Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7772028" data-attributes="member: 7006">Let's not go overboard here though.  The reason why the artificer hasn't been released after all this time is entirely based upon when they are ready to release a 5E Eberron setting because that is where the artificer comes from and is primarily meant to be played.  Now if you want to argue they should have released Eberron two year ago (and thus we'd receive an artificer two years ago too), fine.  But let's not confuse that with this idea that they have deliberately held back making a new class just because they felt like it.  They've held back making a new class because they wanted to fit it into a product that actually uses and needs that new class.  The same way they've held back on the Psionmystic-- because its primary function has been to enhance Dark Sun.  And until they are ready to produce Dark Sun, they have no place to put psionics "just because".And as far as opening up Spelljammer or Mystara or any other settings to DMs Guild for people to produce their own material... first of all I have no idea why anyone would actually want to make things for those settings right now in the first place.  Without the WotC machine producing Spelljammer and Mystara material to promote those settings, just how many copies of a Spelljammer module do you think you can sell?  And without the official rules on things *like* how Spelljammers work or the types of monsters and enemies and adventures that Spelljammers deal with... just how useful of things can you really make for publication?And then secondly of course is that WotC is under no obligation to help other people make money off their stuff.  They *are* doing it because it helps keep their current storylines active for a whole heap of people, especially through Adventurer's League.  But why would they want people to produce product for things that aren't currently active?  How does that help anybody (either themselves, the players, or indeed the content creators?)  I'll be honest... I almost think they're doing people a favor by NOT letting them make stuff for settings that practically nobody is playing right now.  They're keeping content creators from making a marketing mistake by producing something for which there is legitimately almost no market.  Now if you want to argue that it should be up to the creators to determine whether they want to make that mistake by producing items for setting for which there is little to no market... okay, feel free to make that argument.  But I suspect you'll find very few people who would go along with you on that thinking that is was a good or smart idea.Instead... WotC is telling all of us "If you want to make product that people will actually use, make it for the settings that are currently active, *or* make it generic and have faith that if there are small isolated pockets of fandom out there running campaigns in non-active settings, they will know how to take generic material and fit it into their specific setting.  But don't waste your time and energy trying to help out a 1% marketshare group and forsake the other 99%."After all... if we think most DMs Guild product goes flying by unnoticed by most of the gamer population NOW... it'll be even worse when you slap on a "For use with X setting" sticker that'll mean nothing to almost everybody except for a select few.</blockquote>

Verification