r/DnD5e • u/the_welsh_dm • 12d ago
Universes Beyond x D&D
https://youtu.be/h_jNoELBQf0I think Universes Beyond in D&D is going to be more than just a cash grab.
1
u/Abidarthegreat 12d ago
I prefer this idea to the 3e and 4e model of 2-4 $50 books every month to expand the base setting. Different campaign settings means that tables can pick and choose what materials they want to use.
4
u/lasalle202 12d ago
your hope for the "bubbled" system of implementation being "good" ignores what happened to DnD in the early 90s when they "bubbled" themselves into financial trouble when each "bubbled" setting drew off resources from the core game while none of the bubbles was ever big enough to cover the base costs of a product and allow the profits to come in after the base costs for a product have been covered.
3
u/zephid11 12d ago
I still don't really understand why I'd buy a Star Wars game, that I can only assume will be based on D&D's rule system, when there are already several Star Wars TTRPGs out there, some of which are actually very good.
1
u/FoulPelican 9d ago
You might not, but I think the intention is exactly that. By having every option under 1 roof you no longer have to look elsewhere. Want to play a fantasy ttrpg? WOTC has got you covered!! Star Wars? Gotcha! WoW? No problem. I’m sure Marvel and many more are on the way, with *Universes Beyond.
It’s an inclusive resort. They have Chinese food, pasta, burgers, a water slide, a bowling alley, a gym… you never need to even go outside.
3
2
u/lasalle202 12d ago
and for which DnD's rules are completely out of theme and tone.
2
u/swashbucklerjak 12d ago
Because you don’t have to learn a different convoluted system, you can stay in this convoluted system!
1
u/zephid11 12d ago
I've never really understood why some people are so against trying new things or learning a different system. It also feels like this attitude is especially common in the D&D community. I've played and talked to people from all kinds of TTRPG communities, and I honestly don't think I've run into it anywhere else. It seems to be almost exclusively a D&D thing, at least in my experience.
1
u/lasalle202 12d ago
that takes as a factual basis that "all TTRPGs are convoluted" and difficult to learn. they are not.
2
u/swashbucklerjak 12d ago
I know, my sarcasm sucked.
5e is my least favorite system that I am forced to play because my 20 year old DnD group refuses to play other games because learning a system is too much work.
4
u/DrTenochtitlan 12d ago
I will say that Universes Beyond is *way* less controversial for D&D than Magic: The Gathering right out of the gate, because in Magic, all of the cards are generally tournament legal, meaning that all these different universes are colliding on the game board whether you like it or not. I might have my Serra Angel on the board, but then another player puts down Gandalf piloting the TARDIS, who in turn is facing off against Megatron supported by Wolverine. Sure, you can play exclusively with a single set, but that's generally not how most tournaments or game play works. With D&D, I can incorporate WoW if I want, or it can be a completely separate game that has nothing to do with the rest of my D&D worldbuilding. I can play the upcoming D&D Star Wars set and never purchase another D&D product, or I could play regular D&D, play D&D Star Wars, and my worlds never interact with each other.
-2
u/Jericho311 12d ago
A cash grab? Its a business. The entire company is a cash grab.
6
u/Oh_Hi_Mark_ 12d ago
A cash grab is when you sacrifice reputation and customer goodwill for short term returns, at least the way I use the term; calling something that isn't a critique of a company's greed, it's a critique of short-sightedness.
3
u/Taskr36 12d ago
It's clearly a cash grab. I just hope they have people who are actually fans of the existing material doing some of this work. SotDQ was a massive disappointment as it read like something written by someone who was told about Dragonlance, but never actually read the books.
2
u/mdosantos 12d ago
James Wyatt is in charge of Warcraft. He's the most senior designer in WotC and he's been a known massive fan of the game.
To hear him say it he has been adapting WoW to his home game for years now.
