D&D 5E Settings played in D&D: cause or effect?

[delericho]

But he is using a percentage of a percentage which isn't good.

Only if the numbers are wrong. Do we have any actual data to suggest that?

Also what happens when you expose all these new people to something different than the Forgotten Realms?

It seems you get a spike in sales for a few months, and then they go back to what they know. At least, that's what happened when they released Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Birthright, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Eberron.

 

[delericho]

They have a cost saving strategy they want to implement and these surveys are a way of making people who don't agree with feel like they are in a minority which in turn causes them just to accept it and move on.

But that's the rub: those of us who want any supported setting other than FR should just accept we're not getting it and move on.

It doesn't actually matter why WotC are doing what they're doing, whether it's what the sales numbers sell, or because they're consolidating to FR for ease of licensing, or because they've been put on life-support, or because CP and MM secretly hate all other settings, or because it's a vendetta against the fans, or because they're doing it just to annoy you personally.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that they won't be supporting these other settings for some years to come, and we're not going to change that. I might (indeed, I do) want Eberron and Dark Sun support, but beyond the occasional Unearthed Arcana article it really doesn't look like it's coming.

And it's a good thing that they're making no bones about this - it means that those of us who want a supported non-FR setting know what we need to do: look elsewhere.

 

[Maxperson]

What the poll says as that the majority are not playing in the Realms.

Also, that FR is now regarded (at least by quite a few people in this thread) as some generic setting both amuses and saddens me. Amusing because of the effort some fans have put into explaining how rich and unique it is; sad because there's hardly anything like it anywhere outside D&D and it shows just how far from 'normal' fantasy D&D has moved that people will claim it.

It was pretty clear from his context that he was speaking about the non-home brewed settings. Among those, a large majority are playing the Realms.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I prefer home brew to most pre-fab settings. I hate it when players who have read umpteen different FR/Dragonlance/et al novels proceed to lecture the DM on the world they're inhabiting. A home brew also extends itself more to the DM customizing the world to their players' wants.

 

[Maxperson]

I prefer home brew to most pre-fab settings. I hate it when players who have read umpteen different FR/Dragonlance/et al novels proceed to lecture the DM on the world they're inhabiting. A home brew also extends itself more to the DM customizing the world to their players' wants.

That never happens to me. I just explain that I am basing it in the Realms, but I change things. As a result, they know not to lecture me over differences. Also, because I do change things and because the Realms are so diverse, I can customize the game to the players' wants very, very easily.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Only if the numbers are wrong. Do we have any actual data to suggest that?



It seems you get a spike in sales for a few months, and then they go back to what they know. At least, that's what happened when they released Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Birthright, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Eberron.

You don't need data to know that.

Did everyone who plays D&D do the survey? No they didn't.

It's the same as an election. If only 25% of the population of the country actually vote then 75% of the 25% vote for A while 25% vote for B then you can only go by who actually vote but you can't sit there and claim that it's clear who the country wants. No it's clear of those who actually voted who they want.

There is a big difference.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I'm fairly confused at the complaints over players lecturing the DM. I've heard it a lot in the past, though never seen it in play, and only now am I really noticing how weird a complaint that it is. Honestly, a player lecturing the DM about anything would be a problem; here it sounds like a player problem, not a setting problem.

It would also kind of be a problem if the DM was lecturing the players, I guess, but to a different degree.

I once played in a Legend of the 5 Rings game. The GM and a couple of the other players knew the setting really well. The GM would mention that we were meeting some NPC, and wait for the knowledgable players to gasp with shock. I'd always be sitting there thinking, "Who dafuq is that? Why do I care?" Is this a setting problem, or is it a problem with how the game is presented?

 

[delericho]

You don't need data to know that.

Did everyone who plays D&D do the survey? No they didn't.

It's the same as an election. If only 25% of the population of the country actually vote then 75% of the 25% vote for A while 25% vote for B then you can only go by who actually vote but you can't sit there and claim that it's clear who the country wants. No it's clear of those who actually voted who they want.

There is a big difference.

Do we have any actual data to suggest they're wrong?

 

[Corpsetaker]

Do we have any actual data to suggest they're wrong?

You aren't asking a legitimate question.

Do you have evidence of their information gathering techniques?

 

[delericho]

You aren't asking a legitimate question.

Sure I am. Look, you could be right about everything you say. Or, indeed, both you and CP could be completely wrong about the topic. But without data, all you have is unsupported opinion.

And if you want me to weigh up the evidence, then on one hand we have the guy whose livelihood depends on D&D doing well and who has access to WotC's market research, and on the other we have some guy on the internet. I'm sorry, but unless you have something solid to offer, you lose.