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

[Patrick McGill]

I think it's important to remember that Mearls and co do not want to do books the way they've been done in past settings. Instead of Monster Manual II, for instance, we got Volo's. Instead of a PHB 2, we're (hopefully) getting a big book of crunch that I am sure will have a twist or theme or spin similar to Volo's or TftYP.

I think this means we're not getting a FR campaign setting book. Or ANY campaign setting book, really. They are growing the setting and the story, but they're doing it through the adventures instead of through a comprehensive book.

I remember once Mearls mentioned on twitter that they WERE updating FR when someone tweeted that they wished WotC would update it. (I actually remember this because it was a headline here on EnWorld). But what Mearls meant was that they were updating FR through their current product agenda. The APs and such.

I think the closest thing we'll get is the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, which (forgive me if I'm wrong) was one of the lesser 5e books in popularity.

 

[PMárk]

I freely acknowledge it is your personal taste to want a book that has everything that has been written "up-to-date" in the Realms put together in a single volume. I just disagree that it is a necessity that WotC needs to act on.

And I'll continue to state that philosophically-speaking, what you want you never actually get, even *if* WotC was to print a new setting book. Because all it takes is one novel, one comic book, or even more importantly the very first session of the game you set off that new book to render that setting book as no longer up-to-date. Thus, "official canon" doesn't actually exist for the game, and only exists as a readable timeline.

So if you're going to play the game, then don't beat yourself up about a timeline you can't actually play and instead take what you already have and create a game you actually can.

You're arguing with a strawman. I never said the goal is to constantly chasing the most recent events. It's the notion of an ongoing story, a living world, that's important to me. Up-to-date CSGs are just a tool to ease the way for new fans and being helpful compendiums.

Your argument that a really up-to-date book and timeline is impossible is colored, I feel with your desire to have a frozen-in-time setting and a book where you'll get all the information you want. It's not the point, on the contrary, the point is the evolving story. CSGs are just almanachs, starting points for a new edition, and not even every rpg with extensive metaplot has them. WoD didn't have one, SR doesn't have one.

Or, to put it simply: things going out-of-date and changes in the setting are not flaws for one who likes living worlds, it's a feature.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I freely acknowledge it is your personal taste to want a book that has everything that has been written "up-to-date" in the Realms put together in a single volume. I just disagree that it is a necessity that WotC needs to act on.

And I'll continue to state that philosophically-speaking, what you want you never actually get, even *if* WotC was to print a new setting book. Because all it takes is one novel, one comic book, or even more importantly the very first session of the game you set off that new book to render that setting book as no longer up-to-date. Thus, "official canon" doesn't actually exist for the game, and only exists as a readable timeline.

So if you're going to play the game, then don't beat yourself up about a timeline you can't actually play and instead take what you already have and create a game you actually can.

Well, since I asked you to agree to disagree but you didn't, I guess I'll have to go into detail why your "philosophically speaking" is your philosophy and not the philosophy of everyone here.


Basic assumption: it's self-evidently impossible for any campaign setting to achieve 100% granularity in detail.


Your philosophy: Since 100% granularity in detail is impossible, I'm fine with playing in a less detailed world, where we have 5% granularity in detail or so (a perfectly valid point of view).

My philosophy: Since 100% granularity in detail is impossible, I and my players still really enjoy it when it's as close as possible to it, and the Forgotten Realms, on previous occasions, reached say 95% of that granularity, so let's aim for it again!

Your philosophy: Since change in a shared setting is inevitable, why even bother about detail since its going to change anyway?

My philosophy: Since change in a shared setting is inevitable, you might as well go with the flow and adapt to it. Even if it makes something obsolete, that's fine, as 94.9% granularity of detail in a setting is not markedly worse than 95%, and much, much better than the 5% others may be requesting as the alternative.


Some people want extensive detail; others are fine without it. You are arguing for the latter; all I'm asking is that you see why some may want the former...

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app

 

[PMárk]

Your philosophy: Since change in a shared setting is inevitable, why even bother about detail since its going to change anyway?

My philosophy: Since change in a shared setting is inevitable, you might as well go with the flow and adapt to it. Even if it makes something obsolete, that's fine, as 94.9% granularity of detail in a setting is not markedly worse than 95%, and much, much better than the 5% others may be requesting as the alternative.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app

Basically, this.

