Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="3catcircus" data-source="post: 7897763" data-attributes="member: 16077">I completely understand his viewpoint.  Adventure modules with some flavor of older settings feels like a tease - it doesn't feel like WotC taking seriously requests for 5e treatments of older campaign settings.  When I question why Wildemount instead of an update of GH or DS or FR, I get various ad hominems in response ranging from "be patient" to "people really want CR stuff" to "why are you saying CR is a flash in the pan, it's been around at least 5 years" to "ok boomer."Be patient? It's been 5 years and they're publishing a new setting in lieu of updating older settings after they've published stuff set in those older settings. People want CR stuff?  Ok, what about the rest of us who want 5e treatments of existing settings?  How long should we continue to be disappointed while waiting for what we are asking for, while watching newer campaign settings be published - it's like a dog waiting after being abandoned on the side of the road?I would say that WotC is paying lip service to older players.  They made FR the default setting for 5e - where's the campaign guide?  It's been 5 years and the paper-thin SCAG is a joke.  It took 5 years to get Wayfarers Guide to Eberron.  They're sitting on IP that they could have published 5e treatments for in the 5 years since 5e had been out.  I get they want to not publish to much, but publishing actual 5e versions of full campaign settings for existing settings isn't the same thing as vomiting a bunch of books containing player or DM rules options.If they don't want to support older campaign settings by publishing complete setting books and have no intention to do so, they should license the IP.</blockquote>

Verification