These screencaps were posted by GM Leigh (of Mage Productions) on Twitter after being showed on WotC's Twitch stream, presented by Kate Welch and Nathan Stewart. Note the old Saltmarsh trilogy references!
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't listened to Dragon Talk yet, but I did give Crawford's update on the UAs going forward in the Artificer thread. I'm thinking one of two things will happen next week: Either Morgrave's Miscellany will drop along with the Artificer, or we'll get the full announcement of the Nautical book with an article in Dragon+ about it.So, Bart Carroll said on the Dragon+ show that the next issue of Dragon+ is coming early next week to coincide with...other things...might see an announcement soon.
Haven't had a listen yet, but in the Dragon Talk podcast today Chris Perkins discusses the history of TSR UK: maybe we'll get some of the other UK modules, too.
Exciting times. I think coordinating a press release about the new book with a big spread in Dragon+ would make solid sense.I haven't listened to Dragon Talk yet, but I did give Crawford's update on the UAs going forward in the Artificer thread. I'm thinking one of two things will happen next week: Either Morgrave's Miscellany will drop along with the Artificer, or we'll get the full announcement of the Nautical book with an article in Dragon+ about it.
Or maybe both? Both is always good!
Hands down my favorite module. I'm kicking myself for not getting it when it was new.I would love to see Nights Dark Terror updated/modernized/converted. That was a great UK module.
So the only metric is success in the marketplace?I don't know how many constitute many. I do try to avoid making broader statements without evidence.
And, I'd point to the fact that even "thin" supplements like SCAG are still selling far, far more than any single title of the same age for any other edition, outside of core books. Seems like they are doing something right.
It probably had more to do with concurrent development. The in-house team was busy working on the actual rule books up until very close to their release (I think the DMG had some last-minute changes in response to feedback on the Monster Manual), so they hired others to do the first few adventures.It also seemed D&D and Hasbro had no faith in 5e, since they outsourced the adventures to other studios (Tyranny of Dragons was Kobold Press, PotA was Sasquatch Game Studios, OotA was Green Ronin). It took them until Curse of Strahd to finally do an adventure in house, and that was March 2016.
Sword Coast Adventurers Guidenis also successful based on reviews: positive recommendation here on EnWorld, and pretty overwhelmingly positive reviews on Amazon.So the only metric is success in the marketplace?
For the company, possibly, though not totally---there are lots of ways to jack sales figures up in the short run that hurt medium to long term.For determining the right course of action for a company?
SCAG is fine. It was a decent player’s guide to the Realms with a smattering of new content and introduction to the gods. It did exactly what you expected based on the name and did it well.For the company, possibly, though not totally---there are lots of ways to jack sales figures up in the short run that hurt medium to long term.
For consumers? Not so much. I don't see why I should really care overly much.
By that metric alone, McDonald's is the master of a good burger and Britney Spears produced good music.
This. I want to see more products like SCAG and fewer like XGtE and MToF. Unfortunately, it seems like that's just not going to happen.Honestly, I think SCAG is a better and more solid product than XGtE and its endless pages of random names and magic item tables that should have been PDFs. And it’s certainly better than MToF, which was an unfocused mess.
I actually agree, the SCAG was the most fun to read, best written of the 5e books, but it suffer two weeknesses, it should have been bigger, and it could have had better mechanics. XGTE almost needs to be treated as multiple books when reviewing it, because the subclass, racial feats, and spells were amazing, but most of the rest of the book was absolutely awful filler, like one part is A+ and the other part is F-.SCAG is fine. It was a decent player’s guide to the Realms with a smattering of new content and introduction to the gods. It did exactly what you expected based on the name and did it well.
My comments now mirror my comments when I first reviewed the book:
It’s only “flaw” just that it wasn’t the “giant book of unnecessary amounts of splat” people expected after 3e and 4e player centric books. The problem wasn’t SCAG, but the expectations of the fans.
Honestly, I think SCAG is a better and more solid product than XGtE and its endless pages of random names and magic item tables that should have been PDFs. And it’s certainly better than MToF, which was an unfocused mess.
The giant splatbooks of options didn’t help 3e last a long time or make the game more fun at the table. Or 3.5e. Or 4e. Or Pathfinder. They don’t make the game easier for new players. I don’t see doing that same thing again for the fourth time as being a measure of success.
Wayfarer's guide is like the SCAG for eberron kind of. But I really liked the in character writing style of the SCAG and was disappointed to find VGTM didn't have that dispite creating that impression that it would.This. I want to see more products like SCAG and fewer like XGtE and MToF. Unfortunately, it seems like that's just not going to happen.
Hussar, It's been a while since I've stated a disagreement with one of your opinions - intentionally, since I know that sometimes I've gotten overheated at times and it degenerated into a flame war. However, I feel I must point out that commercial success and pleasing the original fan base don't have to be an either/or situation. First, look at how the live-action Transformers movies were handled - they made a lot of money, so commercial success, no question. But they also made a lot of needless changes that angered the fan base of the original 80's cartoon series. Next, look at the Harry Potter films. Smash hits, huge commercial success - and you know what, they were mostly very faithful to the original stories in the books - compare the first Harry Potter flick with the first Transformers flick, for instance. To my mind, that proves that there was absolutely no need to make the changes in the Transformers films - not financially. It was just the whim of the director and the producers. They could have remained faithful to the source material and still raked in the dough - the Harry Potter films prove that is a perfectly viable move to make. So given a choice between 1) staying faithful to the source material, pleasing the fans, and raking in a bunch of money, or 2) departing greatly from the source material, angering the fans, but still raking in a bunch of money, WHY would anybody choose option #2?!?!?For determining the right course of action for a company?
I notice, Hussar, that you studiously avoid mentioning the Harry Potter film series - why is that? Wouldn't have anything to do with the huge commercial success it enjoyed without making major changes to the characters and storylines, or the fact that after breaking your rules for how to make money, they mysteriously failed to go bankrupt, which is what is supposed to happen - according to you - if a company tries to be faithful to the source material? Hmm. Seems like your theory failed in a real-world trial. And there's simply no evidence you can point to that says changing source material somehow guarantees larger profits than sticking with the original. Are you seriously claiming that, say, the Harry Potter films could have made more money if, say, they had only changed Harry's origin story so that he was Snape's son, or made Voldemort female instead of male like in the books? (Pity you weren't there to advise them.)Well, quite simply, Option 2 has meant making more money.
I mean, good grief, one of the Bay Transformers movies probably made more money than the entire run of the 80's Transformers movies. ((Note, I don't know that, but, at a guess, it's probably not far off))
The bigger issue in my mind is that "original fans" haven't a clue about who the fans of a product actually are. Take Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The biggest fans of the product weren't people who read the comics or played the RPG or even watched the cartoon. No. The biggest fans were 2-3 years old. THAT'S what TMNT was for. So, when they came out with the kiddified TMNT movies in the 80's, older fans were flabbergasted. How could they make our glorious stories so stupid? Don't they understand who the fans of TMNT are?
Turns out, yup, they knew EXACTLY who the fans were and made buckets of money off of toys and whatnot. The movies were just 2 hour advertisements for toys.
I mean, seriously, how can you really point to Michael Bay and say that he did things wrong? He made Transformers into a household name and made all the money possible doing so. How is that not a good thing.
Or, put it this way. If the Transformers movies had not done so well, or only as well as the old 1986 movie, which, while held up by Transformers fans as a great thing, absolutely tanked, we'd have gotten six movies and now a Bumblebee spin off?
I'm sorry, but the idea that there are other metrics for a company other than making profit is the fastest way to bankruptcy.