 

[robus]

I think it's important to remember that Mearls and co do not want to do books the way they've been done in past settings. Instead of Monster Manual II, for instance, we got Volo's. Instead of a PHB 2, we're (hopefully) getting a big book of crunch that I am sure will have a twist or theme or spin similar to Volo's or TftYP.

I think this means we're not getting a FR campaign setting book. Or ANY campaign setting book, really. They are growing the setting and the story, but they're doing it through the adventures instead of through a comprehensive book.

I remember once Mearls mentioned on twitter that they WERE updating FR when someone tweeted that they wished WotC would update it. (I actually remember this because it was a headline here on EnWorld). But what Mearls meant was that they were updating FR through their current product agenda. The APs and such.

I think the closest thing we'll get is the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, which (forgive me if I'm wrong) was one of the lesser 5e books in popularity.

You're probably right though I think I'm not the only one who was disappointed by SKT in its attempt to be both a setting book and an adventure.

 

[Shasarak]

I freely acknowledge it is your personal taste to want a book that has everything that has been written "up-to-date" in the Realms put together in a single volume. I just disagree that it is a necessity that WotC needs to act on.

And I'll continue to state that philosophically-speaking, what you want you never actually get, even *if* WotC was to print a new setting book. Because all it takes is one novel, one comic book, or even more importantly the very first session of the game you set off that new book to render that setting book as no longer up-to-date. Thus, "official canon" doesn't actually exist for the game, and only exists as a readable timeline.

So if you're going to play the game, then don't beat yourself up about a timeline you can't actually play and instead take what you already have and create a game you actually can.

I am not sure you grok the difference between a campaign setting that had (another) realms shaking event and a century long time jump and a campaign setting after the release of another Drizzt novel.

 

[Shasarak]

Because they appeal to different parts of the market. WoW is an MMORPG, Overwatch is a team-based first-person shooter, Starcraft is a real-time strategy game, Diablo is a dungeon-crawler, and Hearthstone is a casual card game. They appeal to totally different people. That's like Wizards not only publishing D&D, but also Lords of Waterdeep, Attack Wing, and Tyrants of the Underdark.

But what TSR did was more like if Blizzard had said "Oh, WoW is doing great. Let's use the same engine but replace the races, and swap out one of the specializations for each class, and make a new world for it. Then we'll rake in twice as much money. And then let's do the same thing ten more times - just imagine all the money rolling in!"

Right, so different settings can appeal to different parts of the market rather then "splitting" the market.

Again - every other company does it and yet somehow not RPGs. It is just not believable.

 

[PMárk]

You're probably right though I think I'm not the only one who was disappointed by SKT in its attempt to be both a setting book and an adventure.

And may I add, how exactly needing to buy and read multiple big AP books to know what's happening is better than dedicated, even smaller setting books/gazetteers, or strict metaplot books or novels?

Honestly, while big CSGs are beautiful, I even like better the smaller, region focused books, or event books, because you can put a lot more information in them. The concept of SCAG would have been okay (although I disliked the end product, because, while it was a good travelogue, it didn't really added GM information and "behind the scenes" stuff), if other regional books would have been following it.

And I agree, putting every novel on the same shelf as the Spellplague and Sundering is just gross oversimplification. Yes novels sometimes influenced the setting in big ways and rightly so, but it's the minority.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Again - every other company does it and yet somehow not RPGs. It is just not believable.

RPG companies do it, WotC doesn't. And every time they come up with a survey on what kind of new products we want, I make a point of answering how much I'd love to see their team's take on a non-D&D RPG.

That said, considering the fact that they used to have different d20 lines and dropped them after Star Wars Saga, maybe different RPGs don't sell enough to justify their production...

 

[Shasarak]

RPG companies do it, WotC doesn't.

Yeah, RPG companies do it and WotC is a CCG company.

And every time they come up with a survey on what kind of new products we want, I make a point of answering how much I'd love to see their team's take on a non-D&D RPG.

That said, considering the fact that they used to have different d20 lines and dropped them after Star Wars Saga, maybe different RPGs don't sell enough to justify their production...

Fantasy Flight seems to be doing well enough with their Star Wars RPG.

Maybe there was a problem with WoTC extending their license? Who knows what happens in these sort of negotiations.