies.  The Sam Raimi Spider Man movies barely mention Marvel.  Compare to any of the actual Marvel Studios production where you have that Marvel Action! clip at the begining.  And the fact that it's almost always Marvelsinsert property here).




You don't get what I am saying. "Marvel" on it's own is just the comicbook universe and can't be sold on it's own. It needs the heroes and villains who inhabit the universe to give Marvel something to sell to people.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 4, 2015)

I don't know if that is true about Marvel. Maybe at one point. But now they're slapping the Marvel label on movies and shows that don't contain the iconic characters. Agents of SHIELD, Guardians of the Galaxy, and most recently Jessica Jones.

So, once the brand was established with Iron Man and then the other Avengers, they then used that brand to branch out with less proven, more risky properties.

So in that sense, it seems like D&D is still establishing their Avengers with Forgotten Realms. Once that's been established, then maybe we'll get some Guardians of the Galaxy or Jeasica Jones in the form of Planescape or Darksun.

How many years was it from Iron Man 1 to Avengers? More than one, that's for sure.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 5, 2015)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if that is true about Marvel. Maybe at one point. But now they're slapping the Marvel label on movies and shows that don't contain the iconic characters. Agents of SHIELD, Guardians of the Galaxy, and most recently Jessica Jones.
> 
> So, once the brand was established with Iron Man and then the other Avengers, they then used that brand to branch out with less proven, more risky properties.
> 
> ...




But those things you mentioned are still the things that give the Marvel universe something tangible. 

Do you think you could sell "Marvel" to the public at large without the heroes and villains that populate it?


----------



## Rygar (Dec 5, 2015)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if that is true about Marvel. Maybe at one point. But now they're slapping the Marvel label on movies and shows that don't contain the iconic characters. Agents of SHIELD, Guardians of the Galaxy, and most recently Jessica Jones.
> 
> So, once the brand was established with Iron Man and then the other Avengers, they then used that brand to branch out with less proven, more risky properties.
> 
> ...




I'll be blunt and say if WOTC's plan is to establish anything with Forgotten Realms they're in deep,  deep,  trouble.  If they wanted an "Avengers" then they should've started out and currently be focused on Dragonlance.  If they want the mass appeal of "Avengers" then they need to have a property that isn't largely focused on a "Drow",  pretty much no one knows what a "Drow" is outside of D&D players.  "Dark elf" is fairly meaningless to most.

Dragonlance is the only D&D property to ever reach beyond the core niche of D&D players,  and it is the one property most noteworthy for the fact that the bulk of the people who bought Dragonlance products weren't D&D players at all and never had any interest in playing D&D.  Dragonlance is the only D&D property with a proven ability to engage average people.

So if their plan for D&D is "Forgotten Realms" then they've already dropped the ball.  They chose to plan for something that has proven to not interest the average person and left the product that sold huge numbers to the average person on the shelf.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 5, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> But those things you mentioned are still the things that give the Marvel universe something tangible.
> 
> Do you think you could sell "Marvel" to the public at large without the heroes and villains that populate it?




But what would you be selling them then? It's an odd question.

I think you can take a concept that the vast majority of people are not familiar with, even most comic fans, in some cases....and if it had the Marvel logo on it, a good chunk of the audience will give it a try based solely on that. 

That's because the brand is established. People have come to expect a certain level of quality from Marvel movies and shows, so they're more willing to try something they don't know because they see it's a Marvel production. 

D&D is different in that it is a game, not a shared universe in and of itself. But there are several shared universes at their disposal, so it's not impossible for them to use all of that material to establish their core brand. I think that might be a big part of what they're doing right now.



Rygar said:


> I'll be blunt and say if WOTC's plan is to establish anything with Forgotten Realms they're in deep,  deep,  trouble.  If they wanted an "Avengers" then they should've started out and currently be focused on Dragonlance.  If they want the mass appeal of "Avengers" then they need to have a property that isn't largely focused on a "Drow",  pretty much no one knows what a "Drow" is outside of D&D players.  "Dark elf" is fairly meaningless to most.
> 
> Dragonlance is the only D&D property to ever reach beyond the core niche of D&D players,  and it is the one property most noteworthy for the fact that the bulk of the people who bought Dragonlance products weren't D&D players at all and never had any interest in playing D&D.  Dragonlance is the only D&D property with a proven ability to engage average people.
> 
> So if their plan for D&D is "Forgotten Realms" then they've already dropped the ball.  They chose to plan for something that has proven to not interest the average person and left the product that sold huge numbers to the average person on the shelf.




