D&D 5E Mike Mearls on Settings

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Other factors indeed. The numbers that is far more important than what people *want* is what people *use*.

And there is was 50% homebrew, 25% Realms, 25% everything else. If half of the homebrewers are open to using lightly Realms-fluffed content, this means that WotC's choices for setting are:

Realms - capture 50% of the market
anything else - capture nearly zilch of the market

That's some pretty iffy use of stats there. First, where does the "If half of the homebrewers are open to using lightly Realms-fluffed content" come from, and why wouldn't that statement apply to, "If half of the homebrewers are open to using lightly any-setting-fluffed content"? Second, the number who liked Greyhawk was not Zero. So there is no way to come to a "nearly zilch of the market" conclusion for Greyhawk.

I think a lot of people would buy a Greyhawk book. There is a lot of curiosity out there from people who were not around when it was a supported setting but have heard about it for years and know a lot of the stuff in the PHB and DMG is tied to it. It doesn't have to be the #1 setting people were interested in to be a setting people are interested in. For instance, my preference is Greyhawk, but I've been buying FR books. Because they're both good settings, I just prefer one more than the other.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

The Scythian

Explorer
I should have clarified that - Drow as PCs and not adversaries. I don't have a problem with Salvatore's favorite son, I just have a problem with how easily he integrates with society at large.

If you want a world where races that would normally be considered "monsters" or at least dire threats to the existence of civilized lands running around, that's great.

If you accept the occasional drow, then you have orcs and I don't know ... friendly vampires running around. That's all part of the "anything goes" feel of FR which is fine. But I want my drow to be the bogeyman, not just another playable race.

I think you might be projecting your own preferences onto Greyhawk as a setting.

The drow became an official player character subrace in Unearthed Arcana, at the same time all of the other elven variants did. Back then, Greyhawk was the soft default for most adventures and game materials (and TSR hadn't yet licensed the Forgotten Realms).
 

Oofta

Legend
That's some pretty iffy use of stats there. First, where does the "If half of the homebrewers are open to using lightly Realms-fluffed content" come from, and why wouldn't that statement apply to, "If half of the homebrewers are open to using lightly any-setting-fluffed content"? Second, the number who liked Greyhawk was not Zero. So there is no way to come to a "nearly zilch of the market" conclusion for Greyhawk.

I think a lot of people would buy a Greyhawk book. There is a lot of curiosity out there from people who were not around when it was a supported setting but have heard about it for years and know a lot of the stuff in the PHB and DMG is tied to it. It doesn't have to be the #1 setting people were interested in to be a setting people are interested in. For instance, my preference is Greyhawk, but I've been buying FR books. Because they're both good settings, I just prefer one more than the other.

I would also say that FR is the most widely used campaign because it's been the most supported campaign for a few years now. It's not surprising Greyhawk isn't higher on the list - it's been more than a decade (I think) since there was anything of substance published.
 

Oofta

Legend
I think you might be projecting your own preferences onto Greyhawk as a setting.

The drow became an official player character subrace in Unearthed Arcana, at the same time all of the other elven variants did. Back then, Greyhawk was the soft default for most adventures and game materials (and TSR hadn't yet licensed the Forgotten Realms).

They may have been allowed, but I don't remember them being allowed in Living Greyhawk or being NPCs in any published materials I ever read. They were certainly not standard.

I could be wrong ... that was a decade or so ago.
 


The_Gunslinger658

First Post
howdy-

The most important question that should be asked is, why buy a new edition of a setting when you can easily use the old versions on your shelf? What incentive will WoTC give us to buy their new versions of FR or GH ect ect?

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with my 3.5 FR stuff and Greyhawk box set.

Scott
 


Nostalgia. It's like visiting with an old friend that you haven't seen in a while. Catch up, reminisce about old times a bit and see what's changed since the last time you were together.

Which for the Forgotten Realms would be a couple of serious car crashes and several crises of faith! :D
 

The Scythian

Explorer
They may have been allowed, but I don't remember them being allowed in Living Greyhawk or being NPCs in any published materials I ever read. They were certainly not standard.

I could be wrong ... that was a decade or so ago.

Just to clear things up, I'm talking about the original Unearthed Arcana, released long before Living Greyhawk.

As far as Living Greyhawk goes, I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with it. However, I was under the impression that its restrictions were intended to support a certain style of organized play, not offer the final word on what is and isn't possible within the setting.

Non-evil drow NPCs have been there right from when the race was introduced. In Vault of the Drow, the players could discover and potentially save a drow dissident (neutral, with good tendencies) from being sacrificed to Lolth. Later (in terms of publishing, not storyline), in Vale of the Mage, player characters can discover the titular mage's second in command is a disillusioned (neutral) drow driven from Erelhei-Cinlu by factional infighting. I'm absolutely certain there are others.
 

Bad Fox

First Post
Other factors indeed. The numbers that is far more important than what people *want* is what people *use*.

And there is was 50% homebrew, 25% Realms, 25% everything else. If half of the homebrewers are open to using lightly Realms-fluffed content, this means that WotC's choices for setting are:

Realms - capture 50% of the market
anything else - capture nearly zilch of the market

I understand they need and want to expand this, ideally by promoting a second setting that captures a lot of customers that reject the realms. But Greyhawk is not that setting.

Doing a one-off for legacy setting more as a kind of thank you to the fans than as a long-term lineup expansion is another thing. So by the above I don't mean to suggest a Greyhawk or Cerilia book can't happen.

I don't see Wizards as looking to promote a second setting just to capture customers that reject the realms. I feel like the company wouldn't currently be interested in any sales strategy that doesn't target the entire player base.

To this end, I think the old model of promoting multiple settings simulatnously (as we saw in the 2nd ed era) may be pushed aside for the model used by Wizards with its Magic the Gathering products.

If you think about it, Magic dips its toes into a ton of different settings, but it cycles through these worlds through staggered releases. One series of products explore Ravnica, while another might delve into the world of Mirrodin.

It would be easy to do a similar thing with D&D.

With Magic, players don't choose one plane and only buy cards related to that particular setting. Rather, the differences between worlds provide variety for players as they purchase products from year to year. This is a route I could easily see Mearls & Co. taking. For me, it makes sense to get as much of the D&D community on board with whatever world they're currently promoting, and then get players re-energized by trying a totally different world the following year.
 

Remove ads

Top