WotC's Chris Perkins Talks Realms & Sundering

Den of Geek has a lengthy interview with Chris Perkins about the Forgotten Realms and The Sundering. He also very briefly touches on other settings, indicating that WotC hopes that other worlds will be covered in the future if the right story comes along. On past controversial changes to settings, he says "Our guiding principle is to embrace the past and not pass judgment or rewrite history. We’d rather let the fans tell us what they like about the Realms and focus on those elements going forward." (thanks to MerricB for the scoop!)

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I think DL is even more polarising to the fan base than FR or Eberron and that's why it doesn't see support. And I have to agree: it does seem like the big story has been told, much as is the case with Middle Earth. (NB: I'm not saying this is right but I am saying that it does seem that way.)

 

[Pauper]

Brand brand brand brand brand.

Why was WotDQ set in FR?

Well, War of the Dragon Queen was a different, 3E-era event; it featured the chromatic dragonspawn and saw the first dragonborn as Bahamut's response.

But for what it's worth, I agree with you about the brand. And it's not just the adventures -- dragon miniatures generally sell better and keep (and appreciate) value longer than other kinds of minis. People playing the online Neverwinter game haven't encountered many dragons yet (as far as I know -- I stopped playing some time ago). If the goal is to appeal to players who haven't tried the TRPG yet, going big with dragons is not a bad way to start.

My bigger issue is the simultaneous appeal to nostalgia. I actually liked a lot of the changes to the Realms as a result of 4E, which apparently puts me in the minority. And a number of call-outs to other settings I've always been lukewarm about (particularly the return of the Planescape-era modrons -- yawn) leads me to believe that there really isn't a core vision at the heart of the 5E experience, unless you count desperate pandering to an aging fan base.

I'm enjoying 5E, but I don't feel the same level of ardor that I get when leafing through the Age of Worms adventure path or remembering the old Living Forgotten Realms Battle Interactives. If I wanted to just keep replaying the War of the Lance and the Temple of Elemental Evil over and over again, I wouldn't need a new edition of D&D for that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Gettin' my dragon-centric adventure paths mixed up.

But for what it's worth, I agree with you about the brand.

Yeah, and I should be clear, this doesn't mean "good" or "bad" necessarily, it's just an explanation of causes. Though it's easy to be maladroit when you're trying to lead with your brand foot, this isn't always the case, and it's something you have to pay attention to in your business even if you don't use it to mirco-manage your development cycle.

My bigger issue is the simultaneous appeal to nostalgia.

Nostalgia appeal is all over the brand in 5e, that's for sure. But, nostalgia doesn't have to suck (see: Adventure Time). And, after 4e's "sacred cow cook-off," it's actually reassuring to the fans they chased away with spooky masks and dragonborn for the last 5 years -- and the fans they scared away with dungeonpunk before that. D&D has a bigger audience of people who used to play than they have of people who are currently playing, and 5e (and, I think, the overall brand stragety) is an effort to try and sell to that audience. Many of 5e's design ideas are aimed squarely at that sect.

Heck, it's easier for the brand folks, too. "Lets just sell them what they remember doing when they were kids! Everyone loves the past!"

If I wanted to just keep replaying the War of the Lance and the Temple of Elemental Evil over and over again, I wouldn't need a new edition of D&D for that.

I think it makes sense to lead with that foot, if you want to appeal to people who remember that stuff fondly but haven't touched a d20 since college.

And I have to agree: it does seem like the big story has been told, much as is the case with Middle Earth

As someone currently playing in a DL campaign, I've gotta say, this is sort of a backwards way of looking at it.

Most DL games would probably be well served by saying that the novels are not part of the world you're playing in. Set your game during the war of the Lance, with your characters as the *potential* heroes who put an end to the dragonarmies (or who die trying), and you've got the grounds for a fun campaign. Don't view the novels as something that happened in the past, view them as something similar to what might happen to your party.

 

[DEFCON 1]

DL fans like me get screwed again. Well, I've bought my 3 rule books for 5e. No more. Not another penny to WotC. I know it won't make a difference to them, but it's important to me to quit supporting a company that doesn't care about a segment of its customer base.

You should have stopped buying WotC's D&D books years ago then. Kinda of hard to feel bad for you when you've been making the same mistake over the last decade or two.

And you should probably go return those 5E books of yours before it's too late to do so.

 

[Arilon]

You should have stopped buying WotC's D&D books years ago then. Kinda of hard to feel bad for you when you've been making the same mistake over the last decade or two.

And you should probably go return those 5E books of yours before it's too late to do so.

Well, for the record, I didn't ask anyone to feel bad for me. I like 5e just fine, but I'm disappointed that I will have to spend the time to convert all the DL stuff myself. If WotC doesn't want to spend the time, give the license back to MWP and let them do it (like they did for 3.x, before WotC decided to kill 3.x and go to 4e.)

