The State of D&D: Products, Psionics, Settings, & More

At Game Hole Con, WotC hosted a "State of the Industry" panel, featuring Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls. Nerds on Earth was there to record the audio (listen to that here). Amongst other things, they hinted at the next FOUR products, mentioned that the Mystic, Artificer and Revised Ranger were upcoming, and indicated that D&D is now the most popular it has ever been since the 1980s. They also mention the release schedule, settings, novels, and more.

At Game Hole Con, WotC hosted a "State of the Industry" panel, featuring Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls. Nerds on Earth was there to record the audio (listen to that here). Amongst other things, they hinted at the next FOUR products, mentioned that the Mystic, Artificer and Revised Ranger were upcoming, and indicated that D&D is now the most popular it has ever been since the 1980s. They also mention the release schedule, settings, novels, and more.

dungeons-dragons-clipart-5.png


EN World member Mistwell took the time to listen to the audio and list the highlights!

A lot of good info in there.

Xanathar's Guide comes out at the point where in prior editions they were working on or coming out with the next edition of the game. Instead they put that level of effort into making this the first big expansion of the game. (They say later they don't anticipate a new edition until 10 years as gone by in most likelihood, if feedback continues as it is - and 6th edition would be highly likely to be backwards compatible with 5e).

The playtest had HALF A MILLION playtesters. Wow.

The next big expansion is mystic (Psion) and artificer and revised ranger. They will come out, but need more testing and refinement. Ranger also needs to be free rather than a paid product. It will be a free download.

Every product being released in 2018 has either been written, or is being written. One is at the tail end of the editing/layout process. Another is in the playtest phase. A third is in the finalizing development phase. And a fourth Mearls won't talk about at all. So, looks like four major products for 2018.

There will be a balance between rules crunch and adventures/story in the products. They are trying to very carefully manage and curate the rules balance aspect. Adventures get about 300 playtester groups. Rules get a whole lot more.

They are very pleased with the 10 person collaborative DMsGuild group producing content and adventure related stuff on DMsGuild for them right now. That team will also be coming out with their own subclasses and such for Xanathars for example. They will be looked at internally by WOTC but are for home game use only and are not nearly as highly playtested as official content. But it's very good content and does get a sweep of review from WOTC.

The team feels D&D overall is in a very good place right now. They've seen an enormous positive reaction to the game. They think probably only the early 80s matches the level of popularity of the game, and that it is more popular that probably any other time in the history of the game other than being matched by the early 80s.

They're very happy with the slowed release schedule as it gives them so much more time to focus on what they put out and the future. The most important aspect of that is their ability to plan out the future properly. In prior editions they worked on, the focus was always on getting the next book out. But with 5e they can spend a lot more time planning the game out into the future rather than just on the next product. Right now they are focusing mostly on 2019, spending a lot of time thinking about the entire year's experience and putting it all together cohesively and to build D&D in a planned way which brings more people into the hobby and make them feel welcomed. They didn't have a lot of time to ask those questions and plan them out in prior editions. They also think the slowed release schedule has allowed them to get a lot more new players as one of the barriers to entry (the quantity of rule books) is no longer there.

On Psionics, they re-read the Darksun books a lot. A lot of the thinking they do these days is thinking of D&D as a multiverse, and as Darksun being part of the prime material plane with greyhawk and forgotten realms in one big shared multiverse. And they asked why in a devastated world Psionics is prominent. They are very focused on what psionics is, why it exists in this universe. They felt in prior editions D&D focused on very specific things, and less about the myths about those things and why things did what they did and how they related to the rest of the cosmos and the things in it. As an example, the Draconomicon focused a lot on the anatomy of dragons, but little about why dragons in relation to who they are, why they do what they do, how they related to the rest of the cosmos.

Specific to Psionics and that topic, Mind Flayers used to rule most of the material plane, so what was going on with the Gods for those years, and how does that relate to the psionic powers of the Mind Flayers? Mind Flayers had no Gods, so what did it mean for the Gods when the Mind Flayers ruled, and what happened with the Gods when the Mind Flayers fell? Those are the kinds of questions they are asking, along with where Psionics comes from and how it works.

On Settings (with a lot specific to Eberron). One challenge D&D had in the 90s was the settings were competing with each other. But now that they are thinking of settings as a "genre" as opposed to a "place" it twists a bit what they can do with a setting, so it does not necessarily have to compete anymore. They need to focus on what role a setting places in the larger game. So "typical D&D" looks a lot like Forgotten Realms. Dark Sun is "Post-Apocalyptic D&D". Ravenloft is "Gothic-Horror D&D". Eberron is either "Film Noir D&D" or "Pulp D&D". Genre becomes the focus, as a means of changing what the feel of D&D will be for a game, and as a means of explaining that setting to a new player. They have an idea of what they want to do with Eberron, but a lot of it just comes down to doing it right, so they take the time to make sure that when it comes out it will feel like a definitive book. They don't want it to be a "product line". They never want you to buy a book and need anything more than the core three books to use it. So if they ever put out one Eberron book and then a second one, the second one would not assume you owned the first one. And they always want you to use most of a book they put out, rather than just a small part of it. And they want you to be able to pick up a setting book and use it right away rather than spend a lot of time on preparation.

[This marks the half way point of the session]

Big survey coming out next week on Adventurers League. They want to bring the League into the 21st century and more friendly to a new audience.

On Forgotten Realms novels: They feel the novel business is very tricky, and they are a game company. They're not necessarily good at novels business. They don't have a good plan for novels, and they do not have a novel publishing expert on their team right now. It's not something they say they will never do again, it's just not their focus this year. They would consider a partnership, but they're not looking for it.

On Planescape and the other settings: They have a rough draft cosmological ties for how all the settings could come back and fit together and have products, including even Spelljammer and Dark Sun and Eberron and Greyhawk. They want to make sure for each setting product, they assume this is the first time you're seeing that setting, and not require prior knowledge of it.

In terms of story lines, they don't plan on doing a story line that lasts multiple products like Tiamat did, at least not right now. They didn't have the product mix down pat during the Tiamat two book adventures. They have a better sense now of how long it takes a DM to get trough content. They also found two adventure big books a year was too much, and many DMs were not keeping up. The Adventurer's League content is intended to expanding the Adventure content for those minority number of groups that can absorb two big adventures a year or more.

[This marks the 45 min mark]

Subclass feats are likely not in the future from the WOTC team, as it's took fine a level of detail. New subclasses are in the future, and new classes and races probably well.

The PHB is selling so well they're afraid to make any changes to the PHB...not even changing the index or footers which they want to badly do and know needs to be done. They would consider posting a better Index online though for people to print.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mercule

Adventurer
Nothing stops a DM from limiting anything in their game: the DMG spends a lot of time on the topic.
There are ways to present "game lore" that make this easier and ways that make it harder.

I'm pretty clear, to my players, that I'm a world builder, as a GM and that I'm totally comfortable banning certain races, classes, monsters, etc. if they don't work within the confines of a given custom setting. This is how I've done things for 35 or so years. Sometime during 3E, there started to be a lot more friction with this. It seems to be mostly the new players, but there's a lot more explaining that needs to be done and a lot more assumption about things. Part of that is the coalescence (spell-check offered "convalescence", fittingly enough) around the Realms and that lore. I'd say that Mearls, in particular, has a way of painting the lore a bit too heavy-handed, even when he's trying to be setting neutral.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
What does support mean, here?

It mostly seems to mean publish stuff that gives voice to the multiverse. It's not about mechanics, after all - 3E had mechanics for the multiverse (in MoP and DDG); and 4e had the same (in the MoP, which included mechanics for the Great Wheel).

Yes, essentially. 3E deemphasized the multiverse, but never explicitly disaffirmed it either: even some of us who started in 3E we're still working under that framework because it was out there, in video games (Planescape: Torment was a very influential game, for instance), older books and oral tradition (not to be underestimated in the TTRPG community).

4E made the decision to explicitly endorse a new specific metasetting approach that invalidated what folks had been using previously: then the knives came out.

5E revived a 2E style multiverse, which has been well received.

The common thread here is not the community changing, but WotC's approach: from indifference to what people are doing, to rejecting what people are doing, and to finally embracing what people are doing. But I haven't seen any change in what people are doing.

That's the distinction between publishing stuff which can be rendered multiversal, and affirming the multiverse, that I mentioned in an earlier post.

There's a strong desire, in the market, for certain story elements not only to be published, but to be official/"canon".

"Canon" is a malleable term here, since folks also do want to make it theirs. But couching the individual table in an infinite, comic book-esque multiverse...lots of fun.

EDIT: I think this can be seen in [MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION]'s post just above mine.

I also have to admit that, reading what Sword of Spirit quotes, my first interpretation would be that "the multiverse" here is a type of metagame conceit - ie there is a "multiverse" of D&D games and gameworld, some published by WotC and most created by players for their own games, and together these constitute the "worlds" of D&D, somewhat analogously to the ways in which a body of works might constitute an artistic school or movement.

But I wouldn't naturally interpret this concept of a "multiverse" as having in-fiction meaning, such that the default assumption is that the world of my D&D games is part of the same (imagined) cosmos as the world of (say) Parmandur's. The link between my gameworlds and Parmandur's is a metagame link - we use our worlds for the purposes of playing (more-or-less) similar fantasy RPGs. But that isn't a property of the worlds themselves within the fiction.

I don't see why you wouldn't naturally interpret the multiverse that way, since the books affirm that option if so desired. Anything goes, and can go anywhere and anywhen.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
There are ways to present "game lore" that make this easier and ways that make it harder.

I'm pretty clear, to my players, that I'm a world builder, as a GM and that I'm totally comfortable banning certain races, classes, monsters, etc. if they don't work within the confines of a given custom setting. This is how I've done things for 35 or so years. Sometime during 3E, there started to be a lot more friction with this. It seems to be mostly the new players, but there's a lot more explaining that needs to be done and a lot more assumption about things. Part of that is the coalescence (spell-check offered "convalescence", fittingly enough) around the Realms and that lore. I'd say that Mearls, in particular, has a way of painting the lore a bit too heavy-handed, even when he's trying to be setting neutral.
As someone who started with 3E, I would say it has less to do with the Forgotten Realms, and more viewing D&D itself as a setting, with the Great Wheel, Sigil, the Prime Material and all that jazz. Playing with restrictions like that is completely valid, but it might be viewed by many as running a Shadowrun game and banning hacking, or Traveller and cutting out space travel as an option: you can do it, but many players might not want that set-up.
 

pemerton

Legend
The common thread here is not the community changing, but WotC's approach: from indifference to what people are doing, to rejecting what people are doing, and to finally embracing what people are doing.
Publishing something isn't rejecting what someone else is doing, just because that someone else is doing something different from what you publish.

I don't see why you wouldn't naturally interpret the multiverse that way, since the books affirm that option if so desired. Anything goes, and can go anywhere and anywhen.
Again, "anything goes" is a metagame notion - there is no limit on what a D&D game can include. But I wouldn't take it to entail that any given gameworld contains all of Elric, and all of Middle Earth, and all of Arthurian Britain, and all of the Journey to the West, and . . .
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Publishing something isn't rejecting what someone else is doing, just because that someone else is doing something different from what you publish.

Again, "anything goes" is a metagame notion - there is no limit on what a D&D game can include. But I wouldn't take it to entail that any given gameworld contains all of Elric, and all of Middle Earth, and all of Arthurian Britain, and all of the Journey to the West, and . . .

Perhaps "rejecting" isn't the right term: perhaps instead read "being of no use for what people are doing."

Any given gameworld could, though: and that's D&D for you.
 

pemerton

Legend
Perhaps "rejecting" isn't the right term: perhaps instead read "being of no use for what people are doing."
I think there is both a descriptive element (your "of no use . . .") and a type of normative element. But I don't think the normative element is about "rejecting", so much as a type of affirmation of a certain "canon" (noting your caveats about canon, but ploughing ahead anyway). Officialness seems very important to a certain segment of the D&D market.

Any given gameworld could, though: and that's D&D for you.
Agreed. But could doesn't entail does. That might seem a pedantic point, but I think it's actually pretty fundamental to understanding the fault lines around the multiverse, canon, the status/importance of GM worldbuilding, etc.
 

Uchawi

First Post
For new players I imagine a typical D&D is the forgotten realms, for anyone that has played it gets more complicated based on what setting introduced you or which one you prefer. To limit it to genres is not doing a service for a specific setting. As to smaller budgets, less staff, etc. a slow approach makes sense for developing new material.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
As someone who started with 3E, I would say it has less to do with the Forgotten Realms, and more viewing D&D itself as a setting, with the Great Wheel, Sigil, the Prime Material and all that jazz. Playing with restrictions like that is completely valid, but it might be viewed by many as running a Shadowrun game and banning hacking, or Traveller and cutting out space travel as an option: you can do it, but many players might not want that set-up.
I hear what you're saying. I don't lay it entirely at the feet of the Realms -- in fact, the Realms may be more a symptom than a cause.

To me, as someone who learned with BECMI (before all the letters were there) and then migrated to AD&D shortly before the original UA was published, the idea of D&D as being/having anything resembling a cohesive "core" setting is absurd. Yes, "D&Disms" abound, but the system is a settingless as Savage Worlds, Fantasy Hero, or GURPS. It has a genre and some quirky convensions, but no inherent setting.

I'd even go so far as to say that having a "core" setting is almost anathema to the game's purpose. One of the main reasons I keep coming back to D&D is because it's a toolkit that gives me a bunch of standard building blocks that can be used for whatever I want to do with the setting I create. Many games offer better sets of rules (more customization, more "realism", whatever) but lack in some area of the tool set (few monsters, incomplete magic system, etc.).

Yes, I could ignore the D&D meta-verse, and just do what I've always done. To a certain extent, I'm already doing that in ignoring all the FR content. At a certain point, it becomes, as you say, using Shadowrun rules without the setting (say, for a fantasy game). You can't tell people you're playing Shadowrun and have them actually get the message you're trying to send. Telling people "Let's play D&D" has generally meant "Let's play a fantasy game with a set of assumptions," but the setting wasn't one of those assumptions. As D&D approaches the point where "Let's play D&D" carries info about the setting, it stops relating what I want it to relate. That's a problem.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I think there is both a descriptive element (your "of no use . . .") and a type of normative element. But I don't think the normative element is about "rejecting", so much as a type of affirmation of a certain "canon" (noting your caveats about canon, but ploughing ahead anyway). Officialness seems very important to a certain segment of the D&D market.

Say what you will about the actual changes, the 4E marketing line was very blunt about the Novus Ordo Cosmica being normative, and aggressively so. 3E de jure deemphasized what remained de facto normative, but with 4E they found changing facts on the ground to be a tall order. 5E acknowledges and provides material for what is in reality normative play, while managing to still validate alternative playstyles. A pretty neat threading of the needle, really.

Agreed. But could doesn't entail does. That might seem a pedantic point, but I think it's actually pretty fundamental to understanding the fault lines around the multiverse, canon, the status/importance of GM worldbuilding, etc.

"Could," "does" are fine distinctions in theory: for most tables in actual play, "is" fits the bill, apparently. And I agree that is very important to understanding the fault lines, and WotC commercial offerings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
When they do Planescape, my personal guess is what Volo’s Guide is to the Monster Manual, that book would be to the Manual of the Planes. It will fill the same sort of role, but in a reimagined and heavily flavored way. Which I would be overjoyed with, so maybe there’s some wishful thinking. :)
I agree that’s the way to go. It’s the best way to kick off exploring other settings.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top