D&D 5E Where We've Been and Where We Might Be Going (or, What I Think WotC Is Doing)

[guachi]

I am wondering if we will see more "official" 5e products on DMs Guild. I think it would be a great way to support settings. So instead of release a ravenloft, eberron, theros, etc. book each year, they can release them POD on DMsGuild. That would allow them to support settings with out having the cost of printing them. I actually hope this is what they do.

I'm all for this. It gives the market more "official" products without flooding the main market. Like a movie having comic book or novel tie-ins.

 

[Zaukrie]

100 percent, there will be products related to the movie, imo.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

View attachment 145031

Borrowing your table, it looks like Spelljammer is certainly making an appearance.

Is it filling a Classic Setting spot? Could be. I am assuming however that the alternative cover with Boo and a Beholder on it is this Spelljammer book, and seems more fitting for an adventure. And that this is also the "Scary, Wonderful, New" setting Perkins hinted at. So I think this book is an adventure, or at least a hybrid of setting and adventure (Strixhaven is a lot like this).

This could also mean that we are getting two big adventures per year (this is a way earlier announcement than normal), or that they're moving the big adventure releases from the Fall to the Spring.

I'm not so sure it's for an Spelljammer adventure anymore, 6 races is alot for a minor player segment of an adventure and if it was the adventure it'd get the Summer slot, this looks like it will be for something sooner. If it was for an adventure they'd also have to figure out how these races fit into the Forgotten Realms (some like the Thrikreen are well established at least).

 

[Mercurius]

View attachment 145031

Borrowing your table, it looks like Spelljammer is certainly making an appearance.

Is it filling a Classic Setting spot? Could be. I am assuming however that the alternative cover with Boo and a Beholder on it is this Spelljammer book, and seems more fitting for an adventure. And that this is also the "Scary, Wonderful, New" setting Perkins hinted at. So I think this book is an adventure, or at least a hybrid of setting and adventure (Strixhaven is a lot like this).

This could also mean that we are getting two big adventures per year (this is a way earlier announcement than normal), or that they're moving the big adventure releases from the Fall to the Spring.

I'll quote myself from AcererakTriple6's thread:

I'm basing this off my prediction in the thread about the impending announcement. I'm not sure if this is exactly what I want, but I think it makes sense, and I'd be very happy if they follow this route.

Adventure book: The PCs find a spelljammer in the Realms somewhere, possibly Lantan. The adventure is made up of loosely connected episodes of locations beyond Toril that the PCs visit while on the spelljammer. How about this premise: They explore the ship and it "turns on," and starts going to random locations outside of Toril. It could even be a kind of random thing, like the Deck of Many Things, but the "Panel of Many Places," with the PCs pressing a button on the spelljammer's dashboard, and off they go, sailing the Astral Sea. Perhaps the spelljammer is sentient and trying to remember what it is, and visiting places it had been to previously. The PCs gradually put together the mystery, and learn how to pilot it over the course of the campaign. The final destination is none other than...the city of Sigil. Which leads me to the second book:

Shemeska's Manual of the Multiverse: This is a combination of Manual of the Planes and Planescape, with flavors of Spelljammer and Magic's planeswalking. It includes a gazetteer of Sigil and the Outlands, and an overview of the planes, along with rules for different approaches to exploring the multiverse--the doors of Sigil, spelljamming on the Astral Sea, and planeswalking. It would also discuss different cosmologies, emphasizing that there is no correct, singular one, just a wide variety of lenses to view and explore the multiverse from.

This opens up the door to as many planar adventures as WotC wants to publish, and the connective paradigmatic tissue for other worlds.

Again, I'm not sure exactly which direction they're taking, but I could see it being something like this: no discreet Spelljammer setting book, but it taking a prominent place in adventures and a wider "multiverse" cap-setting.

I just think the three-pronged planar approach--Sigil's doors/traditional planar travel, spelljamming (on the Astral Sea), and planeswalking--is just too fertile and rich in possibilities to pass up, or to overly differentiate into discreet settings that separate them.

