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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9162369" data-attributes="member: 7635">So I'm going to voice a VERY unpopular opinion.WotC is repeating the Original Sin of TSR by trying to support multiple settings. I don't need a Dragonlance book. I'm not running the module, I'm never using the setting, and the few bits I did care about (Lunar Sorc and monsters) could have been put in the next Tasha and MotM respectively. At the same time, each setting is under baked because they have to move on to the next one. WotC had it right in the beginning: focus on one setting. The Sword Coast was actually fairly developed. The SCAG was bare bones, but it was a decent primer. Each module was a mini gazetteer. Books like Volo and Tome of Foes were supposed to add lore to races and monsters. The idea was sound, the execution lacking. More importantly, it felt like it was supposed to work together as supplements to the same game and setting. But, WotC has opted to go MTG in it's world building. Rather than focus on one world (Dominaria) they are focusing on hyper-specific one-theme settings and the notion of jumping across the Multiverse from setting to setting. Need a horror adventure? Go to horror world! Want a dragon adventure? Run dragon world. They will return to popular settings (they have done multiple Innistrad runs for example) but each set is a self-contained world and story with only a few plane-hopping returning characters. So to will D&D be scattered, its options designed for specific settings and adventures, no setting getting more development than what is needed for that one product. And if you do them this is a good idea for D&D, let me remind you where MTG went after a decade of diving into that well:MTG: Worlds Beyond.</blockquote>

Verification