Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 8576145" data-attributes="member: 205">A few reasons.1)&nbsp; Even if the settings are published as two separate products, they're still going to be somewhat intertwined.&nbsp; (Assuming both eventually get published, of course.) They're the two products that would define the &quot;5e as unified multiversal setting&quot; conceit that's been implemented in recent products; they're both conceptually much less usable as standalone settings than anything else that has been published for 5e.&nbsp; 2)&nbsp; Even going back to 2E, I've always thought they were a little weird as standalone products.&nbsp; Functionally, it's going to be the elite of each setting that has the means and the desire to travel to other worlds; it's silly to think those same elite wouldn't be aware of both methods of long-distance travel.3)&nbsp; A lot of the recent settings lean more towards &quot;magical demiplane&quot; in feel rather than &quot;M-class planet orbiting a class G star&quot; (Ravnica, Theros, Strixhaven, for example).&nbsp; Not an impossible thing to get around, of course, but to my mind more recent settings seem to be not a great fit for a pure Spelljammer approach.4)&nbsp; Novelty for novelty's sake.&nbsp; I've already read the 2e Spelljammer and Planescape material, I don't need the same thing reprinted with new mechanics.&nbsp; Forgotten Realms at least updates the timeline with each new edition book.&nbsp; The Eberron books I could accept because a) it's my favorite setting, so I'll support it anyway, and b) they at least put new spins on a lot of old material with each new edition book.&quot;Novelty for novelty's sake&quot; might not be a market winner, but I'm under no impetus to advocate for positions purely for being beneficial to WotC's bottom line.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 8576145, member: 205"] A few reasons. 1) Even if the settings are published as two separate products, they're still going to be somewhat intertwined. (Assuming both eventually get published, of course.) They're the two products that would define the "5e as unified multiversal setting" conceit that's been implemented in recent products; they're both conceptually much less usable as standalone settings than anything else that has been published for 5e. 2) Even going back to 2E, I've always thought they were a little weird as standalone products. Functionally, it's going to be the elite of each setting that has the means and the desire to travel to other worlds; it's silly to think those same elite wouldn't be aware of both methods of long-distance travel. 3) A lot of the recent settings lean more towards "magical demiplane" in feel rather than "M-class planet orbiting a class G star" (Ravnica, Theros, Strixhaven, for example). Not an impossible thing to get around, of course, but to my mind more recent settings seem to be not a great fit for a pure Spelljammer approach. 4) Novelty for novelty's sake. I've already read the 2e Spelljammer and Planescape material, I don't need the same thing reprinted with new mechanics. Forgotten Realms at least updates the timeline with each new edition book. The Eberron books I could accept because a) it's my favorite setting, so I'll support it anyway, and b) they at least put new spins on a lot of old material with each new edition book. "Novelty for novelty's sake" might not be a market winner, but I'm under no impetus to advocate for positions purely for being beneficial to WotC's bottom line. [/QUOTE]

Verification