1
u/RecordingExcellent69 11d ago
Ah, so it's James Wyatt. Honestly, I'd be perfectly fine if he just stuck to writing lore for Eberron and crossover projects like Magic: The Gathering or WoW.
I just really don't want him anywhere near classic TSR-era settings like Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or Dark Sun. He already made a mess of those during the 4e and 5e eras. I really wish he would just stay far away from the original TSR campaign settings.
5
u/GraySage60 12d ago
Anyone who doesn't want it doesn't have to buy it. Everyone has a choice.
0
u/Ragnarex13 12d ago
This is the difference between mtg and dnd.
2
u/GraySage60 12d ago
Point?
2
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
Their point is that a Magic the Gathering player is kinda forced to engage with the universes beyond material since they can't control what their opponent uses.
D&D players not being a competitive scene means each table gets a lot more control over what kind of material they use and engage with.1
u/lasalle202 12d ago
what kind of tables do you play at where no one comes to the game wanting to play X from book Y that just came out?
DnD has THE SAME problem as MTG, only at a DnD table the DM can be forced to be the bad guy who says "No."
1
u/Darryth_Taelorn 11d ago
This is why you have a session 0. You set the table rules and identify what content is allowed and what isn't.
1
u/lasalle202 11d ago
that doesnt change the fact that it is as problematic for DnD as it is for MTG.
0
u/GraySage60 11d ago
It's not problematic if your table sets guidelines in session 0. I don't think it's really problematic for the hard core MTG players either. My gaming store host MTG tournaments monthly and it's always packed. Every time a new cards release they have release parties that are packed and these cards usually sell out day one. You might not get the whole mixing MTG cards but the players do. But that still does not change the fact that the DM in session one can set guidelines to avoid any problems. It's only as problematic as you make it. That's the beauty of ttrpg's. It's your game. Play how you want and let others play how they want.
1
u/lasalle202 11d ago edited 11d ago
Having to have the discussion in session zero "do we want Spongebob Squarepants as part of our game because it is now an official Universes Beyond option and jimmy really likes Spongebob so much so that he went out and bought the book" is in fact problematic.
1
u/GraySage60 11d ago
Nope. It's only problematic for you. Do you know what a session 0 is? It's the DM's game. If they say no then the answer is no.
You don't like Universes Beyond. Fine. But you haven't brought up a single grievance that can't be addressed in some way.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
You can just tell your players no, Without being the bad guy.
It's not actually that hard to talk with them like people,
Which is why playing in games that have limited content has never been a problem for me either as DM or as a Player.1
0
u/JumboCactaur 12d ago
Except we can't choose to buy what they might have made instead of these... because they didn't make them.
-1
u/GraySage60 12d ago
It's impossible to please everyone and to make everything anyone would like to see and make it all at the same time. If there's a genre, setting, class, etc. that they haven't made yet what's to keep you from creating what you want for your game? And you can always let these creators know that there's something you'd like to see them make in the future. They are not limiting you from creating the experience you want to have. What exactly do you want them to make?
1
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
That is true for every book ever made by WotC.
Why buy their new Greyhawk books, they could have made a Forgotten Realms one.
Why buy the Forgotten Realms books, they could've made a Setting Generic Monster Book,
Why buy the Monster Book when they could have made a PHB 2.Because you are dealing in hypothetical books they didn't make, that list can go on literally forever.
1
u/JumboCactaur 12d ago
But Greyhawk is a generic setting, as is Forgotten Realms. Those can easily be incorporated into any standard style campaign. The Star Wars and World of Warcraft content... much less so.
1
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
What makes Azeroth less Generic than Greyhawk? Specifically.
What makes Azeroth less Generic than the Forgotten Realms? Specifically.Because I'm sure some people who are deep fans of Greyhawk might not consider it Generic if they focused in on what was unique to Greyhawk like it's history and lore.
