D&D 5E Mike Mearls interview - states that they may be getting off of the 2 AP/year train.

[Tony Vargas]

Wait. Wait. WoTC is a slave to the profit treadmill but not Paizo. Ok.

I guess Paizo could be a figurative indentured servant or independent contractor or something to profit, rather than a slave?

WoTC being said slave sacrifices giving the customers what they want in order to make more profit?

That does sound a little weird. But there might be a bit of truth behind it somewhere if you squint and dig about a bit. WotC does have a core customer base that's very adamant both about what they want, and what they won't tolerate, so to keep making some profit off that market segment, they have to be cautious & measured in providing anything that customers outside that core might want.

Profit doesn't come from selling people stuff they don't want. Clearly, given the financial success that is 5e, WoTC is giving their customers exactly what they want.

WotC still hasn't published any financial numbers that I'm aware of, and has claimed success for everything they've ever published, while it was current.
But, profit doesn't come just from selling people stuff they're willing to buy because it's closer to what they want than the nearest viable alternative, but also from keeping the costs of producing that content as low as possible. The slow pace of releases we're getting with 5e, and the frequent use of outsourcing, are the kinds of things that can help keep costs down.
In that sense, WotC has moved closer to the Paizo strategy, too, since they're a smaller company, presumably with lower overhead, and don't need to deliver to some strict RoI goal.

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] takes every chance he can here on the boards to request proper magic item pricing, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] keeps the "Add the Warlord to the game!" request afloat, and [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] bangs the drum for a 3E-styled, non-specialized Sorcerer to eventually get added..

I think drum-beating makes a better metaphor for the Warlord, because, y'know, armies marching &c.

Not to take away from Moonsong, who's feelings about the 5e Sorcerer are justified, IMHO, the sub-class's fluff are just too locked-in, it's list too arbitrarily limited. Personally, I like the build-to-concept customizeability of the comparatively* elegant 3.x Sorcerer design, and would like to see either a lot more Sorcerer sub-classes, or one more 'generalist' catch-all sub-class that lets players impose more flavor of their own devising.

(Cap'n Zapp's on his own, sorry.)










* Compared to 3.x Tier 1 and 5e neo-Vancian casters, anyway.

 

[DEFCON 1]

An argument you disagree with isn't objectively "flawed",e specially when you are arguing with strawmans instead of the true opinions of people.

It is an objective fact that none of us play in the official canon timeline of the Forgotten Realms, because none of what happens in our campaigns actually appears as part of the history going forward. The timeline will never have what happens in our campaigns in their timeline.

Now you can claim that this is a [overdone cliche] -- er, I'm sorry-- I meant "strawman"... and will say "I'm not arguing this!"... and that's fine. If this isn't what you are arguing, then my making the comment shouldn't matter to you in the least.

IF you'd have said "don't spend your time on a book I'm not interested in", I'd be cool with that. Every one of us want books we're interested in. But please, don't try to show your personal taste as some objectively true philosophy of what should and shouldn't be done!

As [MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION] pointed out, I did in fact do what you requested-- I stated my personal opinion that a 5E campaign setting book is a waste of WotC's time, energy, and money. And my reason for it was because it did not solve the issue what it certainly seemed to me to be the reason to make it, given by those that wanted it--

--they needed to know what was current in the timeline in order to play in the timeline.

(Which *is* a flawed argument, because as I pointed out above, it is an objective fact that none of us actually play in the official timeline.)

Now... if this is in fact NOT the reason any of you on the pro-side for a 5E FRCS are giving as to why WotC should make said book... then I have misunderstood your reasoning. Perhaps none of you actually HAVE a reason to give why WotC should make the book. I admit that is entirely possible. You might just want the book because you want what you want... but have no good explanation or reasoning as to why WotC should listen to your request. If that's the case, then great! We're all in agreement! None of us have a reason for them to spend their time making the book!

I'm glad that's settled!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think drum-beating makes a better metaphor for the Warlord, because, y'know, armies marching &c.

You are absolutely correct, and I humbly apologize for mixing up my metaphors. I shall endeavor to do better in the future!