I don't know about that. I know that within the D&D fanbase, Drizzt can be pretty divisive, but I would imagine his 30 novels have reached far more people than the 10 or so Dragonlance books by Weiss and Hickman. Far more. 

And I think that there are elements to his story that when handled properly can be pretty compelling and meaningful to modern audiences. Whereas the Dragonlance books are all pretty much just adventure stories with little more to them. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing...but I think Dragonlance would just seem too much like LOTR/Hobbit to most audiences. 

As much as I love the early books....Chronicles and Legends...they don't entirely hold up well. Legends more than Chronicles, I'd say, but you can't have Legends without Chronicles coming first.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 5, 2015)

I agree that WotC is trying to make Forgotten Realms the de facto setting for the game.

Sadly, I don't care for The Realms and can't see how Greyhawk isn't the default setting.  It was the world that served as the crucible for the game, its spells are named after characters from that world, most of its classic adventures are based in that world, and (like Forgotten Realms) it's generic enough to handle all styles of gameplay.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 5, 2015)

Rygar said:


> Dragonlance is the only D&D property to ever reach beyond the core niche of D&D players,  and it is the one property most noteworthy for the fact that the bulk of the people who bought Dragonlance products weren't D&D players at all and never had any interest in playing D&D.  Dragonlance is the only D&D property with a proven ability to engage average people.




Dragonlance has an unfortunate aspect to it that makes it very hard to use as a "generic" setting, and that's huge swaths of "default" material doesn't appear on Krynn. No halflings, half-orcs, dragonborn, tieflings, warlocks, sorcerers (in the WotL era), monks, orcs, or lycanthropes, just to name a few. DL is a cool setting/stories, but its kinda a poor representation of D&D tropes. 



scruffygrognard said:


> Sadly, I don't care for The Realms and can't see how Greyhawk isn't the default setting.  It was the world that served as the crucible for the game, its spells are named after characters from that world, most of its classic adventures are based in that world, and (like Forgotten Realms) it's generic enough to handle all styles of gameplay.




Just the opposite. Greyhawk is too generic. Part of its allure has been a "barely detailed" setting, and as a result its barren and lacks much development. Compared to Krynn, Toril, or Eberron, it just doesn't feel as complete. That's great when you're a DM who want a map and some proper nouns, its great. If you want something more detailed, its not the best.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 5, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Just the opposite. Greyhawk is too generic. Part of its allure has been a "barely detailed" setting, and as a result its barren and lacks much development. Compared to Krynn, Toril, or Eberron, it just doesn't feel as complete. That's great when you're a DM who want a map and some proper nouns, its great. If you want something more detailed, its not the best.



That's exactly part of what makes Greyhawk so great.  It gives you a skeleton and just enough details to build your own world and stories off of!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 5, 2015)

scruffygrognard said:


> That's exactly part of what makes Greyhawk so great.  It gives you a skeleton and just enough details to build your own world and stories off of!




I think it's great as a setting for a tabletop RPG, for the reasons you said. But for a multimedia representation of the D&D brand, it's probably not the best choice. FR has a couple hundred novels and a dozen or so video games that take place there, and it's seen vast support for the RPG across all editions.

I am not knocking Greyhawk by any means, or any other setting, but I think if you look at it objectively, given the approach that WotC has decided to take (regardless of whether you agree with their approach or not) the only choice for setting is FR.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> But those things you mentioned are still the things that give the Marvel universe something tangible.
> 
> Do you think you could sell "Marvel" to the public at large without the heroes and villains that populate it?




Why are you making a distinction here between Marvel and the characters in the Marvel universe?  What's the distinction?  Marvel has largely become synonymous with a particular entertainment universe, same as Star Trek and Star Wars.  If I see Marvel on the title line, I know what I should be expecting, same as any other property of that nature.