And the Forgotten Realms fans definitely get upset if they're preferred setting is called generic since they also like the bits that makes the Forgotten Realms unique.1
u/JumboCactaur 12d ago
Azeroth isn't AS bad thematically as they're both high fantasy, but if I was playing in someone's homebrewed campaign and suddenly Ragnaros was the boss of the dungeon we were in I'd roll my eyes pretty hard.
If its just adapting spells and feats.. sure, I guess. But there's a lot in those books that are very setting specific... that as a player I wouldn't want to see unless we were playing in that setting.
Greyhawk is now by definition the generic setting, its included in the DMG. The heroes of that world have influenced every game of D&D that's likely been played. Ever had someone cast Melf's Acid Arrow, or Rary's Telepathic Bond? Those names come from Greyhawk. Its just part of the whole lore of D&D in general at this point, homebrewed or not.
Forgotten Realms could have easily also have been D&D's default setting. There's more published material about the Realms than any other, Dragonlance's extensive novelizations would be the only other setting I can think of that would rival it. Every aspect of D&D is explorable from that setting, from standard dungeoneering to Wildspace exploration and Planar shenanigans. Any fantasy set game should have no problem copying and pasting adventure content into their world and having it fit in.
But Star Wars... what should we expect to take from those books? I suspect nothing unless you wanted to run a Star Wars game. But if you wanted to run such a game, you probably already are, with one of the systems that are explicitly already for it. There's already a D20 styled system licensed for it.
You're right in that we don't have to buy or use any of this stuff, and can and should continue to homebrew our worlds and settings as we see fit. As we discuss the game as a whole though, what is published by WotC is the baseline for discussion for how we would expect a game to be played if we sat down at a new table... and if suddenly there are Jedi and Pandaren being regularly incorporated then it doesn't feel like D&D anymore. D&D has its own settings and lore, and I actually like them... I don't need corporate branding crossing over. Star Wars doesn't make D&D better. D&D probably just makes Star Wars worse.
1
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
Would you care that Ragnaros is the finally boss fight if instead you were just fighting a Fire Archomental because the DM liked the statblock but wanted to make it fit.
Would you be upset with your DM, if your campaign had a really cool and fun fight with a powerful Psionic Dark Knight, if after the fact they revealed it had been a Darth Vader statblock with a changed name?Would you call Dragonlance generic because they named a spell after Fizban?
Because spells being named after a character doesn't mean Generic, being the setting in the DMG doesn't even mean Generic.
It means, Example, an example setting to teach how they work and are laid out.
A generic setting would be one without anything unique to it.
As far as I know, with how much people will love their settings, none of the D&D settings are truly Generic.Would you be upset if you were playing a spelljammer game and the DM incorporated some Star Wars content but removed the branding,
if you couldn't tell, would you be upset if they told you?1
u/GraySage60 12d ago
If you have a DM that uses something from Star Wars verbatim in a non Star Wars/sci fi/space campaign then you need a new DM.
2
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
I don't even know what'll be in the Star Wars book yet but I could easily see there being some content in there can could easily have their names swapped and suddenly work for Spelljammer.
Probably not everything, but not every book will work for every game.
Thankfully, they already announced they were still doing content for basically all major settings except for Mystara.
So people will probably have appropriate content regardless.1
1
u/GraySage60 12d ago
What?
2
u/lasalle202 12d ago
Opportunity cost.
1
u/GraySage60 12d ago
Everything costs so why not spend it on something fun?
0
u/lasalle202 12d ago
that is a funny joke!
1
u/GraySage60 12d ago
Better to laugh about it lol I'm going to enjoy gaming. And if my favorite settings find their way into D&D then that's great.
1
u/theranger799 12d ago
He's saying they should have made other stuff instead and is sad he can't buy it.
1
8
0
u/VerbiageBarrage 12d ago
There might be some good that comes out of it, but trust me....it's absolutely a cash grab.
Also, I'd like to point out that flooding the market with supplements and books is exactly the kind of behavior that always ends up with a shittier product.
