Quote from: One Horse Town;939392Maybe they're running out of steam already.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/tales-yawning-portal

I'm not really bothered by this but it does make me think about this edition.

Please, bear in mind that I am totally talking out of my ass and I know I'm certainly wrong. But hey, it's the internet.

The D&D team is, what ? 15 people ? It looks like Hasbro merely wants to keep the brand alive but not much more.

A common practice of the business world : outsourcing, usually used because it's considered to be more cost effective (and I guess 3rd party publishers offered the chance to write official material are pretty cheap by corporate standards). Even more cost effective is the use of the back catalogue.

So the whole thing is actually managed with (very) basic corporate methods but they actually managed to make people think that producing 2-3 books a year was a bold move. 1 point for the PR department who actually made us see standard corporate practice as "bold moves".

And now Hasbro sees the result :"Hey, you manage to still be n°1 ? With a skeleton crew ? With much less releases than the competition (Pathfinder) ? Awesome ! Next time we'll do it with 10 people". And why pay for tv commercials ? Youtube is the place to go viral, just film some vaguely famous guys play D&D, that should cut it.

All of this doesn't necessarily make bad games or bad products (I really like D&D5) but the whole thing seems to be managed like a clothing company.

Next "bold step" will be to promote a campaign written by a polish/Czech/whatever company paid nickels but promoted as a "wonderful opening of the D&D license to the whole world, truly making D&D a worldwide phenomenon".

Don't tell me I'm wrong, I know that. In fact I want to be.

Quote from: The Butcher;939568Sure, everyone loves FR, but where's Eberron for the pulpy magitech fans?

I'm pretty baffled by this too. I've now run three 5e campaigns in Eberron with almost* no official mechanical support in sight. True, it's not that difficult to improvise conversions from my 3e and 4e Eberron material, but that's still money sitting in my pocket that would instantly be theirs if they bothered. I'm far from alone judging by the polls too. Even forgetting the setting there is a broader interest in artificers, warforged, and magitech that a theoretical Eberron book could satisfy.

* UA article with issues to resolve.

This seems like a good thing to me.  I don't play 5e, but from what I've seen, it is very popular.  Shows like Critical Role are definitely helping in that regard.  Browsing the reddit or G+ DnD places, it seems to have a very enthusiastic audience that so far has been eating up WotC's adventure paths.  Those of you suggesting WotC copy the OSR are forgetting that the OSR, or rather the whole DIY DnD community, is already there, and these people are still playing through Storm Kings.  So if WotC updates these old dungeons for 5e and releases them as a collection of standalone adventures to drop in any game, that's great.  That could really spark some interest in other old modules, and since WotC has been releasing all its old stuff in pdf, they may drive additional business that way.  Makes sense to me.

I'd just convert them on my own. But Putting a fresh coat of paint on these old modules, and getting them on the store shelves might expose some new players to classic adventures.

I don't mind the nostalgia ... but I could wish that they'd broaden the horizons of the nostalgia beyond Gygax-era Advanced and early 3rd Edition.

But then,
a) I'm not really interested in 5E to begin with, and
b) 5E's one attempt to press my nostalgia buttons--Curse of Strahd--was a mixed bag, feeling like almost a pure homage to I6 and its era. A couple setting elements drifted in, but a lot of others were ignored or flatly contradicted. And elves, elves everywhere ...

I was kinda hoping for some of Undermountain.  But then again, I personally dislike Tomb of Horrors, which I'm pretty sure everyone knows why by now.

This just keeps speaking to the influence of the OSR.

If they keep releasing retread products then I would worry. Otherwise I don't see anything wrong with this release. It consistent with marketing of 5e that it does new things while respecting the old.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone that considers Forge of Fury worthy of inclusion? I don't remember anything bad about it, but it wasn't really that memorable at all. I saw an interview where they defended its inclusion simple based on its sale numbers. I guess it really isn't that surprising it sold well at the start of the 3E boom. I think any module released at that time would have done well. I'm just wondering if there is whole generation of gamers who consider this a classic because they were newer to gaming at the time.

Sunless Citadel seems justified, as I have heard plenty of people's stories about playing that. I just can't recall ever having heard anyone talk about Forge of Fury.

Quote from: Baulderstone;940159Out of curiosity, is there anyone that considers Forge of Fury worthy of inclusion?

Two people in my circle agree with each other than it's a solid starter adventure for newbies of any stripe precisely because it's so generic. No weird shit to worry about while you're figuring out the ropes apparently. I have a copy somewhere, but I've never felt a strong desire to read past the first few pages, let alone run it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;940121This just keeps speaking to the influence of the OSR.

Nah, it's more that gamers don't like anything new, so they feel that they have to rehash old stuff to make sure they have money.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;940203Nah, it's more that gamers don't like anything new, so they feel that they have to rehash old stuff to make sure they have money.

A set of one is not a pattern.

Quote from: estar;940207A set of one is not a pattern.

A remake of Curse of Strahd?  Now this?  I'm seeing the beginning of one. I could, of course, be wrong.  Time will tell.

Every release that isn't some horseshit "expansion" of the game is a great sign.

Quote from: Baulderstone;940159Out of curiosity, is there anyone that considers Forge of Fury worthy of inclusion? I don't remember anything bad about it, but it wasn't really that memorable at all. I saw an interview where they defended its inclusion simple based on its sale numbers. I guess it really isn't that surprising it sold well at the start of the 3E boom. I think any module released at that time would have done well. I'm just wondering if there is whole generation of gamers who consider this a classic because they were newer to gaming at the time.

I have very fond memories of it, although the version I ran in play got jaquayed to make it less linear and I used adversary rosters to turn it into a dynamic siege scenario on the upper levels.

Off-hand I can't think of a better "ruined dwarven fortress" scenario at the sort of medium-scale that Forge of Fury provides. So I think it's a great choice for WotC.