Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] RAGE OF DEMONS! New D&D Storyline Features Drizzt, Underdark, & Demon Lords!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7670868" data-attributes="member: 5100"><p>I agree with the general thoughts behind most of the above. As I've said, though, my problems are two-fold: 1) I don't want any setting to become synonymous with the D&D brand, 2) I especially don't like FR being the only supported setting.</p><p></p><p>While I'm partial to Eberron being the second supported setting, the truth is that it would make me almost as happy for them to publish a module for Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or Dark Sun. That holds true even if they then ignored everything not FR for two years. The ideal is first class support for a non-Realms setting, but the real critical piece, IMO, is to clearly telegraph that FR does not have a publication monopoly at WotC.</p><p></p><p>My two AP per year schedule speaks to me, personally. It also seems to make other "anti-Realms" folks happy. I think it strikes a balance between supporting their "money maker" and giving other brands some love and a chance to grow. Some variation on that theme would be a lot more "hobby-friendly" than the current model, IMO. Regardless, Realms exclusivity seems like it'd be a self-perpetuating policy: The Realms gets the love because it's the most recognized brand; because it gets all the love, no one recognizes other brands.</p><p></p><p>The (fairly small) conspiracy theorist in me suspects that the "selling of 5E to Hasbro" that Mearls did included selling FR as a transmedia brand. So, Hasbro green-lit 5E, specifically as a nostalgia system that feels "old school" and is gives a sense of continuity for video games, etc. FR gets published because it can make <u>some</u> money. The design/development team would like to support other settings, in some form, but Hasbro wants to maximize their ROI so the direction is to stick with the Realms. The D&D team is hoping to show enough competency with FR that they can make a case for doing the same with another setting brand, as well. They don't know how long that'll take (or, probably, what the measure of success actually is), so they have to play it coy. In truth, Hasbro may well keep moving that measure out, because the TTRPG will always be seen as a token to make the video game and book business "authentic".</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can agree with this, too. When I was younger, I spent dozens of hours, every week, doing prep work. I built an entire game world and advanced it with what the players did as part of the adventures I created. Now that I have a 40+ hour job, four kids, and volunteer time, I <u>need</u> the published adventures and appreciate the published settings. I also have appreciably more cash to throw at my hobby.</p><p></p><p>I'm in the demographic that would happily drop $500 a year on D&D goods, possibly more if it was really good stuff. I'd love to be able to throw money at WotC/Hasbro. I'm not so much interested in bashing or squashing FR (or anything else) as I am in letting Hasbro know how to take my money. Part of that is in being open about what's going to drive me to go elsewhere for a meal and not check for when they add pizza back onto the menu. If I knew what was up next, I might settle in and try FR again; tastes change.</p><p></p><p>IMO, 5E is the best version of D&D, to date. They did an amazing job. I'd really like to be able to continue to patronize them. Please stop using so much garlic, though. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7670868, member: 5100"] I agree with the general thoughts behind most of the above. As I've said, though, my problems are two-fold: 1) I don't want any setting to become synonymous with the D&D brand, 2) I especially don't like FR being the only supported setting. While I'm partial to Eberron being the second supported setting, the truth is that it would make me almost as happy for them to publish a module for Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or Dark Sun. That holds true even if they then ignored everything not FR for two years. The ideal is first class support for a non-Realms setting, but the real critical piece, IMO, is to clearly telegraph that FR does not have a publication monopoly at WotC. My two AP per year schedule speaks to me, personally. It also seems to make other "anti-Realms" folks happy. I think it strikes a balance between supporting their "money maker" and giving other brands some love and a chance to grow. Some variation on that theme would be a lot more "hobby-friendly" than the current model, IMO. Regardless, Realms exclusivity seems like it'd be a self-perpetuating policy: The Realms gets the love because it's the most recognized brand; because it gets all the love, no one recognizes other brands. The (fairly small) conspiracy theorist in me suspects that the "selling of 5E to Hasbro" that Mearls did included selling FR as a transmedia brand. So, Hasbro green-lit 5E, specifically as a nostalgia system that feels "old school" and is gives a sense of continuity for video games, etc. FR gets published because it can make [U]some[/U] money. The design/development team would like to support other settings, in some form, but Hasbro wants to maximize their ROI so the direction is to stick with the Realms. The D&D team is hoping to show enough competency with FR that they can make a case for doing the same with another setting brand, as well. They don't know how long that'll take (or, probably, what the measure of success actually is), so they have to play it coy. In truth, Hasbro may well keep moving that measure out, because the TTRPG will always be seen as a token to make the video game and book business "authentic". I can agree with this, too. When I was younger, I spent dozens of hours, every week, doing prep work. I built an entire game world and advanced it with what the players did as part of the adventures I created. Now that I have a 40+ hour job, four kids, and volunteer time, I [u]need[/u] the published adventures and appreciate the published settings. I also have appreciably more cash to throw at my hobby. I'm in the demographic that would happily drop $500 a year on D&D goods, possibly more if it was really good stuff. I'd love to be able to throw money at WotC/Hasbro. I'm not so much interested in bashing or squashing FR (or anything else) as I am in letting Hasbro know how to take my money. Part of that is in being open about what's going to drive me to go elsewhere for a meal and not check for when they add pizza back onto the menu. If I knew what was up next, I might settle in and try FR again; tastes change. IMO, 5E is the best version of D&D, to date. They did an amazing job. I'd really like to be able to continue to patronize them. Please stop using so much garlic, though. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] RAGE OF DEMONS! New D&D Storyline Features Drizzt, Underdark, & Demon Lords!
Top