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

[Corpsetaker]

I see a lot of folks are still wearing those rose tinted shades.

When was another official survey done about the release schedule because I've participated in everyone recently and there hasn't been one listed. I think Mearls is a bit deluded. I think if they did another one they would get different results.

I also saw somewhere about AP's being good for gamers who don't have much time. That's rubbish! It may be good for some gamers but a lot of what I've heard from people is they take too long to complete when you only meet up once every week or two. These types of people would rather play homebrew or quality shorter adventures that actually have a conclusion. Also, I find that lots of gamers don't like to play the same character for a long time and shorter adventures, and homebrew, make this a bit easier.

There is currently no evidence that the current release schedule is widely accepted and approved of. The only thing we see is that the rules are popular by the sales of the PHB.

 

[Corpsetaker]

If they want to supply Realms info without printing books then they could easily do monthly articles in Dragon+ talking about specific areas of the Realms or weekly articles like Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting that [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] comes out and says three books a year is the permanent intended model: we had deduced that, but WotC had been coy about that being the case. Also interesting that was decided based on what worked for people by demographic study, and the rationale came later.

 

[LordEntrails]

If the version of software that supports those electronic copies from FG no longer works, what then? Can you access that content outside of their software?

EDIT: Response removed by me. This is totally off topic and IMO your perceptions are ill-informed. . If you want to discuss, start another thread and tag me.

 

[LordEntrails]

If they want to supply Realms info without printing books then they could easily do monthly articles in Dragon+ talking about specific areas of the Realms or weekly articles like Unearthed Arcana.

And I think the fact that they haven't show that they have no intent to do this.

I think people forget that Mearls and others have stated they feel that highly detailing the Realms makes D&D and the Realms inaccessible to the many current fans and nearly all new fans.

Based on that opinion, IMO, they continue to make reasonable business decisions. Whether that opinion is right or wrong, that's may be worth discussing.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Ultimately, as a consumer, I'd rather see D&D end production than morph into the Forgotten Realms brand.

I think the designers have been very careful to keep D&D from becoming FR this edition. I mean, you can believe them or not, but they've said ever since the beginning that the official default setting is "the multiverse", and the core books have references to multiple specific campaign settings, including monsters, characters, items, locations, etc.

Even in their explicitly FR books (SCAG and most of the adventures) they've started including appendixes with notes on how to convert the material for other settings, including both official ones and your own settings (I personally wasn't happy with some of the suggestions for Dragonlance conversions at the end of SCAG--they were just the wrong choices in my opinion; for example, Oath of Devotion fits Knights of the Sword better than Oath of the Crown; but the only relevance that has to the situation is perhaps they should put a little more time and effort into those suggestions to "get them right").

Also, in the case of VGtM, the book isn't FR at all. Unless Chapter 1 (which I haven't yet finished) is significantly more FR focused, VGtM is literally as setting inclusive/neutral as the core books.* I am not exaggerating.

FR is their focus in non-core products. They have said that they eventually want to move on to other settings, and when they do it is hinted that they will probably move away from Forgotten Realms and focus entirely on the other setting. It is also evident that they are not ready to do this yet, and we've probably got years of FR with scattering of compatible crossovers (like Curse of Strahd) mixed in. That gives us options for Spelljammer and Planescape. I could see them expanding into Al Qadim or Kara-Tur by having some organization based in one of those continents make an appearance in Faerun. Then their mega-adventure could involve starting in the Sword Coast and actually traveling to that far away land, while their computer games and organized play could focus on the Al Qadim or Kara-Tur group's new activity in the Sword Coast and the Moonsea region.

Now, I personally am not a fan of the exclusive FR focus, and think the method I described above for a soft expansion is lame. However, that's what they are likely to do in order to support their transmedia and organized play elements, which make them money.

The main point I'm making is that it isn't likely that D&D will morph into FR, because the design team is intentionally avoiding that, while intentionally using it as their current marketing focus.


*This includes the monster deities, because they are not FR specific, but are D&D multiverse specific, with explicit inclusion in Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, and Planescape, and multiple edition advice to use them in your own settings. The only reason people get in their head that Gruumsh (for instance) is a FR thing, is because they don't have the non-FR materials where he is found. That's like thinking that paladins are a FR thing because you don't have any setting material other than FR, and that's the only place you see them. In case anyone can't tell, this particular misinformation is a major pet peeve of mine. I'm not accusing this poster of expressing it, just taking the opportunity to talk about it.

 

[Parmandur]

I think the designers have been very careful to keep D&D from becoming FR this edition. I mean, you can believe them or not, but they've said ever since the beginning that the official default setting is "the multiverse", and the core books have references to multiple specific campaign settings, including monsters, characters, items, locations, etc.