Rygar said:


> I'll be blunt and say if WOTC's plan is to establish anything with Forgotten Realms they're in deep,  deep,  trouble.  If they wanted an "Avengers" then they should've started out and currently be focused on Dragonlance.  If they want the mass appeal of "Avengers" then they need to have a property that isn't largely focused on a "Drow",  pretty much no one knows what a "Drow" is outside of D&D players.  "Dark elf" is fairly meaningless to most.
> 
> Dragonlance is the only D&D property to ever reach beyond the core niche of D&D players,  and it is the one property most noteworthy for the fact that the bulk of the people who bought Dragonlance products weren't D&D players at all and never had any interest in playing D&D.  Dragonlance is the only D&D property with a proven ability to engage average people.
> 
> So if their plan for D&D is "Forgotten Realms" then they've already dropped the ball.  They chose to plan for something that has proven to not interest the average person and left the product that sold huge numbers to the average person on the shelf.




I believe you are very, very mistaken here.  You don't have thirty years of NYT best selling novels and  major, top shelf video games without gaining a fair degree of mainstream awareness.  Salvatore is a much, much more household name than Weiss and Hickman's Dragonlance.

Again, when I can find translated Salvatore novels in small towns in Japan, and that D&D Lego thing (I forget the name) branded with Drizz't in Taiwan toy stores, I'm going to say that they have a bit more market penetration than Dragonlance.*

*  And I say this having never once read a Salvatore novel and at one point owning every single Dragonlance product produced at that date.  All the modules, most of the novels, all sorts of other assorted gewgaws.  I LOVE Dragonlance.  But, I'm under no illusions as to the relative sizes we're talking about here.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 6, 2015)

Wow, so this conversation went about 47 pages and eventually managed to come to some sort of reasonable understanding. Well done!

I kinda feel like we should retire this thread now before something goes wrong.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 6, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Why are you making a distinction here between Marvel and the characters in the Marvel universe?  What's the distinction?  Marvel has largely become synonymous with a particular entertainment universe, same as Star Trek and Star Wars.  If I see Marvel on the title line, I know what I should be expecting, same as any other property of that nature.




Because just like Marvel can't sell itself without it's iconic characters, D&D will need the same thing in order to actually get anywhere with it's multimedia platform. You can't sell D&D so what they decided to do was use the Forgotten Realms as it's D&D defining universe and hopefully present some iconic characters that they can market.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Because just like Marvel can't sell itself without it's iconic characters, D&D will need the same thing in order to actually get anywhere with it's multimedia platform. You can't sell D&D so what they decided to do was use the Forgotten Realms as it's D&D defining universe and hopefully present some iconic characters that they can market.




Yes, exactly right.

Wait, what were we arguing about?


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 7, 2015)

Rygar said:


> I'll be blunt and say if WOTC's plan is to establish anything with Forgotten Realms they're in deep,  deep,  trouble.  If they wanted an "Avengers" then they should've started out and currently be focused on Dragonlance.  If they want the mass appeal of "Avengers" then they need to have a property that isn't largely focused on a "Drow",  pretty much no one knows what a "Drow" is outside of D&D players.  "Dark elf" is fairly meaningless to most.




I've been wondering about that, actually. I know a lot of decisions they make are marketing data based, and a while ago James Jacobs asserted that drow actually increase product sales... let me search for it...

Ah! It's right on the "Drow" wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drow_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#cite_note-PF13intro-47



> Designer James Jacobs considers the drow to be a rare example of a D&D-invented monster becoming mainstream, with even non-gamers recognizing them.[47]
> 
> Drow have been proven to draw additional sales of products which feature them. While Paizo Publishing was printing Dragon and Dungeon, covers featuring drow often sold better than other issues in the same year.[47]




[47] Vaughan, Greg A.; Jacobs, James (2008). "Foreward: ...And I Feel Fine". Pathfinder #13: Shadow in the Sky. Pathfinder Adventure Path. Bellevue, Washington, United States: Paizo Publishing. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-1-60125-115-2.


----------



## darjr (Dec 7, 2015)

Someone in this thread guessed right about the next story season.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 8, 2015)

darjr said:


> Someone in this thread guessed right about the next story season.




Wait was it announced?


----------



## darjr (Dec 8, 2015)

See the news page.


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Ravenloft, eh?
> 
> Is it worth going back and quoting all the people who were calling for Wizards of the Coast's heads with a post that says "NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA"?




