D&D 5E Mike Mearls on D&D (New Interview with James Introcaso)

[Willie the Duck]

I for one do not care. I will never use FR, nor mind its' inclusion any more than Nentir Vale or whatever in 4th or Greyhawk in 3rd (who did they think they were fooling?), or Known World/Mystara in Basic, etc. etc. etc.

SCAG is a fine book. Rather sparse for a FR fan, I can't imagine paying for it as a non-fan, but I'd use it if the DM owns it. Volo's is FR in name only (or actually name not-at-all, they just use a FR character as a pitchman), and a lovely book.

 

[Jer]

I guess it's time to make my peace with the fact that till the movie FR will not receive any FRCG, so it's basically dead.

RIP FR.

How can it be dead when every adventure published so far - including every Adventurer's League adventure produced so far - has used the Realms as the default setting? And the only player-facing rules expansion published to date is a Realms-specific product that really is of limited use to anyone who isn't playing in the Realms?

There has been more Realms stuff published for 5th edition than any other setting that Wizards owns. I can see the case for Eberron fans saying that Eberron is dead (I don't see it myself - it's stuck in the Wizards equivalent of the "Disney Vault" to be rolled out at a later date, but "that is not dead which can eternal lie" as the Bard might say if the Bard were a mad 8th century Arab). But the Realms is nowhere near dead. It's not even dying. At worst you can say that it's slowed down. But as far as adventuring material goes there might be more "at the table" stuff published for the Realms for 5th edition than there ever was for 4th edition (even if you include the Dungeon and Dragon material published for 4e Realms). If not then give it another year and there probably will be - unless Wizards decides to switch directions on their Adventure Paths and open up some more worlds. Which I find unlikely at this stage in the game.

 

[discosoc]

One thing I wish they would do is more clearly define products for players vs dm's. As a DM, there's several things a year that I am interested in buying, yet as a player there's really not much of anything. I'd like to seem more player options show up, although I don't think they need to include actual rules. Just things like character concepts for different classes, or maybe character builds and personalities that have a built-in hook for the latest AP.

I say this because I get a lot of players who really don't have the creative spark for making interesting characters, yet are really receptive in taking suggestions for new characters and eventually do a great job of getting to a place where the character concept works for them. I'd love to be able to just direct him to some $20 book of ideas that have a fun description of not only what the character is like, mechanically, but suggestions on personality and possible "growth directions."

Basically a DM's Guide for players.

 

[Benji]

Honestly, I could probably use the SCAG, but only when divorced from the rest of Realms canon.

You mean like the bit in the back, where it specifically instructs you how to use the crunch for a variety of different worlds? The SCAG furnished me with several different Solamnic Knight options for Dragonlance.

I do get where you are coming from an the SCAG, specifically, is a better example of that argument than Volo's. I've only ever been in Realms as a player where I've DM'd a lot of different established and homebrew settings and could find LOADS in Volo's to use in my stuff. Even my not-used-since-3rd-ed caveman setting.

I know that some of your argument about this is about it being the FR as standard setting and marketed as such but the DMG makes it pretty clear that you can make your own world off the bat and gives you load off stuff for doing that. I mean all of the lore specific stuff sometimes jars with me too (I hate the new Barghest/Gnolls lore, for example. In my most played homebrew world, Barghest already have a very specific role and Gnolls aren't mindless killers but a clever race who fill a 'Bounty Hunter' niche.) but as it's fluff it tends to be the easiest thing to ditch. If you literally bought Volo's for the crunch and never read the fluff, you could still be reasonably happy with it as a purchase.

I realised that the reason I'm even pushing this is because I feel like by taking this stand, you've denied yourself a great product over a line drawn in the sand between granular levels of universes of fiction and that kind of makes me sad. But as long as you're enjoy the game you have from the three core books (I make an assumption there) then that's all good,it's the way the game was originally intended to be played. Maybe you're right, really D&D would have been better served if we'd never had Official Campaign Settings at all. But that bird flew a long time ago. Given that polls seem to indicate that a large majority of people homebrew, maybe it's a non-issue.

Side question: When 3rd ed came out, was anyone bothered the assumed setting was Greyhawk? I'm just curious but it never occurred to me before.

 

[bedir than]

I don't mind Mystara, Greyhawk and Realms lumped together because even in the 80s/early90s they were only distinguished by fluff, not mechanics.

DragonLance was mechanically different.
Spelljammer was as well.
Planescape too.

 

[Jester David]

Haven't listened to it all yet.
So far, the things I found interesting:

* Confirmation they've settled on a "three books per year" release schedule.
* That the PHB did really well in 2016. That's two years after the release.
* That the majority of respondents to the survey did say they wanted fewer books.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

It's a good strategy for marketing I think. It's focused on accessibility for new people and on using the old fanbase to make that possible through monetary purchases.

I don't think the older fans are going to get what they want from this edition going forward, and maybe not even the next one. Actively growing the playerbase without involving old DMs and building a new community entirely seems like where the effort is being spent.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If we won't even get a, FRCG, which many people want, then I have no reason to give them a dime more. And the PHB+ 1 rule just gives me more reason to not spend a dime.

You should have stopped giving them your money two years ago, because they told us straight out even back then you weren't going to get a new campaign setting guide. If you've been doing so anyway these last 24 months, more fool you. WotC's been scamming you out of your cash for a while now and it ain't gonna stop.

 

[Shasarak]

Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy to me: No one buys your books because they are limited to using one extra book.

 

[darjr]

I'm an old grognard DM and I really appreciate this edition. And it's release cycle. I've seen quite a lot of lapsed players ve back to gaming along with the new folks.