5E Mike Mearls states on Twitter hardcover adventures now annual releases - Page 6
+ Log in or register to post
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68
  1. #51
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)

    DEFCON 1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Burlington, MA
    Posts
    7,440
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews

    Block DEFCON 1


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    Tldr I guess all I want to say is how I loathe the idea that WotC should get away with saying they're planning setting support when they have achieved exactly jack skit during three full years. Imagine the skit-storm if WotC at launch had said "...and Greyhawk support is coming in only four years time, in the 2018-2019 time-frame"!

    It boggles my mind that all they apparently needed to do was to... keep talking while doing nothing.
    Well, what do you think should happen then? WotC to get "punished"? Okay. Someone or some group needs to punish them for not "being entirely truthful". Who's doing it? And what are they doing?

    I mean... the best way to punish WotC for their "half-truths" is to just not play 5E. Not buy any of their products. Make 5E into as much of a sinkhole as 4E apparently ended up being for them. Unfortunately... for all of those people who wish WotC to be "punished" for not being 100% crystal clear on when exactly any book for any other campaign setting would be released... none of you succeeded in doing so. Apparently you all kept buying, supporting, and playing the game. So any "punishment" you thought you were hoping to do does not seem to have been accomplished.

    So what's next? I mean, I suppose the next step is more of the same... a supply of players just continually complaining that "WotC isn't supporting other settings!" Which... is true, I guess. Thus far they haven't released any 5E-specific detailing for any of the other settings (although they've released plenty of material from other editions for all the settings that could be adapted by a DM to a 5E game if doing so really mattered to that person that badly.) So yeah... complain away. And be content in your anger that yes indeed, WotC is "getting away with it"... because most people don't actually care, and for the rest of you, there's no way for you to actually hold WotC accountable because all of you have been complicit in allowing them to make 5E the success that it is, with their plan they've built and established and TOLD all of us what they were doing for the game.

    Yep, I'm sure it sucks. But there's nothing you can really do about it, is there?
    Laugh Mistwell laughed with this post

  2. #52
    Frazzled
    Titan (Lvl 27)

    Morrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Intrawebs
    Posts
    36,114
    Reviews
    Read 23 Reviews
    EN World EN5ider13th AgeSupermanCircvs MaximvsENniesPathfinderZEITGEISTDoctor Who

    Block Morrus


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoSix View Post
    Or go third-party.
    Truth. Those who limit themselves by choice are in a prison of their own making.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    Sorry, but you either have the patience of angel, or you've fallen for their holding pattern strategy hook, line, and sinker.

    Everyone else understands that the game ain't 6-12 months old any longer. It's been three years and still nothing! What more evidence do we need?

    No, the truth is that Hasbro has downsized the D&D team to only support what they need for their greater brand plans.

    If WotC had meant to support more settings all they needed to do was to hire more developers - we know they can do it because they did so for EVERY previous edition.

    It's possible you are content with waiting five years or so, but I find it preposterous to give them the benefit of the doubt all this time.

    In any other edition; for any other game, the conclusion would have been clear for a while now: if there ever was a plan to support other settings, it would have been considered a total and utter failure.

    Of course, since I believe Hasbro is putting the brand before the rpg community (at least the vocal minority not satisfied with the Realms), there is no failure, since they already from the beginning decided to skip settings as a concept, instead moving to incorporate the Realms into the D&D brand, as opposed to being one out of many setting choices.

    I think their strategy has paid off. Not just because of apologist comments (not saying you belong to this group, only that the desire to find no fault with WotC is strong here at the forums), but because people are presumably content with the recycled old edition offerings for their chosen setting.

    Tldr I guess all I want to say is how I loathe the idea that WotC should get away with saying they're planning setting support when they have achieved exactly jack skit during three full years. Imagine the skit-storm if WotC at launch had said "...and Greyhawk support is coming in only four years time, in the 2018-2019 time-frame"!

    It boggles my mind that all they apparently needed to do was to... keep talking while doing nothing.

    Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
    Well, as pointed out earlier, they have opened up Ravenloft and Forgotten Realms to the DMs Guild: honestly doubt we will see much more than that, since the core assumption is that DMs are home brewing.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    Sorry, but you either have the patience of angel, or you've fallen for their holding pattern strategy hook, line, and sinker.

    Everyone else understands that the game ain't 6-12 months old any longer. It's been three years and still nothing! What more evidence do we need?

    No, the truth is that Hasbro has downsized the D&D team to only support what they need for their greater brand plans.

    If WotC had meant to support more settings all they needed to do was to hire more developers - we know they can do it because they did so for EVERY previous edition.

    It's possible you are content with waiting five years or so, but I find it preposterous to give them the benefit of the doubt all this time.

    In any other edition; for any other game, the conclusion would have been clear for a while now: if there ever was a plan to support other settings, it would have been considered a total and utter failure.

    Of course, since I believe Hasbro is putting the brand before the rpg community (at least the vocal minority not satisfied with the Realms), there is no failure, since they already from the beginning decided to skip settings as a concept, instead moving to incorporate the Realms into the D&D brand, as opposed to being one out of many setting choices.

    I think their strategy has paid off. Not just because of apologist comments (not saying you belong to this group, only that the desire to find no fault with WotC is strong here at the forums), but because people are presumably content with the recycled old edition offerings for their chosen setting.

    Tldr I guess all I want to say is how I loathe the idea that WotC should get away with saying they're planning setting support when they have achieved exactly jack skit during three full years. Imagine the skit-storm if WotC at launch had said "...and Greyhawk support is coming in only four years time, in the 2018-2019 time-frame"!

    It boggles my mind that all they apparently needed to do was to... keep talking while doing nothing.

    Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
    So, I'm always hesitant to enter these sort of internet debates. Because in the end, we'll both end up speculating about why they are doing what they are doing. Educated speculating I'll grant. But there are simply things we don't know. And then we'll run in circles. I don't generally find that enjoyable (I probably don't belong on an internet messageboard, I know). That's all by way of saying that I'll probably jump to 'agree to disagree' pretty quickly. But I'll give this one go round.

    Things I think we agree on:
    -- WotC has provided very little support for non FR settings beyond a few book mentions, some suggestions in adventures, and the Strahd adventure (which some find inadequate given the whole of the Ravenloft setting)

    -- WotC has done fine by this strategy. In other words, they are happy with the money they are making.

    -- You and I both would enjoy seeing more support for other settings.

    Things I think we likely disagree on:
    We disagree on the reason they are doing fine. I don't think it's that people are patient and have 'drunk the kool aid'. I think that the market of people who want campaign setting support is relatively small (and even smaller broken into each setting) and that most of those people are willing to buy the other products because they find them useful. For example, I don't run an FR campaign. Haven't for a long time. But I pull a lot of material out of the various other books I've bought.

    We also probably disagree on why they aren't doing that setting support (though maybe not). Sure, they could hire developers to do it. But they have very intentionally pursued a strategy of limited releases. They have indicated this is because they found that pumping out too many products works poorly in the long run. And there's been plenty of argument suggesting that 2nd edition suffered from splintering their audience with their multiple setting support.

    I know you aren't suggesting they send out a full product line. Maybe just a book or two. But why would they? I suspect their market research tells them they will make only X amount of profit doing so and would risk a least some splintering. It would also muddy their focus on their main product. They want all this stuff to tie together.
    This is where we probably agree. It IS a brand strategy. They want to be able to market the heck out of a storyline for a couple months and not be concerned about confusing or splintering their market. But I'm not upset with them about that. I want this edition of D&D to do well long term. They seem to have an effective strategy.

