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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8813114" data-attributes="member: 18">That's a genuine issue. You only need so many. The value of settings beyond a couple of kitchen sinks really comes from specificityI think what WotC are maybe trying to do is sell more mechanics-packages that are associated with settings, and adventures which have an attached setting, at least right now, which is distinct from their previous strategy of primarily selling settings which also had some transferrable mechanics etc.The trouble is, I don't think that's going to work as well as they think, because I don't people are as keen to take mechanics-packages out of settings as they think, and because the recent settings have been very bland and under-detailed, they have very little value as settings, per se. Even Spelljammer has very little in the way of setting details, you're basically buying it for the spaceship combat rules, which are not as transferrable as one might hope.I mean, Planescape could go either way because of this. Planescape doesn't, inherently, have any real "transferrable mechanics", and it is being presented as a setting, not an adventure with setting elements. Plus most of the Planescape races exist already in 5E (not that they won't be repeated but they won't be a big draw). So maybe they'll actually be accidentally forced to make it an actual setting book with some actual details this time? We can hope. But they might just compress the setting down, and make it mostly bestiary (even thought there aren't that many vital PS monsters not yet covered) and adventure again, which would be hugely disappointing and sadly seems quite likely.</blockquote>

Verification