Even in their explicitly FR books (SCAG and most of the adventures) they've started including appendixes with notes on how to convert the material for other settings, including both official ones and your own settings (I personally wasn't happy with some of the suggestions for Dragonlance conversions at the end of SCAG--they were just the wrong choices in my opinion; for example, Oath of Devotion fits Knights of the Sword better than Oath of the Crown; but the only relevance that has to the situation is perhaps they should put a little more time and effort into those suggestions to "get them right").



Also, in the case of VGtM, the book isn't FR at all. Unless Chapter 1 (which I haven't yet finished) is significantly more FR focused, VGtM is literally as setting inclusive/neutral as the core books.* I am not exaggerating.



FR is their focus in non-core products. They have said that they eventually want to move on to other settings, and when they do it is hinted that they will probably move away from Forgotten Realms and focus entirely on the other setting. It is also evident that they are not ready to do this yet, and we've probably got years of FR with scattering of compatible crossovers (like Curse of Strahd) mixed in. That gives us options for Spelljammer and Planescape. I could see them expanding into Al Qadim or Kara-Tur by having some organization based in one of those continents make an appearance in Faerun. Then their mega-adventure could involve starting in the Sword Coast and actually traveling to that far away land, while their computer games and organized play could focus on the Al Qadim or Kara-Tur group's new activity in the Sword Coast and the Moonsea region.



Now, I personally am not a fan of the exclusive FR focus, and think the method I described above for a soft expansion is lame. However, that's what they are likely to do in order to support their transmedia and organized play elements, which make them money.



The main point I'm making is that it isn't likely that D&D will morph into FR, because the design team is intentionally avoiding that, while intentionally using it as their current marketing focus.





*This includes the monster deities, because they are not FR specific, but are D&D multiverse specific, with explicit inclusion in Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, and Planescape, and multiple edition advice to use them in your own settings. The only reason people get in their head that Gruumsh (for instance) is a FR thing, is because they don't have the non-FR materials where he is found. That's like thinking that paladins are a FR thing because you don't have any setting material other than FR, and that's the only place you see them. In case anyone can't tell, this particular misinformation is a major pet peeve of mine. I'm not accusing this poster of expressing it, just taking the opportunity to talk about it.

chapter one is very much NOT FR specific, as with the rest of the book.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I think the designers have been very careful to keep D&D from becoming FR this edition. I mean, you can believe them or not, but they've said ever since the beginning that the official default setting is "the multiverse", and the core books have references to multiple specific campaign settings, including monsters, characters, items, locations, etc.

Even in their explicitly FR books (SCAG and most of the adventures) they've started including appendixes with notes on how to convert the material for other settings, including both official ones and your own settings (I personally wasn't happy with some of the suggestions for Dragonlance conversions at the end of SCAG--they were just the wrong choices in my opinion; for example, Oath of Devotion fits Knights of the Sword better than Oath of the Crown; but the only relevance that has to the situation is perhaps they should put a little more time and effort into those suggestions to "get them right").

Also, in the case of VGtM, the book isn't FR at all. Unless Chapter 1 (which I haven't yet finished) is significantly more FR focused, VGtM is literally as setting inclusive/neutral as the core books.* I am not exaggerating.

FR is their focus in non-core products. They have said that they eventually want to move on to other settings, and when they do it is hinted that they will probably move away from Forgotten Realms and focus entirely on the other setting. It is also evident that they are not ready to do this yet, and we've probably got years of FR with scattering of compatible crossovers (like Curse of Strahd) mixed in. That gives us options for Spelljammer and Planescape. I could see them expanding into Al Qadim or Kara-Tur by having some organization based in one of those continents make an appearance in Faerun. Then their mega-adventure could involve starting in the Sword Coast and actually traveling to that far away land, while their computer games and organized play could focus on the Al Qadim or Kara-Tur group's new activity in the Sword Coast and the Moonsea region.

Now, I personally am not a fan of the exclusive FR focus, and think the method I described above for a soft expansion is lame. However, that's what they are likely to do in order to support their transmedia and organized play elements, which make them money.

The main point I'm making is that it isn't likely that D&D will morph into FR, because the design team is intentionally avoiding that, while intentionally using it as their current marketing focus.


*This includes the monster deities, because they are not FR specific, but are D&D multiverse specific, with explicit inclusion in Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, and Planescape, and multiple edition advice to use them in your own settings. The only reason people get in their head that Gruumsh (for instance) is a FR thing, is because they don't have the non-FR materials where he is found. That's like thinking that paladins are a FR thing because you don't have any setting material other than FR, and that's the only place you see them. In case anyone can't tell, this particular misinformation is a major pet peeve of mine. I'm not accusing this poster of expressing it, just taking the opportunity to talk about it.

You do have a point that they have to be careful to make sure to be careful not to equate D&D and FR for the edition. That might very well be among the many reasons they seem reluctant to release a FRCS, despite the demand and the need. If they release a FRCS before any other setting, it runs the risk of making that equivalence become real in many minds. If they do decide to go down the path of releasing campaign settings, they might have to release a couple non-FR ones first before doing a FRCS so as to be seen as setting-neutral. But doing that, of course, runs the risk of alienating FR fans. The best route may just be to farm settings books out to third parties.

And as to your footnote, I couldn't agree more - I've actually posted earlier in the thread to correct someone who thought the VGtM deities were FR-specific when they aren't. It's not just confined to deities either - a lot of the time I'll see something that was really obscure in previous editions, or totally new in 5e, be identified by those unfamiliar with the setting as something FR-specific. In the run-up to the release of VGtM, for example, when it was announced that gnolls wouldn't be a playable race, I had to correct several posters who stated how they didn't like the 5e changes in gnolls and erroneously blamed it on the edition adopting a FR version of the monsters, when, of course, the setting has always had the same gnolls as everyone else from edition to edition.

 

[Jester David]

I see a lot of folks are still wearing those rose tinted shades.

How dare we want to think something we love is doing well. We should be crying "doom" and hoping it fails spectacularly, so the RPG can be shelved for a generation.
So D&D can join Alternity, Boot Hill, Dragonstrike, DreamBlade, Empire of the Petal Throne, Star Frontiers, Metamorphisis Alpha, Spellfire, Gamma World, and all those other abandoned TSR/WotC games.

When was another official survey done about the release schedule because I've participated in everyone recently and there hasn't been one listed. I think Mearls is a bit deluded. I think if they did another one they would get different results.

I doubt very, VERY much that any survey they did not would get even a fraction of the respondents as the playtest surveys. Fewer people are interested, they haven't voluntarily signed up to receive updates/ notification, it wouldn't receive as much media attention, etc.
So by that metric, yes, they would likely receive different results, as they would be getting feedback from a smaller and likely non-representative sampling. A few thousand people rather than a few hundred thousand people.

I also saw somewhere about AP's being good for gamers who don't have much time. That's rubbish! It may be good for some gamers but a lot of what I've heard from people is they take too long to complete when you only meet up once every week or two.

They take far, far less time than Paizo's Adventure Paths, with two or three times as many encounters, all of which tend to take longer. And lots of people finish those. I finished two myself.

From what we've seen here, and Facebook, and Reddit, you can finish a WotC storyline in 6-12 months with bi-weekly play. That's actually pretty fast.
Perkins finished a funky playthrough of Curse of Strahd in 31 two-hour sessions. That could be 16 four-hour sessions. Meeting every other week that's 8 months.

If a gaming group is so fragile and temporary that they're not going to meet for the entire 8 months needed to play through an adventure, then that group has larger issues than WotC's production schedules.
(But, arguably, a longer campaign might encourage people to stay longer and keep playing, rather than drop out when the short story ends.)

These types of people would rather play homebrew or quality shorter adventures that actually have a conclusion. Also, I find that lots of gamers don't like to play the same character for a long time and shorter adventures, and homebrew, make this a bit easier.

If they'd rather play homebrew... then they're not going to buy WotC's adventure's regardless. So the length of WotC's stuff doesn't matter.

If they want smaller adventures... well Princes of the Apocalypse and Storm King's Thunder are pretty much a whole bunch of small adventures connected by a thin veneer of a plot.

There is currently no evidence that the current release schedule is widely accepted and approved of. The only thing we see is that the rules are popular by the sales of the PHB.

There's no evidence!!
Except the continued success of the PHB, and how it's still doing very well two years after launch. And the high sales of every storyline adventure module. And books like Volo's Guide to Monsters, which just sold out on Amazon. And the edition. And pretty much everything WotC is doing which seems to get more and more attention. No evidence at all. None.

 

[Olive]

I also saw somewhere about AP's being good for gamers who don't have much time. That's rubbish! It may be good for some gamers but a lot of what I've heard from people is they take too long to complete when you only meet up once every week or two. These types of people would rather play homebrew or quality shorter adventures that actually have a conclusion. Also, I find that lots of gamers don't like to play the same character for a long time and shorter adventures, and homebrew, make this a bit easier.

When I say APs are good for people without much time, I'm talking about prep time. I only run homebrew adventures and agree, but I have lots of GMing experience over decades now...