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.

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

pemerton

Legend
It's easier to take a default metasetting out in a home game than to put it in, so WotC serves the greater need.
I don't think "need" is the right concept - anyone who wants to run a "multiverse" game can do so using pre-existing material.

I think it's about market demand.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I don't think "need" is the right concept - anyone who wants to run a "multiverse" game can do so using pre-existing material.

I think it's about market demand.
Well, certainly: the market gets what the market demands. And the Great Wheel, everything is connected multiverse is the one folks were given throughout TSR era. One of the major disconnects between WotC and the players, pre-Next, seems to have been that people kept playing in the 2E multiverse, even though WotC did little to support it, and WotC didn't realize until they moved explicitly against it in 4E.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
....and they(wotc) invented the concept of the RPG/IP tie-in novel to begin with.........
Quag Keep. Dragonlance, hmm Nah. Wotc invented the concept.
 


Sword of Spirit is wrong (reading the DMG....particularly Chapter 1 and even Chapter 2 will verify this) but if you are playing "official canonical D&D" or whatever I guess you could argue that WotC's default universe implies FR and the other places do co-exist, linked by the planes. But again, the DMG provides extensive tools and advice on building universes that have nothing to do with any of that so YMMV.

Specific evidence would be useful. Here's some:

"WORLDS OF ADVENTURE
...
The worlds of the Dungeons & Dragons game exist within a vast cosmos called the multiverse, connected in strange and mysterious ways to one another and to other planes of existence, such as the Elemental Plane of Fire and the Infinite Depths of the Abyss. Within this multiverse are an endless variety of worlds. Many of them have been published as official settings for the D&D game. The legends of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, and Eberron settings are woven together in the fabric of the multiverse. Alongside these worlds are hundreds of thousands more, created by generations of D&D players for their own games. And amid all the richness of the multiverse, you might create a world of your own." (emphasis in original) - PHB 5

"THE GREAT WHEEL
The default cosmological arrangement presented in the Player's Handbook visualizes the planes as a group of concentric circles..." (emphasis mine) - DMG 44

Of course, they make it clear that you are encouraged to do whatever you want for you home game, as evidenced by rules for creating your own version of the multiverse (Chapter 2 DMG), and statements that your version of the official settings might differ from the published versions (multiple places). Here's one you might like:

"But if your campaign takes place on one of these world [examples of the official ones were given immediately prior to text], it belongs to your DM--you might imagine it as one of thousands of parallel versions of the world, which might diverge wildly from the published versions." - PHB 300

I never claimed otherwise.

What I claimed is that they have said that it is true (by default and officially of course--how could they claim what is true for our homebrew games?) that all of these worlds exist within the same multiverse, which I have now provided explicit textual evidence for.

I'm not sure what else we could validly expect from them. They've given us guidelines for creating our own multiverses, they've given us an official default inclusive multiverse, they've told us that it can be interpreted--in setting--in different ways on different worlds, and as bonuses they've told us that our own versions of published worlds are parallel versions that might differ (which is a neat little edition which allows you feel like you are still using the default multiverse even if your elves are short old-school like), and they've even implied that our homebrew worlds that we choose to set in the multiverse semi-officially count as part of it the same as published settings.

Anything else would be catering to our individual whims at the expense of providing good options for others.
 

pemerton

Legend
One of the major disconnects between WotC and the players, pre-Next, seems to have been that people kept playing in the 2E multiverse, even though WotC did little to support it, and WotC didn't realize until they moved explicitly against it in 4E.
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).

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".

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Specific evidence would be useful. Here's some:

-snip-

Anything else would be catering to our individual whims at the expense of providing good options for others.

I'm not sure you and I have a beef. But your original post had some other poster (no time to dig) spiralling out the deep end on the idea that he was locked in to some perceptually limited view from WotC of the game. My point to him was that the interpretation you provided in that post didn't jive (and by inference, for him to stop freaking out)....as your own example cited demonstrates. I have no issues here myself, D&D does what I want it to and I have no confusion about that.
 

....and they(wotc) invented the concept of the RPG/IP tie-in novel to begin with.........
Quag Keep. Dragonlance, hmm Nah. Wotc invented the concept.

Well that is true, But Quag Keep was not a marketed IP written specifically as a tie-in. It was an author writing from the point of reference of the gaming world she liked/experienced and then getting it published. I read Quag Keep ages ago and did not even realize it's history until decades later, but I was never confused about what the first Dragonlance and FR novels were intended for.

Hell, Quag Keep is more like fascinating hidden history than anything else. But what it wasn't was a published and commissioned novel from TSR.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Well that is true, But Quag Keep was not a marketed IP written specifically as a tie-in. It was an author writing from the point of reference of the gaming world she liked/experienced and then getting it published. I read Quag Keep ages ago and did not even realize it's history until decades later, but I was never confused about what the first Dragonlance and FR novels were intended for.

Hell, Quag Keep is more like fascinating hidden history than anything else. But what it wasn't was a published and commissioned novel from TSR.
Thieves world books, thieves game.
Star Trek Show, star trek books,Star trek cartoon, Star Fleet Battles.
Hot Wheels, Hot Wheels cartoon.
Star Wars movies, Star Wars Christmas Special, Star Wars comics. Of course Lucas then started the multiple canon stuff.
I think Wotc was late to party about IP tie ins
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I don't think "need" is the right concept - anyone who wants to run a "multiverse" game can do so using pre-existing material.
But but I want the complete book of left hand spell cosmic caster, castes, cases, and cooks book. It must be "official" and "canon" or my players will cry. You could write the cross over were Tasselholf, meets the Hoff, Nexlix the Iron chief on the Planet of Sand witches.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top