D&D 5E Mike Mearls did an interview for Escapist Magazine and reveals PHB classes, races, and much more

[Echohawk]

Also, er, no, the FR does not have "70" books. Where on earth are you getting that from?! It's not even slightly true! They had 75 by 1996. 191 by 2006. 279 as of 2014 by my count from here:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_novels_in_order_of_publication

Feel free to recount, I could be off, but it ain't by much.

That's a very good count! I make the total for FR novels 282 (including 8 titles only released as ebooks). I think the total for Dragonlance novels is 195, although there I left out some borderline things like the Dragon Codex books.

 

[Bluenose]

Whatever the merits of the Dragonlance novel line, the popularity of Forgotten Realms as a D&D setting blows all others out of the water.

And is similarly blown out of the water by homebrew settings. Which doesn't exactly explain why WotC would go specific instead of generic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And is similarly blown out of the water by homebrew settings. Which doesn't exactly explain why WotC would go specific instead of generic.

Sure it does, if you think it through. It's popular enough that WotC feels it's more beneficial to the hobby, and likely to new and casual players (who may find the idea of homebrew ultra-intimidating), than not having much of a setting, which is what generic requires. It's also generic-fantasy enough to be safe, in most cases (as generic-fantasy post-early-'90s tends more faux-renaissance than faux-medieval).

 

[Bluenose]

Sure it does, if you think it through. It's popular enough that WotC feels it's more beneficial to the hobby, and likely to new and casual players (who may find the idea of homebrew ultra-intimidating), than not having much of a setting, which is what generic requires. It's also generic-fantasy enough to be safe, in most cases (as generic-fantasy post-early-'90s tends more faux-renaissance than faux-medieval).

It's also got a very large segment of the potential audience who despise it, and will be less likely to buy anything because of the FR logo. And given that adventures can and have defined locations and groups I don't see much reason to think using FR makes it easier, unless the idea is that making it unusable without the main FR Sourcebook(s) will increase sales of those.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's also got a very large segment of the potential audience who despise it, and will be less likely to buy anything because of the FR logo. And given that adventures can and have defined locations and groups I don't see much reason to think using FR makes it easier, unless the idea is that making it unusable without the main FR Sourcebook(s) will increase sales of those.

You got some figures for that?

You can bet WotC have.

They're not idiots, despite what people seem to think. They wouldn't be doing this if their figures said it would be dangerously unpopular. Even here, the people who dislike the FR don't show signs of rejecting the edition (plus is the logo even on it?).

As for the latter, it gives newer/casual players an obvious route to a setting.

 

[Uchawi]

FR also runs into the risk of overexposure because it has been around for a very long time. I hope they develop adventures that are setting neutral, but I am afraid they will depend on player driven content via a adventure (app) store to handle it. So hopefully the 5E license is friendly towards third parties.

 

[Halivar]

It's also got a very large segment of the potential audience who despise it, and will be less likely to buy anything because of the FR logo.

I am really, really not interested in catering to people that can't just homebrew and be happy. I won't touch FR with a 10 foot pole, but then again, the same goes for Greyhawk, and 3.x didn't exactly give me the vapours.

Ignore setting material as you have always done, and homebrew to your heart's content.

 

[gyor]

4e tried the generic none setting and it ended up turning into the Nentir Vale setting, but lore just kept being added bit by bit.

So FR being used for examples doesn't mean you have to use FR, there will be plenty of tools for other campaign settings and for building your own.

As for the adventures they use FR, but have advise for setting it elsewhere, so it doesn't have to use FR at all.

 

[Bluenose]

You got some figures for that?

You can bet WotC have.

No figures at all but [MENTION=9327]Halivar[/MENTION] a couple of posts later rather suggests there are people who won't touch it because FR.

They're not idiots, despite what people seem to think. They wouldn't be doing this if their figures said it would be dangerously unpopular. Even here, the people who dislike the FR don't show signs of rejecting the edition (plus is the logo even on it?).

Now that's an interesting question, but I suspect it would annoy both FR fans who aren't seeing "their" logo on FR products and people who really dislike FR and don't want anything to do with it if FR material was published without any identification.

As for the latter, it gives newer/casual players an obvious route to a setting.

I suppose one thing I question is why they need a setting at all? DIY worked for me back in 1980, at a time when adventures didn't rely on existing settings.

 

[Halivar]

No figures at all but @Halivar a couple of posts later rather suggests there are people who won't touch it because FR.

I did no such thing. It was a hypothetical. IF such people exist (like, more than a couple guys on a forum), WotC should not take them into account.