Not yet. The signs are strongly pointing that way, but it hasn't been confirmed yet. And it also hasn't been confirmed that they aren't transplanting Castle Ravenloft to the Realms.

Best let WotC do their stuff first and _then_ proceed with the mockery.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 8, 2015)

Yeah, I suspect that they'll use Ravenloft not unlike how they did in 4e when they put it in the Shadowfell. They'll likely create an event that causes the PC's to be pulled by the mists to a specific location and engage at least one of the iconic dark lords. I guess they could instead have an Rage of Demons-style event that causes Dark Lords to be summoned to the regular Forgotten Realms setting. While that later helps up the stakes, I think it would likely come across as hackneyed after Out of the Abyss, and it could cheapen some of the themes of Ravenloft. Either way WotC can market the adventure as something that DM's can drop into their current Forgotten Realms or homebrew campaign.


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> I guess they could instead have an Rage of Demons-style event that causes Dark Lords to be summoned to the regular Forgotten Realms setting.




Yep, unlikely that they'll be summoned. Invade, on the other hand...


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yep, unlikely that they'll be summoned. Invade, on the other hand...




Yeah, that's along the lines I was thinking: With different Dark Lords bringing their own characteristic landmarks, encounters, and lingering curses to the regions they invade. I just think that's a little too much like the Rage of Demons scenario where the demon princes were spreading forms of madness and converting the Underdark into something similar to their layers of the Abyss.


----------



## spectacle (Dec 10, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> Yeah, that's along the lines I was thinking: With different Dark Lords bringing their own characteristic landmarks, encounters, and lingering curses to the regions they invade. I just think that's a little too much like the Rage of Demons scenario where the demon princes were spreading forms of madness and converting the Underdark into something similar to their layers of the Abyss.




If parts of Ravenloft were pulled back into the prime material plane then both the dark lords and the normal people living there would probably want to escape, Ravenloft is a prison after all. Only a small number of the lords would have any particular interest in conquest or otherwise causing trouble in the prime, at least not until they were sure they had gotten away from Ravenloft and established new power bases.

I am pretty sure that if we do get a Ravenloft adventure then it will be of the classic formats: The mists pick up the PCs from wherever they belong, and after a harrowing adventure in Ravenloft they escape and return to their home world. 

In the Adventure League this will just be handwaved; characters can freely take part in adventures in Ravenloft or the Forgotten Realms. Continuity doesn't matter in the AL by design, I can't see any reason why that would change.


----------



## Reinhart (Dec 10, 2015)

spectacle said:


> If parts of Ravenloft were pulled back into the prime material plane then both the dark lords and the normal people living there would probably want to escape, Ravenloft is a prison after all.




That's actually my argument for why it would seem like an invasion: Since the dark lords can't escape their curse, wherever they go would gradually become another part of Ravenloft. The event starts with the misplaced hope they've found a metaphysical loophole that will allow them to escape, but all they really do is cause parts of the Forgotten Realms to be consumed by the mists. As I've explained though, I think this is too similar to Rage of Demons to be worth making their next story, so I think it's more likely players will be visiting Ravenloft or Ravenloft-like locations in the Shadowfell of Faerun or something.


----------



## Kalizaar (Dec 23, 2015)

We were in that seminar and enjoyed it very much. We're definitely Chris Perkins fans now. We just started playing 5e recently before the con (played a couple 2nd edition games 20+ years ago before 5e) so this was a neat opportunity.


----------



## darjr (Dec 23, 2015)

Jealous!


----------



## Kalizaar (Dec 23, 2015)

darjr said:


> Jealous!




We also got him to sign one of our books. Oh and my fiance asked him if they'd think about creating material with some randomness, a bit like choose your own adventure, so even the DM wouldn't know what was next. She was super excited about that of course.  We had huge geek smiles leaving that room!


----------



## darjr (Dec 23, 2015)

You didn't happen to see any of the playtesting?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 24, 2015)

I wish we had good info on what ppl were running in 3.5 and 4e, when more settings were supported. I think most people run FR because it's the flagship, so it's what the books mostly assume and give info for, and no other setting has actual support. i mean, there's info, but there isn't anything that stands out and says, "Check out Eberron, here's what's cool about it!" so those numbers might be kind of self fulfilling.


----------

