log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E 5e most conservative edition yet? (In terms of new settings)


log in or register to remove this ad

With 3.5 Ed I noticed the challenge to coordinate fluff and crunch when lots of new ideas are added, for example the dragonborn and warlocks in the old-school settings.

WotC could publish a new world every year, like the new kingdoms for Magic: The Gathering, but they want lines to be remembered for year. Some fantasy worlds are fabulous for a epic one-shot story, but not to allow sequels.

WotC is more recycling old ideas or by other source the strategy isn't selling more different but more people buying these. How to explain it? If you are Hasbro and you want to sell more Transformers toys, then it is not about creating new characters but more children buying the figures. And the goal isn't only the TTRPG but it's a multimedia project, with movies, cartoons, comics, novels, videogames and toys.

WotC doesn't have to risk with new lines what can become popular or become a fail. It would be easier to buy some 3PP what has published some insteresting new setting.

I guess WotC wants to create an ultimate universal d20 system, and then adapt famous franchises of videogames or comics. This is a true challenge for game designers because d20 version of Street Fighters can't face Overwatch or Mortal Kombat against monsters of Doom Eternal. The power balance is broken with the firearms and high-tech, and if we talk about superheroes...
 

I guess WotC wants to create an ultimate universal d20 system, and then adapt famous franchises of videogames or comics

What are you basing this on? To me it looks like WotC's approach with 5E has been the polar opposite of that.

With 3.XE, and the "d20 system" and in general, including Star Wars d20, d20 Modern, d20 Cthulhu, and so on, it looked very much like WotC were indeed trying to find a sort of "generic, universal" mechanic and one which could potentially be very broadly applicable.

Even with 4E, there was 4E D&D, but they were also pushing a lot of boardgames based on 4E mechanics, Gamma World, and so on. It was less than what 3.XE did, by a long way, but still "a thing".

Whereas with 5E, the focus has seemed to be on D&D and only D&D. There are no WotC-made d20 RPGs that aren't D&D. There are no (AFAIK) 5E-mechanics-based boardgames. Just D&D books for D&D. I don't expect to see a "5E Modern" as it were, or a "5E Cthulhu". Even if they got hold of the Star Wars license, would they use 5E mechanics? Maybe, but I'm not certain. I'm not certain they'd even make a play for it (especially given the New Trilogy is done and it may be some time before SW is really "big" again culturally).
 

atanakar

Hero
I guess WotC wants to create an ultimate universal d20 system, and then adapt famous franchises of videogames or comics. This is a true challenge for game designers because d20 version of Street Fighters can't face Overwatch or Mortal Kombat against monsters of Doom Eternal. The power balance is broken with the firearms and high-tech, and if we talk about superheroes...

YOU want WotC to create one, as you have been saying in your last 100 posts.That is not the same thing. :):):)
 


What are you basing this on? To me it looks like WotC's approach with 5E has been the polar opposite of that.

With 3.XE, and the "d20 system" and in general, including Star Wars d20, d20 Modern, d20 Cthulhu, and so on, it looked very much like WotC were indeed trying to find a sort of "generic, universal" mechanic and one which could potentially be very broadly applicable.

Even with 4E, there was 4E D&D, but they were also pushing a lot of boardgames based on 4E mechanics, Gamma World, and so on. It was less than what 3.XE did, by a long way, but still "a thing".

Whereas with 5E, the focus has seemed to be on D&D and only D&D. There are no WotC-made d20 RPGs that aren't D&D. There are no (AFAIK) 5E-mechanics-based boardgames. Just D&D books for D&D. I don't expect to see a "5E Modern" as it were, or a "5E Cthulhu". Even if they got hold of the Star Wars license, would they use 5E mechanics? Maybe, but I'm not certain. I'm not certain they'd even make a play for it (especially given the New Trilogy is done and it may be some time before SW is really "big" again culturally).
They’ve done many a D&D board games, but nothing 5e. The Delve system is more 4e.

I imagine they’re trying not to compete with themselves this time round. Focusing on D&D rather than other games. More content that directs people to D&D rather than side games.
 

Of course you can publish a d20 Call of Chulthu, d20 Star Wars or d20 World of Darkness, but these aren't compatible with each other.

If I was a WotC CEO after D&D the next goal would be a d20 of famous franchises, superheroes comics and videogames, but the system isn't ready to calculate the right XPs reward or challenge rating when characters are too powerful with that "extra help". Have you played "Resident Evil" or "Evil Within". In the begining it's a survival horror where you need a lot of stealth, and later the PC becomes a one-man-army who can face dozens of enemies. Or a Battle Royal when the other player has found the best weapons or armour. Do you remember when Fornite players didn't like the mecha B.R.U.T.E because it was overpowered? Who tries to create a d20 modern videogame will notice it's so easy.

There was UA articles about modern age. This means they have got some project about this.
 

There was UA articles about modern age. This means they have got some project about this.
I think that was a different era of UA when they were still using it for rando content and sharing home brew before it only became a way to test future content.
In the early days they had a lot more stuff on UA just to put out a monthly UA.
I think that article even said it was someone’s home brew..
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
That's my only distinction. WotC's D&D team hasn't created any new setting for 5e. They just move licensed settings through the pipeline.

I think you weaken your position every time you have to split hairs.

Do you really think the content creation for the setting is all that different when it is licensed vs not? I submit that the difference isn't really about creativity or work needed - it is a marketing business decision. Licensed properties are expected to have some "built in" audience, where an entirely new one does not.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I didn't say no new settings, I said no new original settings. And by original settings, I mean non-licensed settings. Do you agree on that point?

But it’s kind of a pointless point. For one, they are new to D&D. Secondly, it isn’t like 4E or 3E had tons of new settings. If you broaden from non-licensed, 5E will surpass both with Theros.

The only edition that saw a ton of new settings, original or not, is 2E. So that is the outlier among the editions, not 5E.
 

I didn't say no new settings, I said no new original settings. And by original settings, I mean non-licensed settings. Do you agree on that point?
That's my only distinction. WotC's D&D team hasn't created any new setting for 5e. They just move licensed settings through the pipeline.

I'm still curious why Wildemount doesn't count.
Yeah, it was originally created by a non-WotC employee for their home game. But the exact same could be said about the Forgotten Realms. Does that mean it's not an original D&D world either?

You could just as easily make the argument Eberron doesn't count as it was created for a contentest and wasn't done by WotC staff.
 

darjr

I crit!
One thing WotC seems to love is support for future things in current books. So just because there is a book with city stuff in it I wouldn’t rule out a book about another city. For instance the waterdeep book and the Ravnica book.
 



My humble predictions for some future works: Shemeska's Guide to Sigil (like the alliteration there), Melf's Guide to the Flanaess (you know if we get Greyhawk, Luke Gygax will be involved).
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
I'm sorry, economics is real mate. There are limits to what you can claim.

A company as incompetent as you want to suggest would have, exactly as I said, gone under in the early 1990s. Clearly some of their products were selling like absolute gangbusters if they were routinely selling other stuff below cost. Also one product selling below cost doesn't mean they all were, which is the suggestion I was responding to.

Early 90s, mid-90s - is there really that big a difference?
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
I have to agree with Jester David here as the more I learn about the inner workings of TSR the more I'm surprised it took them that long to go out of business. TSR just happened to be one of those fortunate companies able to generate enough revenue to offset their poor management for a number of years.

People have said that in the early 80s fad phase of D&D, TSR was basically printing money. It's entirely possible that enabled some very bad habits and business practices to go on uncorrected that eventually bit them in the ass.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top