D&D (2024) The Ray Winninger Era of D&D 5e

[Imaro]

Planescape nuff said. Drops mic

I certainly didn’t get that impression with Planescape? It seemed pretty darn faithful. There were even Easter eggs related to PS Torment, that only true fans would know about.

I can’t speak for Ravenloft or the others. Though I read them and they seemed fine to a newcomer. I wasn’t a big enough fan to notice the discrepancies.

Not so the case with Planescape, which as a product doesn’t support the trend your claiming.

Yeah not sure why some people lump the Planescape setting in with Spelljammer quality wise... I assume it's because they haven't actually readit but are making assumptions.

 

[Parmandur]

Planescape nuff said. Drops mic


Yeah not sure why some people lump the Planescape setting in with Spelljammer quality wise... I assume it's because they haven't actually readit but are making assumptions.

Even Spelljammer's main problem was space: Planescape has 64 more pages, and those make a huge difference.

 

[mamba]

With Ravenloft they sort of went hell-bent into "who cares about the existing fans of these settings" that informed the approach to the later settings (Dragonlance, Spelljammer etc)

no idea about Spelljammer, but outside of some minor updates they did not change DL much.

The biggest issue is that the timeline places the adventure clearly before what happens with the Heroes of the Lance, even though WotC tried hard to handwave that into a ‘who knows when exactly this happens’ / ‘it’s basically simultaneous so canon is intact’ approach. Kinda Star Wars’ ‘who shot first’ for DL

 

[EthanSental]

Canon for D&D and its fans is comparable to comic fans and their canon for characters…and people in general with change to something they care about or are used too. I get it for them caring about change as I was that way with my favorite comic characters but some good stories can come out of or be told with the changes factored in.
So tying it back with Ray and maybe his guidance on canon and the books under his care…thanks for taking a chance on making some thing for us to use and not always tied to what’s come before…as it give me more ideas outside of that main story for a world.

 

[Velderan]

Canon for D&D and its fans is comparable to comic fans and their canon for characters…and people in general with change to something they care about or are used too. I get it for them caring about change as I was that way with my favorite comic characters but some good stories can come out of or be told with the changes factored in.
So tying it back with Ray and maybe his guidance on canon and the books under his care…thanks for taking a chance on making some thing for us to use and not always tied to what’s come before…as it give me more ideas outside of that main story for a world.

Eh, the thing about comic book canon is as the reader I pretty much have 2 choices: accept the new changes and go along for the ride or say this isn't for me anymore and stop reading. We'll ignore the 3rd option of continuing to hate read while going online to remind everyone they're not real fans if they like this garbage currently being published.

D&D canon changes allow me as the DM to say "hey this change is cool" and use it or say "I prefer the way the setting was in a previous publication" and use that. "Shadow of the Dragon Queen" made some tweaks that could be argued about, but reading through the book I didn't see anything terribly problematic to someone interested in playing a game set in Dragonlance as opposed to someone wishing to reenact "Dragons of Autumn Twilight".

 

[EthanSental]

First paragraph nicely encapsulates the comic groups I’m used to hearing about as well

 

[Amphytrion]

BG3 had BG Descent into Avernus released alongside the early development and the Illithid based Phandelver expansion shortly after full release. It’s not accurate to say there were no accompanying products.

Descent Into Avernus is part of the Mearls era of D&D, I think, and thus not encapsulated in my comment. It is a fine idea for a tie-in for early access, even if the final product is hamstrung. The Nine Hells angle was clearly meant to be more important early on in BG3's development. The Baldur's Gate Gazeteer is excellent and I think D&D Beyond released it for free once BG3 officially hit.

Phandelver and Below is unsatisfactory as a tie-in, I think. Sure, it has mind-flayers, but it doesn't answer the following: "I've spent 100 hours in this world and would like to know more. What can I buy?" It is also not set anywhere the game actually visits.

If I had both a movie and a videogame set in the Forgotten Realms in 2023, my immediate priority would have been to have a setting guide to be released in 2023 as well, especially when the prior version of it (the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) is really unsatisfactory. The SCAG often reads as an apology letter for 4e's changes and it spends forever just setting things back into place. It's not the book I would want to use to monetize all the new BG3 fans.

 

[Reynard]

Monsters of Multiverse was interesting but came so late 5.5 was around the corner in effect being obsolete very quickly.

I am probably alone in this, but I think MotM is the worst 5E book.

It completely wasted the opportunity to kodernize and expand 5E official 5E monster design -- literally everyone does it better -- while also eliminating the only parts of Volos and Mordenkainan's that made those books unique. (Note: I generally don't like heavy lore in a core book, but those books weren't core books.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I personally could not care less who was "in charge" at the time of any book being published. Cause it doesn't matter. It's not like I'm getting a cookie if I liked X book that was pushed forward during the Mearls era or Y book when during Winninger. I've liked 5E books published at all the various points, so what difference does it make who wrote them or greenlit them? Waste of my time.

 

[TheSword]

Descent Into Avernus is part of the Mearls era of D&D, I think, and thus not encapsulated in my comment. It is a fine idea for a tie-in for early access, even if the final product is hamstrung. The Nine Hells angle was clearly meant to be more important early on in BG3's development. The Baldur's Gate Gazeteer is excellent and I think D&D Beyond released it for free once BG3 officially hit.

Phandelver and Below is unsatisfactory as a tie-in, I think. Sure, it has mind-flayers, but it doesn't answer the following: "I've spent 100 hours in this world and would like to know more. What can I buy?" It is also not set anywhere the game actually visits.

If I had both a movie and a videogame set in the Forgotten Realms in 2023, my immediate priority would have been to have a setting guide to be released in 2023 as well, especially when the prior version of it (the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) is really unsatisfactory. The SCAG often reads as an apology letter for 4e's changes and it spends forever just setting things back into place. It's not the book I would want to use to monetize all the new BG3 fans.

It makes no sense to release a Forgotten Realms Campaign setting before the 2024 update. It’s one of the first things they are releasing with the 2024 rules. I don’t really see how you can expect anything different. You are the first person I’ve seen say that there isn’t enough Forgotten Realms materials about.

It’s also very strange to say there aren’t products to buy for people who want to know more about the Sword Coast. You say Phandelver isn’t suitable but it is on the Sword Coast, is a sandboxy style campaign and features illithids. I’m not sure how much of a tie you want.

Baldurs Gate material has already been released as you mentioned. Surely you’re not expecting a reprint of stuff that has already been trodden over several times already. I’m not sure what detail you expect that isn’t already covered in the multiple games and products set in that area.