Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 7896150" data-attributes="member: 18182">Just a thought to add . . . .This upcoming setting book is tied to a popular streaming show . . . but does that really matter (other than to fans of the show)? I mean, it's still a setting book. Was the recent Eberron setting book a bad call from WotC because not everybody likes the setting of Eberron? Was the Ravica setting book a bad call because not everybody plays Magic: The Gathering?If WotC partnered with a fantasy author to put out a setting book for D&D based on a series of novels, would that be a bad call? Not everybody will have read or enjoyed those novels, which ever novels we're talking about. How about a new setting book tied to a comic book series, or movie series?Why is Wildemount any different? If you were completely ignorant of Critical Role, or hate the "actual play" streaming movement from the core of your soul . . . . it's still a setting book that you might find interesting. Or not.Now, if you would prefer WotC to develop their own "classic" settings into 5E before tackling "new" or "other" settings . . . . I can understand that desire. But we are simply dealing with a situation where the book WotC is publishing in March isn't to YOUR desires, while it does match the desires of other fans. To bitch about that is just, well, sour grapes at best, toxic fandom at it's most extreme.The fact that the Wildemount book is tied to Critical Role is . . . immaterial really (in context of our discussion).</blockquote>

Verification