Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="timbannock" data-source="post: 7700118" data-attributes="member: 17913">Considering how long it took them to do this, and how lightly they are dipping their toes in, I'm not sure there's much reason to worry for the near future. In the long-run, though, with the number of people building their own D&amp;D settings (even 3rd party companies since the OGL) on such a large scale, it's not surprising at all -- or bad -- that the (potential) next D&amp;D setting from Wizards would be something with serious market power. They can only do so many Eberrons, or in a worse-case-scenario, so many Planescapes and Birthrights and Al-Qadims that are beloved by many but not quite enough for it to be a big market. M:tG setting books, however, are a potential goldmine, without any licensing fees or something like that (after all, Wizards ended their Star Wars run for a reason).I will argue one point, though. The Curse of Strahd's symbol was not new to 5E. All of the modules so far produced have a &quot;Storyline Symbol&quot; that crosses all media releases in that storyline. Additionally, every class in the PHB has a unique symbol, and these correspond on releases like the Spellbook cards and the Martial Archetype cards. I don't see this as &quot;Magic-ifying&quot; D&amp;D so much as using common symbols and language across releases to make it easy for players of the game to parse information. It's not like organizational symbols first appeared in Magic; look at the different campaign setting branded logos in 2nd edition. Common language = better decision making tools.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="timbannock, post: 7700118, member: 17913"] Considering how long it took them to do this, and how lightly they are dipping their toes in, I'm not sure there's much reason to worry for the near future. In the long-run, though, with the number of people building their own D&D settings (even 3rd party companies since the OGL) on such a large scale, it's not surprising at all -- or bad -- that the (potential) next D&D setting from Wizards would be something with serious market power. They can only do so many Eberrons, or in a worse-case-scenario, so many Planescapes and Birthrights and Al-Qadims that are beloved by many but not quite enough for it to be a big market. M:tG setting books, however, are a potential goldmine, without any licensing fees or something like that (after all, Wizards ended their Star Wars run for a reason). I will argue one point, though. The Curse of Strahd's symbol was not new to 5E. All of the modules so far produced have a "Storyline Symbol" that crosses all media releases in that storyline. Additionally, every class in the PHB has a unique symbol, and these correspond on releases like the Spellbook cards and the Martial Archetype cards. I don't see this as "Magic-ifying" D&D so much as using common symbols and language across releases to make it easy for players of the game to parse information. It's not like organizational symbols first appeared in Magic; look at the different campaign setting branded logos in 2nd edition. Common language = better decision making tools. [/QUOTE]

Verification