 

[PMárk]

It is an objective fact that none of us play in the official canon timeline of the Forgotten Realms, because none of what happens in our campaigns actually appears as part of the history going forward. The timeline will never have what happens in our campaigns in their timeline.

Now you can claim that this is a [overdone cliche] -- er, I'm sorry-- I meant "strawman"... and will say "I'm not arguing this!"... and that's fine. If this isn't what you are arguing, then my making the comment shouldn't matter to you in the least.



As @darjr pointed out, I did in fact do what you requested-- I stated my personal opinion that a 5E campaign setting book is a waste of WotC's time, energy, and money. And my reason for it was because it did not solve the issue what it certainly seemed to me to be the reason to make it, given by those that wanted it--

--they needed to know what was current in the timeline in order to play in the timeline.

(Which *is* a flawed argument, because as I pointed out above, it is an objective fact that none of us actually play in the official timeline.)

Now... if this is in fact NOT the reason any of you on the pro-side for a 5E FRCS are giving as to why WotC should make said book... then I have misunderstood your reasoning. Perhaps none of you actually HAVE a reason to give why WotC should make the book. I admit that is entirely possible. You might just want the book because you want what you want... but have no good explanation or reasoning as to why WotC should listen to your request. If that's the case, then great! We're all in agreement! None of us have a reason for them to spend their time making the book!

I'm glad that's settled!

Clearly, you didn't get the arguments people made on the previous several pages. You keep insisting on your "there's no such thing as playing in the official timeline" reasoning, which we repeatedly said is not the point.

Perhaps none of you actually HAVE a reason to give why WotC should make the book. I admit that is entirely possible. You might just want the book because you want what you want... but have no good explanation or reasoning as to why WotC should listen to your request. If that's the case, then great! We're all in agreement! None of us have a reason for them to spend their time making the book!

I'm glad that's settled!

That's simply condescending and insulting and not really worth my time. That the only reason you want to consider is your entirely made-up one is funny.

As it's clear that discussing this whole topic with you is utterly pointless, I'm done with it.

 

[robus]

--they needed to know what was current in the timeline in order to play in the timeline.

I guess I'm still confused as to why the SCAG didn't go a long way to addressing this? There was plenty of updates to the various areas in that? It didn't appeal to me, but it seems like it was designed to appeal to them?

 

[Charles Rampant]

It was pretty vague. For example, here is how the descriptions kind of go in the different editions:

1e/2e: Here is the town, described for 4 pages. The local mage is 16th level, and carries a Wand of the War Mage +2 and a Robe of the Archmagi. The Zhentarim operate here, doing XYZ. The local taverns are rated 3/5 coins, 4/5 tankards by Volo.
3e: This town has 75% human, 15% halfling, 8% half-elves, 6% elves, 6% dwarves. The total annual income of the town is 300,000gp. The mayor is a 13th level paladin with the following statblock. Here is a prestige class for the town guard.
5e/SCAG: I visited this town, and I liked it. The streets are broad.

 

[robus]

It was pretty vague. For example, here is how the descriptions kind of go in the different editions:

1e/2e: Here is the town, described for 4 pages. The local mage is 16th level, and carries a Wand of the War Mage +2 and a Robe of the Archmagi. The Zhentarim operate here, doing XYZ. The local taverns are rated 3/5 coins, 4/5 tankards by Volo.
3e: This town has 75% human, 15% halfling, 8% half-elves, 6% elves, 6% dwarves. The total annual income of the town is 300,000gp. The mayor is a 13th level paladin with the following statblock. Here is a prestige class for the town guard.
5e/SCAG: I visited this town, and I liked it. The streets are broad.

Yeah - you're probably right. I remember consulting it for some info on Neverwinter and it was pretty light. I'd (at some point) picked up the 4e Neverwinter campaign setting guide so I referred to that and boy did it make my eyes pop!! Totally not helpful. I guess that was a case of be careful of what you wish for!

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah I think we all can guess which Enworld function I will be activating.