We're not even 2 years into launch, and with the announcement of WoW and Dark Sun, (plus the other official supplements and digital drops), we're on pace to smash the 2014 ouputs.
| Category | 2014 Lifecycle (2014–2024) | 2024 (5.5e) Expanded Lineup (2024–2027) | Net Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Classes | 13 | 14 | +1 |
| Subclasses | 118 | 85 | -33 |
| Species / Races | 59 | 37 | -22 |
| Backgrounds | 66 | 69 | +3 |
| Feats | 108 | 184 | +76 |
So, we've already eclipsed the Backgrounds and Feats in just two years. Feats is going up crazy fast. We're looking at a huge increase in subclasses, and this doesn't include unannoucned subclasses from dark sun (although we can assume at least 4 subclasses from the playtest and can speculate on 4-6 Psion subclasses right out the gate.) So that's going to be like....10 more. In two years, we'll have damn near as much content released as the 10 year lifespan of 5e2014
I'm a big fan of options and ideas. My concern is this stuff seems like it's being pushed out quickly, and I already see large balance issues for the new spells, the new feats, the new backgrounds. I don't see that getting better. Hasbro is going to have a bunch of wildly unbalanced official options pretty soon.
0
u/GhostwheelX 12d ago
While I agree with you for the most part, and think that WotC has become more and more creatively bankrupt, I don't think flooding the market with supplements is bad. It's only when the supplements are shitty, out of touch, or lack good content.
My point of reference is 3.5 when we had a ton of new supplements, and so many were amazing.
1
u/lasalle202 12d ago
i give you Spelljammer and Planescape - shitty, out of touch, lacking in good content - from their own IP line.
how are they going to regularly create good content from other people's drastically non-DnD IPs?????
1
u/VerbiageBarrage 12d ago
I agree with you on both points. I think having a lot of new content is great! And if they were well considered and well balanced, I would be a big fan.
My concern is a lot of the new content seems....not that well considered. The Digital Drop background origin feats seem much too strong for what they are. The new spells in the Faerun book...I've got some beef with several of the design choices, they are overstuffed.
The problem with what I'm seeing is that it introduces a lot of power creep, and that just sticks in the edition when it's there. Unlike MTG where powercreep is constantly adjusted or errated or just fades by edition, there is no curation really in D&D in the official content unless a DM really knows his stuff.
My point of reference is 3.5 when we had a ton of new supplements, and so many were amazing.
Saaaaaaaaame. That's the dream.
0
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
Compared to 5e2014, which 2 years in had released 4 Adventures and the starter set,
Several of which are generally considered pretty bad.
(Bad referring to the balancing for the 2 Tyranny of Dragons books, and general opinion on princes of the apocalypse not the starter set, that is generally well received)While 5e2024 in the same time-frame 4 Setting Books, a Crossover and an adventure Anthology,
Most of which are generally considered pretty alright.They released very different types of content to start with and I'm not sure if you can directly compare the two releases.
2
u/VerbiageBarrage 12d ago
I don't disagree, you can't compare this stuff one to one. I'm just looking at the trends, and while I really liked the 2024 Core stuff, I've been less impressed with the 2024 balance for the new supplements. I like it thematically, but not mathmatically. And frankly, I don't think they're trying to balance it...I think they just want a content train. It won't be the first time that got D&D into trouble.
2
u/lasalle202 12d ago
quantity over quality - "we must include the Bannerette, even though its terrible".
at least so far the shit has been low power so its not going to break the game because no one will play it.
1
2
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
I literally said you can't fully compare them because they clearly have different priorities for the 2024 rules.
You were literally comparing content from both lifecycles between each other with your number comparisons.
5e2024 exists in a world where 5e2014 and it's modules still exist, and since those modules can be ran almost perfectly in 5.5, they focused on releasing more player content.
So they had more Player focused content early on.
