Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amphytrion" data-source="post: 9618662" data-attributes="member: 7046181">I'm with those who think the Mearls era of D&D was much better - I enjoyed the releases far more back then. There are multiple reasons for this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think the adventures were more interesting.  Curse of Strahd, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Tomb of Anhilation, etc. The adventures in Winniger era have been much less captivating, and sometimes downright unusable.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The setting work was mostly richer. I don't think much in the Winniger era compares to the care put in Eberron, for example. Ghosts of Saltmarsh has a great little setting in just one chapter of the book.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The swings were more generally useful. I don't play in Theros or Ravnica, but I use those books all the time. Fantastic work with the piety and renown system which is easy to rip off. Strixhaven is on the other hand a waste to me. I have never used a single thing from it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The monster books were fantastic. New statblocks are nice to have, but easy to find and easy to wing. The real value in Volo's and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes was in the first chapters. I use those chapters constantly, it has dramatically improved how I run orcs, gnolls, devils, demons, hags, goblinoids, kobolds, and all the major monster categories. Great, top-notch material. The reassemblage those books suffered via Monsters of the Multiverse destroyed their entire value to me as a DM.</li> </ul>I generally really dislike the direction the game took post-Tasha, both on the player side and on the DM-facing material. There are proper exceptions of course: James Wyatt's books (Fizban's, Bigby's) are great and I also use them all the time. I am a big fan of him as a designer. I also liked Van Richten's, though some parts much more than others.I'm also giving some leeway to the entire early team under Mearls for the first year or so of 5e, which did have some not-so-great releases (e.g. Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, which is really quite poor). They were adapting and I think they did so very well all things considered, and in short time, but it's worth mentioning those first few releases to be fair.Separately from my general dislike towards the general direction of the game from Tasha onwards, I think that the releases were poorly timed from a branding perspective under the Ray Winniger/Jeremy Crawford leadership. Baldur's Gate 3 was released, and the Forgotten Realms accompanying setting is not due until 2 years later? Bizarre choice. And they had the time to think this through, considering the game was a success even in early access. This repeats itself with other tie-ins, like the movie, but it's more egregious in BG3's case.</blockquote>

Verification