No need for me to return the books. As I said, I like FR, and I'll play that (a number of my friends around here play so the books aren't useless to me.) But I won't buy anything else from them - no minis, or electronic aids (oh, wait, there aren't any), other books, etc. If they support DL (either directly or by giving a license to someone), sure, then I'm happy to support them.

 

[Dragonhelm]

That depends if you see the various D&D worlds as different brands. I suspect that Hasbro (and likely WotC) do not.

I get the feeling that they used to think of them as separate brands, but that now they're moving away from that and trying to consolidate D&D as the brand.

Part of the downfall of TSR was that they fractured their brand so much by creating so many sub-brands. WotC and Paizo both learned from that lesson. Paizo stays with one all-inclusive setting. WotC seems to now be focusing on strengthening the main D&D brand, and marketing it across many platforms. I think they want to make the Realms synonymous with D&D to strengthen both brands. From a marketing POV, I think that's a great idea.

I am curious how Kara-Tur, Maztica, and Al-Qadim will be branded. All under the Realms, of course, but will they have their own individual branding as well?

I do want to see the other settings again, particularly Dragonlance. Dragonlance has a long history, and as such, I don't think it should be rebooted. I do wonder how it could get back to its roots, while getting away from the idea that it has "one story to tell" (which is blatantly false). I'm also interested in seeing Spelljammer and Eberron.

My hope is that we will also see Gamma World and a D&D Modern/Urban Arcana, though I imagine that's not anywhere in the immediate future.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No need for me to return the books. As I said, I like FR, and I'll play that (a number of my friends around here play so the books aren't useless to me.) But I won't buy anything else from them - no minis, or electronic aids (oh, wait, there aren't any), other books, etc. If they support DL (either directly or by giving a license to someone), sure, then I'm happy to support them.

Then why not just say "Really, the only books that WotC could release that I'd really be interested in is Dragonlance setting stuff, so anything else they release is lost to me..." rather than get all defensive with ridiculous "I won't support the company that won't support it's player base!!!" hyperbole?

 

[Arilon]

Then why not just say "Really, the only books that WotC could release that I'd really be interested in is Dragonlance setting stuff, so anything else they release is lost to me..." rather than get all defensive with ridiculous "I won't support the company that won't support it's player base!!!" hyperbole?

Because neither of those statements is true.

1. I would be interested in all sorts of books, beyond Dragonalance, but if they don't support Dragonlance, I'm not going to buy any of them.
2. I never said what you quoted me as saying. What I said was (in relevant part, "...but it's important to me to quit supporting a company that doesn't care about a segment of its customer base." I am a part of their customer base that they don't support because they don't produce Dragonlance material. So, I don't feel they support me.

So, how about you avoid misquoting me or just making things up.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I'm always astonished at the recurring vitriol over that "one story to tell" line (then I remember that this is the Internet). Having read and played in Dragonlance for decades, I realize that Forgotten Realms works better for WotC as their current "kitchen sink" base setting for the brand (especially given the 'heroic fantasy' idea that it's set in), while DL has the issue of being halfway between a standard fantasy and romantic epic (hence the 'epic fantasy' tag in the DMG and the famous concerns of narrative railroading in the old modules). I love the world, but Krynn is one where you need to play up relationships, politics, and war very differently than you do in a 'standard' D&D campaign to make it feel right.

I've said a number of times that I honestly think that they have plans for Dragonlance – look at all the mentions in the three books released for 5e – but are waiting to use it as a setting built around the social tier and the finalized ruleset on large-scale combat. Like Kamikaze Midget said, branding plays that role where the settings need to be both unique yet recognizably D&D, so each new setting in 5e is going to be built around particular elements of the ruleset that are its centerpieces. Margaret Weis called Dragonlance "a story of love and friendship set against a backdrop of war," and that sounds exactly like how the DMG describes Epic Fantasy, especially if you focus on the Social Tier and BattleSystem as the main avenues of experience-gain* instead of encounter-based Combat. The War of the Lance is certainly the best example in the DL canon of that story as MW describes it in her quote, but those events aren't the only possible iteration of that Epic Fantasy Story that are the heart of a Dragonlance Campaign. I think that imagining the "one story" idea from the wrong perspective is a recipe for looking at things, and WotC's plans and use-already of the Dragonlance canon in 5e, in the wrong direction...

(*Likewise, I could see how a Greyhawk release, as Sword-and-Sorcery, would be more Exploration Tier-focused and could even include rules for gold-as-xp if it likewise minimizes combat against those terrible monsters one seeks to avoid.)

 

[Sailor Moon]

What bothers me was the fact that the Spellplague and the 100 year jump destroyed a LOT of fan favorites so I don't see why they would be worried about it now. To be honest, I would bet anything that the pre-Spellplague fans far out number the Spellplague ones so I don't see where the big worry is. I'm sorry but a reboot would be better than trying to do some corny fix it job which really cheapens the whole lot.