    Final point of disagreement (maybe this is where you think I'm an apologist?): I do not think the designers are being deceptive. I sincerely think that they want to support other settings. I really believe that they have been trying to find a way to do it that fits within their overall strategy, and I think that WotC is fully willing to let them do so if they can do it in a way that makes business sense. I really do think that it's taking a long time in part because figuring that out has been hard and in part because they've got stuff planned on the scale of years. And, finally, I really do think that they are going to provide substantial setting support in the years ahead. And while that is a long time from the start of an edition (no disagreement there), it also means that-- if I'm right-- they really aren't planning on a new edition after 5 years. Which makes me super happy. They are hopefully in 5e for the long haul.

    Would I rather that I not have to wait years more to see, say, Greyhawk support? Sure. Hell, I'd love to have a book for each setting to read and steal from and to pop into my campaigns. I love reading that stuff. I'd even really enjoy a fully fleshed out 5e FR book (which they are clearly not going to do any time soon). And yes it does make me a little sad that we won't see all this in the immediate future.

    So why am I not all that unhappy about it? Because, overall, I'm happy with D&D. With 5e. I'd like the stuff, but I don't need it. And I am enjoying the products they are releasing. It's not that I accept all their explanations and delays and am eager to defend every decision they make. It's that they are serving enough of my D&D wants to keep me happy.

    And, probably, I fall more in their target market.

    At any rate, does all that help explain my point of view better?

    AD
    XP Parmandur, jayoungr gave XP for this post

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by lkj View Post
    So, I'm always hesitant to enter these sort of internet debates. Because in the end, we'll both end up speculating about why they are doing what they are doing. Educated speculating I'll grant. But there are simply things we don't know. And then we'll run in circles. I don't generally find that enjoyable (I probably don't belong on an internet messageboard, I know). That's all by way of saying that I'll probably jump to 'agree to disagree' pretty quickly. But I'll give this one go round.

    Things I think we agree on:
    -- WotC has provided very little support for non FR settings beyond a few book mentions, some suggestions in adventures, and the Strahd adventure (which some find inadequate given the whole of the Ravenloft setting)

    -- WotC has done fine by this strategy. In other words, they are happy with the money they are making.

    -- You and I both would enjoy seeing more support for other settings.

    Things I think we likely disagree on:
    We disagree on the reason they are doing fine. I don't think it's that people are patient and have 'drunk the kool aid'. I think that the market of people who want campaign setting support is relatively small (and even smaller broken into each setting) and that most of those people are willing to buy the other products because they find them useful. For example, I don't run an FR campaign. Haven't for a long time. But I pull a lot of material out of the various other books I've bought.

    We also probably disagree on why they aren't doing that setting support (though maybe not). Sure, they could hire developers to do it. But they have very intentionally pursued a strategy of limited releases. They have indicated this is because they found that pumping out too many products works poorly in the long run. And there's been plenty of argument suggesting that 2nd edition suffered from splintering their audience with their multiple setting support.

    I know you aren't suggesting they send out a full product line. Maybe just a book or two. But why would they? I suspect their market research tells them they will make only X amount of profit doing so and would risk a least some splintering. It would also muddy their focus on their main product. They want all this stuff to tie together.
    This is where we probably agree. It IS a brand strategy. They want to be able to market the heck out of a storyline for a couple months and not be concerned about confusing or splintering their market. But I'm not upset with them about that. I want this edition of D&D to do well long term. They seem to have an effective strategy.

    Final point of disagreement (maybe this is where you think I'm an apologist?): I do not think the designers are being deceptive. I sincerely think that they want to support other settings. I really believe that they have been trying to find a way to do it that fits within their overall strategy, and I think that WotC is fully willing to let them do so if they can do it in a way that makes business sense. I really do think that it's taking a long time in part because figuring that out has been hard and in part because they've got stuff planned on the scale of years. And, finally, I really do think that they are going to provide substantial setting support in the years ahead. And while that is a long time from the start of an edition (no disagreement there), it also means that-- if I'm right-- they really aren't planning on a new edition after 5 years. Which makes me super happy. They are hopefully in 5e for the long haul.

    Would I rather that I not have to wait years more to see, say, Greyhawk support? Sure. Hell, I'd love to have a book for each setting to read and steal from and to pop into my campaigns. I love reading that stuff. I'd even really enjoy a fully fleshed out 5e FR book (which they are clearly not going to do any time soon). And yes it does make me a little sad that we won't see all this in the immediate future.

    So why am I not all that unhappy about it? Because, overall, I'm happy with D&D. With 5e. I'd like the stuff, but I don't need it. And I am enjoying the products they are releasing. It's not that I accept all their explanations and delays and am eager to defend every decision they make. It's that they are serving enough of my D&D wants to keep me happy.

    And, probably, I fall more in their target market.

    At any rate, does all that help explain my point of view better?

    AD
    This.

  6. #56
    Mearls just said on Twitter that the current design phase of the Mystic is to filter it through the various settings to ensure proper thematic compatibility, specifically Dark Sun and Eberron.

  7. #57
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Mistwell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Van Nuys, CA
    Posts
    12,726
    Reviews
    Read 4 Reviews

    Block Mistwell


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Parmandur View Post
    Mearls just said on Twitter that the current design phase of the Mystic is to filter it through the various settings to ensure proper thematic compatibility, specifically Dark Sun and Eberron.
    And while he was writing that tweet he was manically laughing and screaming, "Here, have another one CapNZapp, Muhahahahaha!"
    Laugh SkidAce, Parmandur, DEFCON 1, Enevhar Aldarion, Azzy laughed with this post

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    Snipped because too many people have already quoted this whole mess....
    I am fine with their schedule, except for maybe a bit more crunch in the schedule, because I have no use for most of the D&D settings. I am fine with the Realms as my default fantasy setting and I wonder how many more out there feel the same as I do? I have been gaming since the early 80's and tried several of the other settings, but the only one I might even consider going back to is Greyhawk. If I want an alternative to the Realms, I will go with Adventures in Middle-Earth, or Primeval Thule, or Esper Genesis.

    So yeah, I have the feeling that for all the ranting done on message boards like this, the majority of gamers willing to spend money on WotC products, especially newer ones, either do not know about, or do not care about, non-Realms settings.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Enevhar Aldarion View Post
    I am fine with their schedule, except for maybe a bit more crunch in the schedule, because I have no use for most of the D&D settings. I am fine with the Realms as my default fantasy setting and I wonder how many more out there feel the same as I do? I have been gaming since the early 80's and tried several of the other settings, but the only one I might even consider going back to is Greyhawk. If I want an alternative to the Realms, I will go with Adventures in Middle-Earth, or Primeval Thule, or Esper Genesis.

    So yeah, I have the feeling that for all the ranting done on message boards like this, the majority of gamers willing to spend money on WotC products, especially newer ones, either do not know about, or do not care about, non-Realms settings.
    Most don't care about settings: the default is home brewing, on a spectrum from DIY everything to super casual making it up on the way.

  10. #60
    Member
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,251
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block robus


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Parmandur View Post
    I love campaign settings a s a work of art: but they don't seem to be great business.
    Have you checked out the Art of M:tG books? They're quite inspirational as setting books. Of course they're missing maps which is a key part of a setting but as works of art - they're great.
    XP SkidAce, Parmandur gave XP for this post

+ Log in or register to post
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 113
    Last Post: Monday, 8th May, 2017, 02:57 PM
  2. Mike Mearls interview - states that they may be getting off of the 2 AP/year train.
    By bmfrosty in forum D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 464
    Last Post: Thursday, 27th April, 2017, 10:43 PM
  3. Twitter Pic from Mearls Showing PHB Arrival
    By Mark CMG in forum D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, 19th July, 2014, 02:10 PM
  4. Mike Mearls Twitter-Martial adapts and Artificers
    By gyor in forum D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Saturday, 11th May, 2013, 10:22 AM
  5. Mike Mearls: Build your Adventures in OD&D
    By MerricB in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Friday, 5th February, 2010, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •