Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think any major rule revisions should be handled in an Unearthed Arcana / Pathfinder Unchained like product and be presented along with new rule options side by side. This would make the new rules optional while keeping the original edition as canon. I think this has the potential to extend the edition life cycle.

Well, it hasn't, by itself, breathed new life into previous editions that have tried it, but that doesn't make it a worse approach than any other. In a sense 4e's approach with RC wasn't bad. They released a cheap paperback that recapitulated the core rules in a revised form. It didn't answer questions about changes outside the general rules, like errata to powers, but it was well-received overall and it was a really handy book. Its one of the few Essentials products I bought and really got a lot of use out of. I don't think that sort of revision is problematic. You can still not buy the book and not use it. Of course for the player-facing stuff you'd still need a UA.

So, maybe that would be the way I'd go, publish an RC and a UA in a couple years. Given that 5e won't have a lot of sprawling rules material the 'RC' can be more of a "here's a handy rules reference AND a few new rules options for the DM", and UA can be "here's some new player stuff".

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know, I think that leads to confusion where the new guy shows up with his book and it says X and the DM's book says Y, and its kind of a WTF? moment. I think transparency is ALWAYS better, don't do anything under the table. WotC should have learned that by now, but they haven't, which I find perplexing. They seem to have a poor institutional learning curve. However, the errata is small and focused, which is good, and the books are revised, which is good. And frankly people who pay attention will know, but it might be a little more out in the open.

It will say "Second Printing: May 2015" on the credits page, which is how they've always done it (save the 3.5 reprint).

 

[GobiWon]

What is Mike Mearls hinting at? I think he wants to tie any and all expanded rules ... new classes, new spells, etc ... to settings. Each new setting would hopefully extend the normal 5-6 year rule set cycle. He wants to concentrate on one setting every 3-4 years to reinvigorate the game with new rules that are specific to a setting but optional to the game as a whole. He hopes to extend the life cycle of this rule set to 12-15 years. Of course that doesn't mean their isn't room for a new monster manual or two and maybe an Unearthed Arcana book at the seven year mark to fix things in the core and provide a few new options.

 

[GobiWon]

... of course people might not want to wait a decade to see their favorite setting adapted to 5e so this might backfire. We see this as the slow release schedule is becoming a growing problem for fans. Mearls is in a tough spot, though, because he doesn't want to splinter his sales across five different settings.

It would be nice to see some one session adventures with separate pre-gen characters on nice stock like 4e encounters had. The pre-gens could be a constant in each one of these single session games. It would be a nice introduction to the game and a way to get busy adults with little time to indulge in a nostalgic past-time from their youth back into the hobby.

 

[Corpsetaker]

What is Mike Mearls hinting at? I think he wants to tie any and all expanded rules ... new classes, new spells, etc ... to settings. Each new setting would hopefully extend the normal 5-6 year rule set cycle. He wants to concentrate on one setting every 3-4 years to reinvigorate the game with new rules that are specific to a setting but optional to the game as a whole. He hopes to extend the life cycle of this rule set to 12-15 years. Of course that doesn't mean their isn't room for a new monster manual or two and maybe an Unearthed Arcana book at the seven year mark to fix things in the core and provide a few new options.

I think the problem is Mearls hasn't painted the whole picture and I feel like fellow posters haven't either. I have heard that TSR went down partly because they supported multiple settings. While I believe that is true, I think there is more to it than what is said.

I own all setting products from 1st and second edition and I can tell you the level of support was huge. You can support multiple settings without having to go to that level of support so saying supporting various settings can lead to downfall isn't accurate.

There is nothing wrong with Wizards doing a campaign guide that was along the thickness of the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.

1: Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.
2: Dragonlance Campaign Guide.
3: Ravenloft Campaign Guide.
4: Planescape Campaign Guide.
5: Etc.......

Doing a campaign guide followed by online UA support would not lead Wizards down a slippery slope.

 

[GobiWon]

I think this is what they are doing. They are not being transparent with the release cycle because they don't want to alienate fans of certain settings that are scheduled late in the release cycle. The Forgotten Realms expansion, The Eberron expansion, The Dragonlance expansion, the Dark Sun expansion, the Grayhawk expansion all will have one book along the lines of 3e's FRCS (the high standard in my humble opinion) and multiple APs set in that setting. Each will form a "bloc". They are going to avoid overlap because they want to increase the number of people who will buy each and every book, but this is disappointing to people who are a fan of a particular setting not released relatively soon. Thus the closed mouths at WotC concerning release schedules.

 

[DaveMage]

I think this is what they are doing. They are not being transparent with the release cycle because they don't want to alienate fans of settings that are late in the release cycle. The Forgotten Realms expansion, The Eberron expansion, The Dragonlance expansion, the Darksun expansion, the Grayhawk expansion all will have one one book along the line of 3e's FRCS (the high standard in my humble opinion) and multiple APs set in that setting for each "bloc". They are going to avoid overlap because they want to increase the number of people who will buy each and every book, but it is disappointing to people who are a fan of a setting not released relatively soon. Thus the closed mouths at Wotc concerning release schedules.

While this is certainly possible, I think some of their product plan silence is due to them waiting to see sales results. Of course, they also do not have a large staff, so they are no longer capable of a robust release schedule anyway. (Even if they farm out products, they likely still need to review the content thoroughly before publication.)

 

[Shasarak]

It does. You don't need more than one version of Monopoly.
And making a Transformer variant of Monopoly won't take a year of writing and playtesting and require thousands of dollars of art.

This is exactly why WotC ended the Basic and Advanced versions of D&D. And limits their number of campaign settings.

Making a Transformers PHB does not take a year of writing either. It is the same game with Transformers names like Transformers Monopoly is the same game with different names.

 

[mearls]

Hey all,

Silence on our part is not some weird scheme. We're actually just adjusting our PR plans and marketing to better fit games as a whole. If you look at video games, they generally don't announce a new expansion for a game until the last one has launched. We're working on a similar path, to keep things focused and more importantly coordinated with all our partners.

When we work with a licensee on a video game, part of that work focuses on marketing, social media, and so on. If we all have a consistent focus, it really helps D&D as a whole.

I think part of 5e's success in bringing in new and lapsed gamers is due to that focus. It has helped create a critical mass that has yielded a lot more media coverage than we'd receive in the past.

 

[GobiWon]

I'm in the minority I feel like, but I just don't want the limited offerings that WotC is handing out. I don't want story campaigns. I don't want branded products. I don't care about the newest threat that must be faced in the Forgotten Realms. This is coming from someone who really likes the Realms too. I want gazetteers, I want more tools to create my own adventures not the play by numbers, follow along as we go stuff we are getting now. My enthusiasm for D&D 5E is at an all time low. So low that I have stopped advocating for it in my group and continued with Pathfinder and given away my 5E books in the process. What a bummer.

I would like an update to the Realms. I think they need some new genuine adventures set in the Forgotten Realms to justify a new campaign setting book, but could we at least get an article by Greenwood with an overview of the changes.

I still love 5e's rule set. I feel Pathfinder is at the point where it will collapse under the weight of all it's new splat books.