D&D 5E Musings on the likelihood of future products

[Snarf Zagyg]

Magic recently tapped into a Hasbro Godzilla licensing deal to print honest to goodness Godzilla Magic cards: it would not surprise me if we saw something like that for D&D in the future, particularly after the Rick & Morty success. I'd kill for a Zelda Setting book...

mmmm.....

I don't know how I feel about that sort of "crossing the streams." In my mind's eye, I see Bill Lumbergh ...

Hello Snarf, what's happening? Ummm, I'm gonna need you to go ahead come in tomorrow so we can discuss cross-licensing and synergy. So if you could be here around 9 that would be great, mmmk... oh oh! and I almost forgot ahh, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday too, kay, because synergy requires at least two days.

D&D is its own, weird little thing.

Sometimes you get two great things that are great separate, and together, like peanut butter and chocolate.

Other times, it's more like orange juice and brushing your teeth- both great, just not together.

I'd rather they concentrate on making more D&D stuff than bringing Godzilla and Zelda into D&D.

 

[Aaron L]

I kinda wish Hasbro could do a cross-licensing deal with Mattel so we could get a Masters of the Universe D&D setting...

You could already get most of the way there by just using the sci-fi weapons rules in the DMG, but you would need some kind of rules for building PCs with the odd unique MotU character powers, like a Ram-Man or a Fisto or a Mechanek.

[Edited to add: I suppose they could do a Visionaries setting? But that just wouldn't be nearly the same... ]

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, but I was wondering if anyone understood why it was so unpopular? I thought it was all utterly fantastic and, like I said, I am baffled as to why so many people wouldn't like it. It seems bizarre to me.

Well, what the most recent Psionics UA said was:

"In 2017 [really, 2015-2017 in several iterations], we experimented with an unofficial character class—the mystic—focused on psionic powers. Through its features and subclasses, the mystic allowed you to create a character who echoed the abilities of other classes in the game but with a psionic twist. As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic, feedback was also clear that the class encroached on other classes’ territory and that it was often too complex, too powerful, or both."

"Following that feedback, we’ve decided to say farewell to the mystic and explore other ways of giving players psi-themed powers, as we did with the features of the Great Old One warlock in the Player’s Handbook."

We've known since 2018 that the Mystic was dead, and in 2018 what Mearls said was that people didn't like how different from the standard rules it was, and a large number of DMs said they wouldn't allow it at their table if a player asked. So part of their quest is to find a Psionics ruleset that will be accepted.

 

[Aaron L]

Well, what the most recent Psionics UA said was:

"In 2017 [really, 2015-2017 in several iterations], we experimented with an unofficial character class—the mystic—focused on psionic powers. Through its features and subclasses, the mystic allowed you to create a character who echoed the abilities of other classes in the game but with a psionic twist. As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic, feedback was also clear that the class encroached on other classes’ territory and that it was often too complex, too powerful, or both."

"Following that feedback, we’ve decided to say farewell to the mystic and explore other ways of giving players psi-themed powers, as we did with the features of the Great Old One warlock in the Player’s Handbook."

We've known since 2018 that the Mystic was dead, and in 2018 what Mearls said was that people didn't like how different from the standard rules it was, and a large number of DMs said they wouldn't allow it at their table if a player asked. So part of their quest is to find a Psionics ruleset that will be accepted.

Makes me a sad panda.

 

[Parmandur]

mmmm.....

I don't know how I feel about that sort of "crossing the streams." In my mind's eye, I see Bill Lumbergh ...

Hello Snarf, what's happening? Ummm, I'm gonna need you to go ahead come in tomorrow so we can discuss cross-licensing and synergy. So if you could be here around 9 that would be great, mmmk... oh oh! and I almost forgot ahh, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday too, kay, because synergy requires at least two days.

D&D is its own, weird little thing.

Sometimes you get two great things that are great separate, and together, like peanut butter and chocolate.

Other times, it's more like orange juice and brushing your teeth- both great, just not together.

I'd rather they concentrate on making more D&D stuff than bringing Godzilla and Zelda into D&D.

On the contrary, crossing more streams, is more better.

 

[Parmandur]

Makes me a sad panda.

Yeah,I mean, it would have been fine as a published option. But I really appreciate the hard line they are taking to publishing new options.

 

[SkidAce]

Somebody clearly skipped the Dragon Age games, Dark Souls, Dragon's Dogma, and so on. It's hard to get more directly D&D-inspired than Dragon's Dogma. That said if they could get an Ivalice setting book licensed that would definitely turn a few heads.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

On the contrary, crossing more streams, is more better.

Not to denigrate remix culture (which is awesome), but on a fundamental level, the re-use of IP in this manner deprives us of new IP.

In other words, the reason there is a Zelda to begin with (and this is before getting into licensing issues) is because someone created something new instead of just saying, "Eh, let's just license some other property."

D&D not only has a ton of property to explore, it can still create new stuff. That's not to say that we won't see the occasional "Rick & Morty" one-off, but the short-term boost you get from using recognized names ("Look, they have a Dua Lipa edition Adventure Path! Now that's some future nostaliga!") sacrifices the long-term integrity and growth of the brand.

IMO.

 

[SkidAce]

Much as I like Planescape and Dark Sun, their popularity outside of guys in their 40s-50s who still use the word "module" even though WotC stopped using it 20 years ago is minimal....

/feels attacked
/runs out of forum crying

 

[Parmandur]

Much as I like Planescape and Dark Sun, their popularity outside of guys in their 40s-50s who still use the word "module" even though WotC stopped using it 20 years ago is minimal - and even in their heyday, these settings were not very successful financially. The fact that this board overwhelmingly consists of that demographic could lead one to believe there is a demand for those settings, but WotC's market research doesn't bear that out. Each has a Gen X cult following but not a growing fanbase.

Exandria is the money setting right now. Nothing they release in 2020 will outsell the Wildemount book. If they don't release more Exandria stuff, including a hardcover adventure, they will have dropped the ball. And I'm not saying that because I particularly want Exandria stuff; it's just that it's very clearly the best business move they could make right now. WAY ahead of Planescape, Dark Sun, or Spelljammer.

Kara-Tur or any iteration of "Oriental Adventures" is a PR disaster waiting to happen for them unless they hire a team of Asian creators to make it. Otherwise I'm sure they'll have the common sense to avoid it.

This isn't really accurate. WotC has said consistently that Dark Sun and Planescape are top tier in popularity from their surveys, and they have more cache and legs with younger people than you may think. Planescape: Torment just got rereleased on consoles, even.