Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7672999" data-attributes="member: 5100"><p>That doesn't surprise me, at all. If I didn't expressly rule out Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure I would have been "encouraged" to use it for 5E. I'm pretty sure the vote would have been: 1) Yes, please. 2) Always sounded neat. 3) Not ideal, but sounds like less work. 4) Whatever (because I'm going to ignore setting and stick my sword in things). 5) Huh? (Because I've never played before and am still trying to figure out the d20.)</p><p></p><p>Actually, what blew my mind was that I offered to either convert the modules to Eberron or to create a brand new setting. For Eberron, I said that I'd expect the PCs to draw from the Eberron fluff and the PCs to learn a bit. For home brew, I said I'd take my cues from the PCs and only develop what made sense and seemed important but would leave the rest vanilla/implied. I think it was unanimous for Eberron, in a beer and pretzels game. Pretty sure it doubled the work for everyone, which I don't mind, if rich setting is one of the goals of the campaign.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If this is the goal (and I think it is), then it makes much more sense to do a new version of the settings, too. That way the "evergreen" setting matches the core rules and can be stocked on the shelf right next to the core rules. Maybe they do intend to print an evergreen book for some of the settings, eventually. What I've heard doesn't sound like it, though.</p><p></p><p>This is the sort of thing that makes me really cringe at the 5E "brand management". I'm sure they have some sort of numbers to drive their decisions, but the decisions being telegraphed are mystifyingly out of sync with anything that makes sense with what I can see. I know there are some smart folks at Wizards, who love the industry and are good at what they do. I have to assume that there's an exec, somewhere, who is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle and the RPG staff is desperately trying to keep a great product from being "managed" into the ground. </p><p></p><p>I don't remember what the current Brand Manager's name is, but all indicators that it's either him or whomever he reports directly to (with him being the last sane person in the chain). Every single thing he says sounds like someone who doesn't even know what the D&D brand actually is and/or can't figure out that there are other brands associated with D&D that could be built upon more effectively (say, Forgotten Realms).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7672999, member: 5100"] That doesn't surprise me, at all. If I didn't expressly rule out Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure I would have been "encouraged" to use it for 5E. I'm pretty sure the vote would have been: 1) Yes, please. 2) Always sounded neat. 3) Not ideal, but sounds like less work. 4) Whatever (because I'm going to ignore setting and stick my sword in things). 5) Huh? (Because I've never played before and am still trying to figure out the d20.) Actually, what blew my mind was that I offered to either convert the modules to Eberron or to create a brand new setting. For Eberron, I said that I'd expect the PCs to draw from the Eberron fluff and the PCs to learn a bit. For home brew, I said I'd take my cues from the PCs and only develop what made sense and seemed important but would leave the rest vanilla/implied. I think it was unanimous for Eberron, in a beer and pretzels game. Pretty sure it doubled the work for everyone, which I don't mind, if rich setting is one of the goals of the campaign. If this is the goal (and I think it is), then it makes much more sense to do a new version of the settings, too. That way the "evergreen" setting matches the core rules and can be stocked on the shelf right next to the core rules. Maybe they do intend to print an evergreen book for some of the settings, eventually. What I've heard doesn't sound like it, though. This is the sort of thing that makes me really cringe at the 5E "brand management". I'm sure they have some sort of numbers to drive their decisions, but the decisions being telegraphed are mystifyingly out of sync with anything that makes sense with what I can see. I know there are some smart folks at Wizards, who love the industry and are good at what they do. I have to assume that there's an exec, somewhere, who is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle and the RPG staff is desperately trying to keep a great product from being "managed" into the ground. I don't remember what the current Brand Manager's name is, but all indicators that it's either him or whomever he reports directly to (with him being the last sane person in the chain). Every single thing he says sounds like someone who doesn't even know what the D&D brand actually is and/or can't figure out that there are other brands associated with D&D that could be built upon more effectively (say, Forgotten Realms). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?
Top