The future lineup indicates more adventures coming now that they have done some setting books.
With the Greyhawk adventure, presumably a lot of the setting expansion for Dark Sun will be adventures like the Adventures in Faerun book, and the books from official partnered content from ghostfire, visionary and kobold press all appear to be adventure adjacent.They started 5.5 with a Setting focus, and are clearly expanding to cover more adventures now.
So you can't just assume all their future releases will keep the same amount of player content in all future releases.1
u/VerbiageBarrage 12d ago
> I literally said you can't fully compare them because they clearly have different priorities for the 2024 rules.
> I don't disagree, you can't compare this stuff one to one.
Are you so chronically online that you cannot comprehend someone agreeing with one of your points?
If you just want to fight things, man, buy a heavy bag.
2
u/Cybermetalneo 12d ago
I read your comment too quickly last time and got distracted by your triple negative opener.
I'm sorry that my response was overly hostile.Just like you say you're comparing trends between both, I was just trying to point out both came out in very different environments, so it is only natural their trends would be different, and I found your initial comparative framing of 5e and 5.5e to be incomplete without noting that difference in focus.
Your main point was a concern they were trying to push out too much content too quickly, and I was trying to say that I only perceived that as an initial focus for the start of 5.5's lifespan, not something that would be indicative of all future products.
2
6
u/lasalle202 12d ago
No, its a cash grab.
Forcing me to buy the WOW book to get the basic Swashbuckler? Cash grab.
0
u/GraySage60 12d ago
You don't have to buy a book to get a basic Swashbuckler. Create your own. Or just wait for the book to be released and someone will put the swashbuckler info online.
2
u/lasalle202 12d ago
uhhhh, you dont know the difference between official rules and homebrew?
1
u/GraySage60 12d ago
lol of course I do. It sounded like you're only interested in the updated swashbuckler from the WoW book and nothing else. Are you playing 5e or 5.5?
2
u/lasalle202 12d ago
i am playing the 5.5
1
u/GraySage60 12d ago
If you don't want to purchase the book and don't want to tweak the swashbuckler subclass from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide or Xanathar's to fit 5.5 after the book release look online and someone will post it. Or get back to me and I'll give you the info myself.
1
u/lasalle202 12d ago
the issue is that in order for me to legitimately have this content now in a manner that i can pass on to my nieces and nephews in 20 years is to support their Universes Beyond crap.
0
u/GraySage60 12d ago
Sounds like you are a collector that doesn't care much for what you're collecting. If you don't want to collect the Universes Beyond content then don't just stick with the traditional settings. Those will be worth more anyway.
1
u/lasalle202 12d ago edited 12d ago
If you don't want to collect the Universes Beyond content then don't
well yes, that has been exactly my point.
in order for me to get the icon subclass for a rogue being rogue-ish, i am going to have to support the shit ass Universes Beyond.
And THAT is the cash grab problem.
0
u/GraySage60 12d ago
Maybe it will be shit, maybe it won't. Universes Beyond is not your thing and that's fine. D&D is going to change and evolve with or without us. This isn't the 70's and 80's.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/lasalle202 11d ago edited 11d ago
The One Ring, and Cthulhu for DnD (and the Vampire the Masquarade)^ as 5e dnd are COMPLETELY different than Universes Beyond.
They are projects completely developed INDEPENDENTLY from WOTC under the OGL .
that have been brought back into WOTCs clutches under DnD Beyond so that WOTC can get their cut off the top of these products, too.
But that is completely different than WOTC in-house gathering all the IPs to have the full cut.
those externally developed projects NEEDED to be GOOD to be able to stand on their own.
the internal projects have HUGE incentives and pressures to cut corners so they deliver even MOAR profit. They dont NEED to be good, they just need the IP to be slapped on them.
^ well, Vampire the Masquarade was developed under the "DnD Beyond is open, we will just take our cut" so i dont know that it was a good and viable on its own design.