D&D 5E Mike Mearls states on Twitter hardcover adventures now annual releases

[TwoSix]

Talk is cheap.

Absolutely. That's why they continue to not spend the lack of money it requires to do it.

And why should they go out and confirm "we're officially pooping on your favorite setting"? That just makes no sense.

Agreed. That's why they'll continue to discuss the settings as part of the greater D&D concept, but not publish anything to support them.

But continuing to acknowledge and just talking about is a far cry from actively supporting a setting through a complete game line, with a campaign gazetteer followed by various adventures and setting-specific splat books. You know, like D&D used to be.

Of course. I think we can all acknowledge that settings, as a D&D publishing goal, are dead. I'm not making a judgment on whether that's good or bad, it's simply what the evidence tells us.

 

[Parmandur]

I'll just make the observation that several folks on the D&D team have suggested they are planning to provide support for other campaign worlds, but that because they wanted to 'do it right' they were taking their time with rolling out that support. The comments have been vague but not evasive (in my opinion). They have some plan. I suspect they think it's clever. They have surprised me before (OGL for example). So, I think it might be premature to assume they are not going to delve into other campaign settings.

Will it be enough for everybody? Will it take a form that people consider adequate? Probably not. I doubt we'll have a series of separate campaign setting books, or even gazetteers. But I think we'll be seeing something substantial in the next couple years.

And for those looking for an example of these comments, there have been a number (most of which I am way too lazy to dig up). But the latest has been in Nathan Stewart's 'fireside chats' (actually had a fireplace last time). In both of them, on the topic of other campaign settings, he said they had plans to support other settings. However, he said this support would not happen on a timeline that made everyone happy. So we probably have awhile to wait.

AD

Well, they've already semi-open-sourced the Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft: wouldn't be surprised if we see more of that.

 

[Parmandur]

Absolutely. That's why they continue to not spend the lack of money it requires to do it.

Agreed. That's why they'll continue to discuss the settings as part of the greater D&D concept, but not publish anything to support them.

Of course. I think we can all acknowledge that settings, as a D&D publishing goal, are dead. I'm not making a judgment on whether that's good or bad, it's simply what the evidence tells us.

I love campaign settings a s a work of art: but they don't seem to be great business.

 

[Jester David]

It's a false dilemma. D&D can't be turned into a movie any more than the Unreal Engine could be turned into a movie. It's a vehicle/medium, not a story or setting of its own. Yes, D&D has some flavorful tools in the bag, but that's not the same thing.

Please refer to the Clue, Battleship, and Ouiji movies.
Or any of the many toys that have become movies or TV shows like Transformers, He-Man, My Little Pony and more.

The "story" of something like MLP is that there are multicloured ponies, unicorns, and pegasi with silly names and marks on their flanks related to said names. Everything else is added to that mythology...

 

[Parmandur]

Please refer to the Clue, Battleship, and Ouiji movies.
Or any of the many toys that have become movies or TV shows like Transformers, He-Man, My Little Pony and more.

The "story" of something like MLP is that there are multicloured ponies, unicorns, and pegasi with silly names and marks on their flanks related to said names. Everything else is added to that mythology...

Dungeons & Dragons makes many thousands of times more sense than any of those, because at least story is involved.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'll just make the observation that several folks on the D&D team have suggested they are planning to provide support for other campaign worlds, but that because they wanted to 'do it right' they were taking their time with rolling out that support. The comments have been vague but not evasive (in my opinion). They have some plan. I suspect they think it's clever. They have surprised me before (OGL for example). So, I think it might be premature to assume they are not going to delve into other campaign settings.

Will it be enough for everybody? Will it take a form that people consider adequate? Probably not. I doubt we'll have a series of separate campaign setting books, or even gazetteers. But I think we'll be seeing something substantial in the next couple years.

And for those looking for an example of these comments, there have been a number (most of which I am way too lazy to dig up). But the latest has been in Nathan Stewart's 'fireside chats' (actually had a fireplace last time). In both of them, on the topic of other campaign settings, he said they had plans to support other settings. However, he said this support would not happen on a timeline that made everyone happy. So we probably have awhile to wait.

AD

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

 

[Mercule]

You come across as explaining this to me as if I haven't read the thread or participated in the discussions...

Giving you the benefit of the doubt: no, I did not genuinely wonder what D&D was. It was a rhetorical question, a literary technique.

Yeah. I know you've been around the block a couple times. I assumed you'd take it in stride, since you called it out as a rhetorical exercise.

Even if you didn't actually intend on me taking you up on the explanation, I did so because it helps frame things. IMO, part of the definition of D&D is that it isn't tied to any particular setting -- it's a medium, not a story.

 

[Mercule]

Sorry. I'd meant to include this in my initial response. Not sure where it got dropped.

Note: I am not saying D&D = Realms nor am I supportive of that notion. I am merely wondering how it is possible to unsee the evidence this is the direction of Hasbro's greater plans for the brand. Everything released so far is geared towards herding the greater D&D audience into a single setting (with any exceptions so minor they don't bear mentioning). Us actual role-players is but a financial blip on those plans. Even if they do publish a Planescape:ish hardback collecting summaries/overviews of the other major settings (expect coverage on par with SCAG, i.e. a far cry from what we really want) won't change what I believe is their clear direction; it will merely be a feint to appease their most vocal critics.

I don't think I can unsee the evidence. I'm more processing and evaluating it. WotC continues to make vague noises about other settings that keep me just this side of throwing up my hands. I guess I just consider driving everyone towards a single setting to be so antithetical to what D&D is that some part of me won't actually accept it until it's explicit.

WotC seems to have mastered the art of boiling frogs. Right now, I'm still in the pot and shouting for them to turn down the bathwater. On the other hand, I'm also actively encouraging the other frogs (i.e. my group) to move to a different pot (Fate or Savage Worlds). One or the other is going to have to give.

The core rules may be sufficient to play the game, but part of the fun of D&D has always been the huge menu of options (though 3.5 was too much of a good thing). If I have to build all my own options because I stop buying the WotC books due to the Realms being baked in, I might as well go to a generic system.

 

[Jester David]

The core rules may be sufficient to play the game, but part of the fun of D&D has always been the huge menu of options (though 3.5 was too much of a good thing). If I have to build all my own options because I stop buying the WotC books due to the Realms being baked in, I might as well go to a generic system.

We're rapidly approaching a huge menu of options. Once XGtE gets released, most of the classes with have double the number of options.

The difference now is that WotC is trying to release that full edition of options over five years rather than eighteen months. Because that's one of the three viable options: fast release schedule followed by "too much of a good thing", slow release schedule, or fast release schedule followed by ending the line not releasing any more books.

 

[TwoSix]

The core rules may be sufficient to play the game, but part of the fun of D&D has always been the huge menu of options (though 3.5 was too much of a good thing). If I have to build all my own options because I stop buying the WotC books due to the Realms being baked in, I might as well go to a generic system.

Or go third-party. WotC is far from having a monopoly on good 5e material. If you need specific setting material to keep your interest, than of course you're correct in being displeased.