 

[Parmandur]

I'll quote myself from AcererakTriple6's thread:



Again, I'm not sure exactly which direction they're taking, but I could see it being something like this: no discreet Spelljammer setting book, but it taking a prominent place in adventures and a wider "multiverse" cap-setting.

I just think the three-pronged planar approach--Sigil's doors/traditional planar travel, spelljamming (on the Astral Sea), and planeswalking--is just too fertile and rich in possibilities to pass up, or to overly differentiate into discreet settings that separate them.

Alternatively, they could have Spelljamming as a Setting for physical travel between parts of the Prime Material, and then Planescape as a separate Settiing for Planar travel.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Alternatively, they could have Spelljamming as a Setting for physical travel between parts of the Prime Material, and then Planescape as a separate Settiing for Planar travel.

That depends entirely on how they handle Spelljamming, if it replace the Phligon or whatever that bloody word is with the Astral Plane, then their is no point in them being seperate settings anymore, or at least not completely seperate. But we will see.

 

[Parmandur]

That depends entirely on how they handle Spelljamming, if it replace the Phligon or whatever that bloody word is with the Astral Plane, then their is no point in them being seperate settings anymore, or at least not completely seperate. But we will see.

Phlogiston. They're probably keeping it, guys, seriously,based on the principles that Perkins laid out in the "Canon" discussion.

 

[teitan]

Well thought out but a little, probably unintentional, revisionist history. 4e wasn't eclipsed by Pathfinder, it only outsold 4e during the wind down period when WOTC canceled a bunch of products. 4e's failure was more about WOTC not delivering the expected monetary levels for a "core brand" such as My Little Pony and Transformers while being kneecapped unlike those brands. They couldn't include novel sales, video games and other licensing while also not having accompanying media support like animation. Just a bad movie. The closest they got was Acquisitions Inc.

They came incredibly close to that 50m level that Hasbro wanted but not in the timeframe that was required. You can tell by the sudden reduction and cancellations that their budget got suddenly slashed by Hasbro. Like any other toy line. It wasn't handled like an RPG because Hasbro didn't understand what an RPG is or the business model for one. The GSL was a disaster as the OGL was 3.x bread and butter. Still is an important part of most of the RPG industry! I am of the opinion it was the GSL that hampered 4e the most because it, more than 4e, was what led to Pathfinder and other games like DCC, 13th Age etc. Without it what would the support from 3PP have looked like?

4e did split the market but what was amazing about its success was that it brought in new players that did cover the loss of 3.5 players. Mearls said that 4e outsold 3.5. Outsold. Not as well as, Outsold. I think if Essentials were what we got instead, had they waited those 3-4 years I mentioned, it would have been a runaway success like 5e became.

They had no media, no royalties being collected toward their bottom line. They weren't trying to sell the brand to make it to that 50m, it was just the game that was used to measure. I wonder what the bottom line was with the novels, video games, licensing fees from GF9, Wizkids, etc would have made that number look like.

 

[overgeeked]

Phlogiston. They're probably keeping it, guys, seriously,based on the principles that Perkins laid out in the "Canon" discussion.

Link?

 

[Parmandur]

Link?

"We decide, based on our understanding of the game’s history and audience, what artwork or lore to pull forward, what artwork or lore needs to change, and what artwork or lore should be buried so deep that it never again sees the light of day. We have a couple guiding principles:"

" - If the artwork holds up or the lore has been true in every past edition of the game, we think twice about changing it.

" - If the artwork or lore hasn’t withstood the test of time, we can update or discard it."

"The number of eyes on a stock beholder has been consistent throughout D&D’s history. No need to meddle with perfection, I say. On the other hand, if you’re familiar with old maps of Waterdeep, you might recall that one of its seedier avenues was named Slut Street. When we updated the map for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, we gave that street a new name. The old name was never good to begin with and does not withstand the test of time."

D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

In this D&D Studio Blog, Chris Perkins describes the D&D Studio's position on canonicity.

dnd.wizards.com