D&D 5E A NEW interview with Mike Mearls

[DaveMage]

The last time the release schedule was this slow for the RPG was the late 1970s.

And some (if not most) of the books themselves aren't even being produced by WotC. It's almost like the intention is to completely segue into outsourcing the tabletop RPG. WotC might then only be quality control to assure the brand is not harmed.

After the mixed reception of Tyranny of Dragons, this might not be a good portent for the long-term tabletop game.

 

[am181d]

Adventures (sorry, I mean "Storylines") without setting resources still seems like a weird move to me. Its one thing for an introductory adventure, but if you want people playing in the Forgotten Realms for years, it seems like you'd want to get that out by Q2 2015.

I'm also wandering if this means no support for high level play, or if some Adv--some Storylines will start at higher levels and end at higher levels.

 

[Echohawk]

The last time the release schedule was this slow for the RPG was the late 1970s.

I think you may be forgetting the great D&D drought of '97!

 

[Dausuul]

I'm the reverse. I love a bit of idiosyncrasy. I'd have been delighted if they'd used that.

I am also fond of that little bit of old-schoolery, but I have to admit it would be rather nonsensical in the context of 5E. Referring to the wizard as a "magic-user" would raise the obvious question of what exactly the bard, sorcerer, and warlock are using.

"Magic-user" only makes sense when there's just one arcane caster class in the game.

 

[smiteworks]

Along with the Sword-user, Prayer-user, and Climb Walls-user

I've been playing for a little over 25 years and never had any issues, or even thoughts, about this issue. Now that I read your comment, I think it is hilarious. (in a good way)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I like Magic User too.

I quite like D&D 5e so far.

That said, I am not interested in these big themed multimedia 'story' arcs.

It looks to me as though they might have stopped 'bloat' in one area and moved it to another.

I used to like being able to buy shorter modules to run through where each adventure had it's own scale of how 'epic' things had to be. Some adventures were simple and low key and self contained which suited their plotlines and some were big and brassy which suited theirs too. I think the idea of long campaigns and massive extended adventure paths are overrated to be honest. I'd have prefered them to release the Core books and then follow up with some interesting shorter adventures that explore and demonstrate the way D&D can fuel imagination and diversity of design. I like to play D&D which is why I bought the new game books...and to be honest they are pretty decent but I am not looking for t-shirts, films, hamburgers, novels and branded milkshakes for the latest Temple of Elemental Evil...super epic, awesome adventure path...you know the one where you get to play the new psychic dude class...etc

Maybe I am in a minority and that's fair enough and maybe I have lots and lots of choices of stuff to play and maybe third party publishers will deliver exactly what I am after but I just thought I'd share that I don't have any interest in this approach for the official adventures. Not to worry, it's still a cool game

I agree. I get they wan to go the Paizo route, and add in tons of brand tie ins to it. Fine, but I'm not really in the adventure path fan category. I've tried to run a Paizo one in the 3.x era, and it didn't work out. And huge mega adventures rarely do for my group. The straightjacket got too tight and I lost interest as a DM and my players are very good at blowing up the train tracks they try to keep you on. I bought Tyranny of Dragons for 5e to mess with as we get the system down, but already I can see problems. Ultimately if I can get good stand alone adventures from a company like Goodman or Necromancer/Frog God games it won't matter as they tend to make stuff more to my liking.

I'd like a new Greyhawk or FR system setting book, but not a multipart thing that really only supports an adventure path. But in the end I've got enough setting material from earlier editions.

If I just buy the three core D&D books from WotC and the rest from other people I don't care though as long as the third party stuff is good.

 

[RevTurkey]

Paizo provide shorter stand-alone modules as well though, so they have both bases covered. Maybe that is something WoTC plan to do as well or maybe they just want third parties to handle all that sort of thing and chase the bigger money with the brand in other areas...I suspect that is the plan and that Mearls and Co. were given the job of producing a solid core game and that is pretty much all...to hang all the product lines off and keep long standing fans happy rather than just ditching the rpg market completely. I too think Goodman Games does a wonderful job with it's adventures but looking at how creative they are being with their DCC RPG adventures...really letting their imaginations loose to produce vibrant publications...I just wish WoTC wasn't quite so corporate and restricted by being tied to these 'story arc' brand things they keep mentioning. I'd like to seethem have the freedom to be as creative as some of the other companies are being. There is clearly a lot of talent at WoTC and I wish they could spread their wings more like Goodman Games have done recently. It seems that because it is D&D they have the impression of having to play it a bit too safe and are plodding a touch laboriously. Surely they should be shouting about all the groovy, awesomeness coming out for their game system (which is good) by now? Why not? It is kinda like they are embarrassed or scared to say things. C'mon...dangle some carrotts Hasbro! Don't keep spewing out this big business multimedia brand babble!

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

"Magic-user"? Seriously?

I'm very glad he did not get his way on that. I thought it was stupid in my BECMI and AD&D days, and I would have thought it was stupid in the present.

Well, that was what it was called for the first 15 years of the game so some of us still have a soft spot for it. Clearly some of us don't.

I am also fond of that little bit of old-schoolery, but I have to admit it would be rather nonsensical in the context of 5E. Referring to the wizard as a "magic-user" would raise the obvious question of what exactly the bard, sorcerer, and warlock are using.

"Magic-user" only makes sense when there's just one arcane caster class in the game.

In this context, I agree. If they wanted to use it was the over-arching description for other arcane casters (like "Mage" in 2E) than I could see that, but you potentially open up the arcane/divine thing as a problem there too I suppose. I think the rest of the game is sufficiently retro-respectful that I suspect we can live without it.

 

[Nebulous]

I've been playing for a little over 25 years and never had any issues, or even thoughts, about this issue. Now that I read your comment, I think it is hilarious. (in a good way)

I do not mind the term "magic-user" at all, but in context, it does sound rather odd!

 

[Wolfskin]

I still stand behind my prediction of a FRCS on the last quarter of 2015.