WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Remathilis]

They should definitely dump the real-world gods. Even the really old ones like the Sumerian gods. What I would do is make up a new pantheon or two and use them to fill up the book space that opened up when the real gods get removed.

Ironically, the Gods (or Powers, as the Cagers call them) weren't a big part of Planescape. The Greeks and Norse and all the Deities and Demigods powers are out there, but they didn't factor much into the day to day life of the setting. You could easily say "the planes are where the Powers live" and never say which powers live where. If you need examples, D&D has all the Oerth, Faerun, Krynn and Monstrous powers to use at will. You don't need to say if the Celts are out there or not.

 

[Lanefan]

@Snarf Zagyg has spent reems of e-paper arguing that Greyhawk needs a new book to promote visibility. If the setting is to have players that aren't drawing pensions, a new book is needed to get it out in the public's consciousness again. I agree. After 30 years, how many people even remember Birthright was ever a setting, let alone played it? However, there is no way WotC isn't going to make changes to it. So we have the terms.

They could put out a new Greyhawk book (or something smaller, the size of an adventure module) that updates the setting to 5e mechanics but which merely repeats or restates the existing lore without advancing or overly changing any of it.

Ditto for Birthright, Mystara, and a bunch of other classic settings.

Imagine if, as part of the 1D&D project, WotC announced they would focus on only new settings. No classic settings, just new worlds and MTG conversions. The lore of Greyhawk would be preserved forever at whatever point you want (Folio, From the Ashes, LGG). Never to see an update again. Would that make you happy? It does @Micah Sweet . He's said better dead than retread.

I read those statements more as "better dead than changed". A retread - where nothing changes except the underlying mechanics to suit the current edition, I suspect would be fine.

So to all those people who would rather see a setting die than change, be careful what you wish for. In ten years, you might sit down next to a player who has never heard of Greyhawk and thinks it is as antiquated as downwards AC...

Thing is, when they re-release a setting it's as if they're using that dumb rule from 1e where real time = setting time, particularly with FR. They just can't seem to stop themselves advancing the setting some years ahead in time and updating all the lore accordingly, thus largely invalidating the previous version (which, to be cynical, is probably their intent) and giving a DM who wants to use - or who is still using - the previous version a mighty headache.

 

[innerdude]

How, exactly, did a thread discussing the need for innovative business management of the D&D brand devolve into an argument over the D&D cosmology for the last 8 pages?

And by the way, if you responded at any point to the cosmology/world building sideshow, you're one of the hardcore and the prime market WotC is targeting.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

last I checked we got a bunch of Sourcebooks.

Recheck, we got half arsed attempts at making source books, with mostly diminishing quality in terms of writing and content, not honest to goodness source books.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Recheck, we got half arsed attempts at making source books, with mostly diminishing quality in terms of writing and content, not honest to goodness source books.

So you don’t consider Xanathar’s or Tasha’s to be Sourcebooks?

 

[Vaalingrade]

How, exactly, did a thread discussing the need for innovative business management of the D&D brand devolve into an argument over the D&D cosmology for the last 8 pages?

Nope. A thread about inviting a tornado to run your trailer park was infected and later succumbed to the latest multi-thread virus.

 

[Malmuria]

How, exactly, did a thread discussing the need for innovative business management of the D&D brand devolve into an argument over the D&D cosmology for the last 8 pages?

I think because the proposed "visionary" business strategy is a return to 2e-style setting lines and source books

And by the way, if you responded at any point to the cosmology/world building sideshow, you're one of the hardcore and the prime market WotC is targeting.

wotc is not, and should not, be targeting an audience well versed in great wheel cosmology.

 

[Scribe]

wotc is not, and should not, be targeting an audience well versed in great wheel cosmology.

 

[J.Quondam]

How, exactly, did a thread discussing the need for innovative business management of the D&D brand devolve into an argument over the D&D cosmology for the last 8 pages?

The answer is "because ENWorld."

 

[Malmuria]

I just mean that as a practical matter; it's a rather niche topic