D&D 5E WotC to increase releases per year?

[embee]

I just want a more "starter" style boxes to help onboard fans. I don't need them (but if I like the story I may get them) but Stranger Things and Rick&Morty helped bring friends into the game.

I expect one for the movie and could even so one for the major video game properties. Also, get them into Costco please.

WOTC also wants more Starter Boxes.

They hit a home run with LMoP, both financially and critically. And, the upside of the pandemic is that, when playing online, everyone is going to want, at the very least, their own copy of the PHB.

I could even see veterans as being a potential liability. I mean, sure, they may buy every rule supplement but what about the modules? Part of the "problem" with the DMG is that it contains a pretty good how-to on homebrew.

 

[darjr]

From I hear Target is asking for more things for their shelves. And other retailers. Starter boxes, sure. But what else?

 

[Oofta]

From I hear Target is asking for more things for their shelves. And other retailers. Starter boxes, sure. But what else?

Maybe more boxed sets and/or board games? Versions of the game aimed towards younger kids?

There are a lot of options.

 

[Faolyn]

Maybe more boxed sets and/or board games? Versions of the game aimed towards younger kids?

There are a lot of options.

A new version of the Dungeon board game?

 

[darjr]

It’s still in print.

 

[teitan]

Disagree. I like the demon-worshipping gnolls story.

Me too, I mean their patron god, their creator, is a demon who snacks on people until he purges and then snacks some more. I don't mind the break away concept like a Driz'zt but that they have corrupted blood and it finally made gnolls something other than reskinned Orcs/Hobgoblins/Bugbears. It gave them meaning. There is 100% nothing wrong with that and it's metal as hell.

 

[teitan]

I don't have a problem with demon-worshipping gnolls. What I don't like is the creation of gnolls by a demon being presented as fact rather than faith.

A bunch of gnolls who believe they were created by a demon lord and seek to emulate that demon lord is cool. Saying it's true just seems really lazy. I have just as big an objection to the relationship between elves and Corellon whatsisname, orcs and Gruumsh, and similar cases.

It makes sense that elves are commonly taught a given creation myth, and orcsn and gnolls as well. But I really don't like making those myths literal historical events.

5e is trying hard to appease people who don't like D&D alignment, but at the same time baking alignment-based concepts onto various creatures and setups. It's an unfortunate mix.

I mean sure but the book is presenting the Forgotten Realms lore, it IS Volo and Mordenkainen is ON Faerun now. Faerun and Oerth have a LOT of crossover as well and at least in the case of the Realms the gods are extremely hands on, the people know they are real and therefore the stories and myths are real. We know Lolth exists, we know Corellon exists. Yeenoghu has invaded Faerun. So it's not "myth". Yes, I am aware these books contradict previous lore in the Realms but these aren't written by Greenwood and the common argument is... it's your world, use what you like. All the other campaign settings have different origin stories for these beings, the gnolls, orcs etc. Forgotten Realms is just the default assumption in non-campaign setting books. Run with it, or don't. Use what you like, everything is optional.

 

[teitan]

It's not a lazy story, it's just not a story to your liking. Which is fine, it's certainly a change to the "gnoll story" from earlier editions, even though the demon-worshipping part was added in 3E.

Nope, 1e Yeenoghu was a demon lord and patron of Gnolls and Ghouls.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nope, 1e Yeenoghu was a demon lord and patron of Gnolls and Ghouls.

There was also a Gnoll deity. Some Gnolls followed him not all. And they weren't demon spawn.

 

[teitan]

I think it is a lot easier for something like "Oriental Adventures" (they certainly would not call it that) to slide into the region of cultural appropriation, even if the book itself is thoroughly well researched with an army of diverse sensitivity readers. The fact is, it's going to be kind of weird to walk into a game store or convention and see a table of middle aged white dudes pretending to be samurai. I don't claim to know at what point it starts being offensive, but I am sure there is a line.

How is it different from a video game where you play a Samurai? I see no difference. It's context, is it sexy Indian princess Samurai or is it cool fantasy samurai or is it historically authentic samurai? The first is indeed problematic because it is disrespectful (but then Anime does sexy samurai princess all the time too), the second is cool and appropriate and the third is also cool and appropriate. One of the most popular games of the last 30 years IS a game where you play Samurai, Ninjas etc and no one bats an eyelash at it. Legend of the Five Rings. So... why is it any different than that to play a 5e version of a Samurai?