For what it is worth, in general I like you, I think you have interesting things to say fairly often, and I was not trying to offend you. I am sorry if you felt overly teased by my comments, it was not my intent to make you feel bad or trolled by me and I feel bad that it apparently resulted in offense.

I was trying to keep it light hearted while still engaging you and asking you why you thought the way you think on this topic. You seem to have the impression that Pathfinder fans are more satisfied in general with Pathfinder, it's direction and expanding content, than 5e fans are satisfied in general with 5e, it's direction and expanding content. I however get the opposite impression, reading both the Paizo boards and a variety of 5e boards and RPG boards. I find Pathfinder fans right now are less satisfied overall with Pathfinder, it's direction and expanding content these days than 5e fans satisfaction with those things. But you disagreed, and I really did want to know why you disagree with me on that issue. I might not be seeing what you're seeing.

But I know for a fact there is no "all" and "every" when in comes to fans of either system - there are fans of both systems who are also dissatisfied in general with their system of choice right now, and the direction and expanding content of their preferred system. That you claimed all Pathfinder fans were getting what they wanted from Paizo for that system, and that everyone who prefers the Pathfinder system is satisfied with their content and direction, seems rather incredulous based on what I have seen. I have seen a lot of complaining by some Pathfinder fans about the amount of content and the type of content being put out. I have seen a fair amount of contention concerning how backwards-compatible they want new Pathfinder content to be with 3.5e and even earlier Pathfinder content. I have seen a developing split between those who want Paizo to continue Pathfinder as it's been going and those who want Paizo to scrap the Pathfinder rules entirely and start over with a Pathfinder 2.0 new system. And I've seen Paizo itself alter it's release schedule in reaction to some things in both the marketplace and their fan base.

Paizo is doing fine as a company overall, and there remains a health fanbase for Pathfinder, but I don't think everything is as perfect in Pathfinderland as you seem to think it is right now. But, I am open to hearing why you thinking differently about that issue.

But I am also happy to bow out of this conversation if that is your preference. Again, I am sorry, and I never intended to cause offense.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I would like a FRCS, but do not need one per se. I am ambivalent to SCaG, as I only use it for the crunch (love that Oath of Crown paladin quite a bit), but not much else.

I think instead of a book what would be really super amazing awesome would be an online resource with wiki entries and some such that people could utilize. You could even have it editable by anyone with curators. It'd be like Pottermore for the Forgotten Realms! That way they don't have to publish a book that will inevitably disappoint some who want it more comprehensive and be ignored by those who don't want it.

The website/resource wouldn't have any crunch, just stuff you need to know drawn from all the FRCSs. Click on Daggerford to see the different demographics throughout the timeline, what the hot spots are, NPCs, and so forth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As I understand it, Wizards losing the Star Wars license was more a matter of diminishing returns. They had done a core book, sourcebooks on various eras (Knights of the Old Republic, Clone Wars, Force Unleashed, Rebellion, Legacy era), on various campaign types (Scum & Villainy, war, intrigue, exploration), and various system explorations (droids, the Force, NPCs, starships). There wasn't really all that much more to do, so Wizards didn't see the point in extending the license. Had they done so, you'd probably have seen sourcebooks delving into particular novel trilogies (Heir to the Empire, Yuuzhan Vong, etc.), and I don't think anyone would have been happy with that.

At the very least, they could have done an alien Anthology, and some paperback collections of class options, ie a Scoundrel's Handbook, etc.

I also think they could have explanded the game in a few ways, such as adding a ground combat equivalent to Starship Manuevers.

Next, they could have focused on Adventures, and surveyed the community for what people still felt was missing, or what could be fixed without needing a new edition.

Not to mention stuff like WEG used to do, with the Galaxy Guide books. Galaxy Guide 9: Fragments From The Rim, remains one of the best RPG books ever published, imo.

Such books could have, in addition to gear, and trivia like what music and drinks and food are popular, have deep delves into cultures, organizations, etc, including feats and talents related to being part of them. "If you are a part of the Sector Rangers, you can take talents from this Tree, regardless of class. " "Tapani Nobles can take Talents from this tree regardless of class". That sort of thing.