On the question of the slow release schedule for the Realms (and for D&D in general), ENWorld posted a quote from Mike Mearls that is apropos the topic:
"For instance, we now know that the high volume release schedule for 3e and 4e turned out to be bad for D&D. It wasn't too many settings that hurt TSR, but too many D&D books of any kind. lots of experiments ahead..."
So it's experiments going forward. I wonder what that means for the Realms?
It doesn't sound like good news for the Realms to me. Less books in general equals to less support for our setting, which -as vast and deep as it is- in turn means that it will suffer (in the sense that we will likely get very little lore for the ''new old FR'' and that it might be reduced to what GH was in 3e. I hope to be dead wrong on this, but that is how I feel on the matter).
Also:erdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size:small"> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?409052-Is-Chris-Perkins-Working-On-A-New-D-amp-D-Setting
With WotC's D&D team being a shadow of its former self, splitting setting support means even less FR. The situation looks grim to me 
Mr_Miscellany wrote:
It's very strange. I don't understand their release schedule for 5E.
I don't see how they can support their game and settings at this rate.
HobbitFan wrote:
Love these guys to death, but the retailers are starting to get mad. If you don't have product, you don't have sales. If you don't have sales you don't have room for a living game! Put something out! Even PDFs would make me happy!
I've been wondering about this for sometime. There is very, very little being published this year for the realms. Hardly any adventures and very few novels. I don't understand it. Only three authors are writing (Salvatore, Evans, Greenwood) but there is very, very little indication there is more next year. Wasn't the Sundering going to fix the realms and make it more exciting? If so, where's the excitement? Are they dropping the Realms? It doesn't make sense.
biotech6 wrote:
I would much rather they allow the community to pick up the slack with some form of OGL and ability to take and adapt the core books. It will give us content, but it won't feel like there is an over-saturation of books coming from WotC like the end of 3 and through 4, because there won't be. We can make adventures and supplements now, but because there is no license, we can't publish/distribute it beyond our own personal games if we use anything from the core books - and let's face it, who wants to rethink some of the trash monsters like goblins and whatnot?
Nolwelen wrote:
Irennan wrote:
Nolwelen wrote:
Irennan wrote:
Nolwelen wrote:
Irennan wrote:
Nolwelen wrote:
Regarding my opening post above: Mearls is wrong to say "It wasn't too many settings that hurt TSR, but too many D&D books of any kind."
That is, he's only half right. Yes, too many D&D books diluted the market, but so did all the settings!
When you offer multiple settings, you give people the choice to only like a particular setting. This means you only get their dollars when you produce something for a given setting.
Lumping the settings together in core rulebooks is one way around that problem, which is what WotC seems to be doing, so I'm not sure why Mearls would solve a problem and then suggest it doesn't exist.
******
There is also the issue of setting dilution. Campaign settings and worlds become less unique when every book you publish suggests there are endless ways to jump from one world to another.
Ought the campaign worlds be linked? Sure. But those links should be in the background. They should be hard to find, defended and trapped. DMs should be told it's an option, and not a given, that you can travel from Faerun to the world of Krynn. Plane-hopping campaigns should start on the planes and stay on the planes.
All in my not so humble opinion, of course.
Mr_Miscellany wrote:
Caolin wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
Irennan wrote: