General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Gamers Online Now: 1,269
291 members and 978 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 06:04 PM.
Disclaimer: I helped generate a portion of the material for this text, providing a few derro items and one of the monsters. However, I did buy my print copy of this book. My PDF was provided by... [Read More]
Disclaimer: I contributed a bit of material (Some monsters and one background option) for this book by virtue of working on _Halls of the Mountain King_. I was not otherwise directly involved in its... [Read More]
The first thing that grabs you about the Imperial Gazetteer is the cover. Malcolm McClinton has once again put together a gorgeous image that wraps around to the back. It's fantastic piece of art and... [Read More]
This is not the first Doctor Who RPG. The first one published was a system created by FASA back in the mid 1980s, which used a similar system to their Star Trek RPG. I used to run that game back in... [Read More]
Wow...how long do you think 4e will last before the new edition? It just boggles me mind...
I've seen this sentiment expressed--the notion that 4E is putting out books at a "too rapid" rate--many, many times, and I'm not sure where it comes from. Assuming one is counting books specifically (I have no idea what's up with minis releases), the schedule is no more fast-paced than it was during the prior edition. Seriously.
Is it the fact that a lot of the books this time around have 2, 3, etc. in the title? Is that what's causing this perception? Or is it something else?
This isn't me being challenging. I really want to know.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
I know I was quite surprised at the stack of 4e books that a friend of mine had only 10 months after release. It was nearly as tall as my 1e hardback collection after 10 years of that edition.
Sooner or later, the potential content of books is going to start to peter out (maybe it'll get repetitive, maybe overspecialized), the sales of individual titles will slip, and they're still going to need to fund their business model. That next edition is going to look pretty attractive. My guess is we won't go until 2015 to see it.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Is it the fact that a lot of the books this time around have 2, 3, etc. in the title? Is that what's causing this perception? Or is it something else?
It seems like a lot more of what's coming out is generic, not setting-specific (even the Eberron and FR Player's Guides have new classes, feats, paragon paths, and other crunchy bits that are fairly portable to other settings, and WotC seems to be encouraging people to do this). So while in 2007 if WotC released four books, it might well be two generic books, one FR book, and one Eberron book; in 2009, it's probably going to be four generic books.
It's true that 4E has more generic releases than 3.5, but it's not producing any more total books. I'm not really sure that I see that much of a distinction; it's still a case of "I like this concept, so I'll get it, I don't like that one, so I won't."
As far as 1E, I certainly won't argue the point that 4E (or 3E) has a much higher rate of production on hardcovers. But I would argue that they're not viable comparisons. The market--both generally and specifically--was a very different beast back then. Also, while 1E didn't have that many hardcover rule books, its catalog of adventure modules was enormous. (I don't have a specific count, but I would not be surprised to learn that the number of modules from 1E exceeds the entire print run of every book for 3E/3.5.)
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
The major difference I see so far is really an issue of quality. 3.0's release saw alot of flawed books pumped out, riddled with errors, and even the designers hemming and hawing about eratta of certain "broken" things. The splatbooks of course were probably the worst offenders, but plenty of the hardbacks were pretty bad too, Deities & Demigods, MM2, BOVD, & the Epic Level handbook are ones that immediately come to mind for me. Plenty of stinker adventures and WTF products like the HBG/SHBG too. Despite all the disappointments, there were some real gems like the 3E Manual of the Planes and the 3E FRCG though.
Having recently bought several of the 4E releases (after owning only the corebooks since last year), the quality I feel is to a higher standard-ruleswise and utility-wise. It seems the 4E designers have a far better handle on the rules system in less than a year than the 3E crew did over a couple, and they have a clear direction on the business model as well (whether you like said direction or not). Not to mention the eratta has been far more sparse. I don't know if the quality will be sustainable over many years, but so far, I've gotta say (*gasp*) I'm far more impressed this time around with WOTC.
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
It's true that 4E has more generic releases than 3.5, but it's not producing any more total books. I'm not really sure that I see that much of a distinction; it's still a case of "I like this concept, so I'll get it, I don't like that one, so I won't."
Well, I'm sure the average D&D buyer notices a difference.
"I remember when I bought my one book a month in 3e and was happy. Now there are three books a month I need to get!"
If you didn't buy setting stuff, your total quantity of books that you feel compelled to buy could have grown quite a bit.
But aside from that psychological leap, I don't think 4e is putting out books "too fast." I mean, if you don't want a book, don't get it. I think the average D&D player also needs to be broken of the collector's habit anyway, so if they choose to not get Divine Power and to instead wait for the DDI, so they can still get the Eberron guide, that is, in my view, a more positive development.
Why are people concerned about the rate of release?
Perhaps it's because they don't want to see history repeat - again.
2e died largely because it was suffocated by its own bloat. 3e, one could argue, had either already met the same fate or was getting mighty close. 4e has barely been out a year yet has already seen enough book releases to cover a 5-year run...the bloat is building fast.
And, let's face it, it's a barrier to entry. Walk into a store a year ago looking to get into 4e, there were three books and a couple of adventures - nice and simple, and not too costly. Now, walk into the same store and there's a wall of 4e books starin' back at you - which ones do you need to play the game? Do you ask the guy behind the counter, or do you just give up and leave?
And, let's face it, it's a barrier to entry. Walk into a store a year ago looking to get into 4e, there were three books and a couple of adventures - nice and simple, and not too costly. Now, walk into the same store and there's a wall of 4e books starin' back at you - which ones do you need to play the game? Do you ask the guy behind the counter, or do you just give up and leave?
Or you could just get a DDI subscription.
Jokes aside, that might not be a bad business model - when you sign up for a 1-year DDI subscription, you get a free pdf of all the rules that aren't on DDI and a short advice piece on how to set up and run a simple game.
And, let's face it, it's a barrier to entry. Walk into a store a year ago looking to get into 4e, there were three books and a couple of adventures - nice and simple, and not too costly. Now, walk into the same store and there's a wall of 4e books starin' back at you - which ones do you need to play the game? Do you ask the guy behind the counter, or do you just give up and leave?
Lanefan
I really question how big the market in people who know nothing about the game and just one day decide to buy the game is.
On the general release rate, the one advantage 4e has as a sustainable model is that each book is fairly narrowly tailored. A book either really helps you, or is completely irrelevant. In addition, the compendium is a good alternative to splat book purchasing.
__________________ Mud People take all the fun out of mud.
Jokes aside, that might not be a bad business model - when you sign up for a 1-year DDI subscription, you get a free pdf of all the rules that aren't on DDI and a short advice piece on how to set up and run a simple game.
KotSf is already a free download. Arguably, it fits that role.
__________________ Mud People take all the fun out of mud.
The major difference I see so far is really an issue of quality. 3.0's release saw alot of flawed books pumped out, riddled with errors, and even the designers hemming and hawing about eratta of certain "broken" things. The splatbooks of course were probably the worst offenders, but plenty of the hardbacks were pretty bad too, Deities & Demigods, MM2, BOVD, & the Epic Level handbook are ones that immediately come to mind for me. Plenty of stinker adventures and WTF products like the HBG/SHBG too. Despite all the disappointments, there were some real gems like the 3E Manual of the Planes and the 3E FRCG though.
Perhaps releasing 3.5E was their way of hitting the "reset" button.
Why are people concerned about the rate of release?
Perhaps it's because they don't want to see history repeat - again.
2e died largely because it was suffocated by its own bloat. 3e, one could argue, had either already met the same fate or was getting mighty close. 4e has barely been out a year yet has already seen enough book releases to cover a 5-year run...the bloat is building fast.
To follow up a bit more on my previous point about DDI, I think that bloat is less of a problem now because DDI has allowed accessibility to keep pace with the volume of material. Instead of having to hunt through a mound of books, you can just search the Compendium. Similarly, the Character Builder centralizes all your options during character creation and advancement into one place, and even organizes them by category: feats, powers, etc.
Perhaps releasing 3.5E was their way of hitting the "reset" button.
My feeling is that's quite true. There were quite a number of things with 3e that had serious flaws - especially when you tried expanding it later with supplements. So, 3.5e allowed them to rework it to make it work better as an expandable game system.
Of course, they broke stuff in 3.5e as well... nature of the beast!
2e died largely because it was suffocated by its own bloat.
There's a vast difference between "book bloat" and "setting bloat." Multiple settings compete with each other; multiple sourcebooks do not (or at least do so to a much lesser degree.)
Quote:
3e, one could argue, had either already met the same fate or was getting mighty close.
One could, indeed, argue that. One could also argue the reverse. I'm not convinced that it was the case.
Quote:
4e has barely been out a year yet has already seen enough book releases to cover a 5-year run...the bloat is building fast.
How do you figure? Based on what model? How many books "should" a 5-year run have?
In other words, I'm not seeing anything in this other than some people have a "gut feeling" that there are too many books. Now, that's certainly an opinion people are welcome to, but it doesn't do much in the way of convincing me why they feel that way, or suggest to me that there's any hard reasoning behind it.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
One could, indeed, argue that. One could also argue the reverse. I'm not convinced that it was the case.
Perhaps, but a lot of the customer base may be convinced that that was the case - and that they see 4E following the same path. It really does not matter much what any specific individual thinks but rather what the collective market thinks.
I also think the notion has kind of propagated itself. If you say something or hear something enough times some people will take that as being the truth.
My feeling is that's quite true. There were quite a number of things with 3e that had serious flaws - especially when you tried expanding it later with supplements. So, 3.5e allowed them to rework it to make it work better as an expandable game system.
With the releases of Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Planar Handbook, etc ... within a year after the release of the 3.5E core books, the pattern is perhaps suggestive of WotC hitting the "reset button".
Perhaps, but a lot of the customer base may be convinced that that was the case - and that they see 4E following the same path. It really does not matter much what any specific individual thinks but rather what the collective market thinks.
I also think the notion has kind of propagated itself. If you say something or hear something enough times some people will take that as being the truth.
What probably counts in the end, is how many D&D books are being sold in spite of what the collective market thinks. If the perception is drastically affecting book sales, then WotC will change accordingly and not produce as many books. If the perception isn't doing anything sales wise, then WotC will just keep on doing the same thing until the 4E line runs out of steam eventually.
Having recently bought several of the 4E releases (after owning only the corebooks since last year), the quality I feel is to a higher standard-ruleswise and utility-wise. It seems the 4E designers have a far better handle on the rules system in less than a year than the 3E crew did over a couple, and they have a clear direction on the business model as well (whether you like said direction or not). Not to mention the eratta has been far more sparse. I don't know if the quality will be sustainable over many years, but so far, I've gotta say (*gasp*) I'm far more impressed this time around with WOTC.
I wanted to quote this because I have been saying this for a while, and I am so happy when someone agrees with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanefan
2e died largely because it was suffocated by its own bloat. 3e, one could argue, had either already met the same fate or was getting mighty close. 4e has barely been out a year yet has already seen enough book releases to cover a 5-year run...the bloat is building fast.
5 year run? Compared to what? 1st edition? I thought it had been established that things were released at the same pace as in 3.x?
Anyway, WotC's pace in 3e didn't kill it. Bad design and the OGL too care of that. I mean, with the 1 million releases under the OGL, WotC probably had trouble finding interesting things to do that hadn't been done already by at least four 3PP's. GSL ensures they will not have this problem again.
If I had to guess I'd say it is a combination of 1) the nature of 4e crunch, 2) the total number of game elements revealed quantitatively by the compendium, 3) some of the many interpretations of "everything is core" plus other variations of the completist urge, and 4) the fact that WotC is clearly concentrating on making every book have close to the maximum potential audience. Let me attempt to develop that picture, and you can judge whether it adds up.
First, whatever its merits or demerits, 4e crunch is pretty uniformly distributed across all classes and, taken as a whole, somewhat bulky. I don't necessarily mean individual pieces of crunch (a single power, feat, or monster is pretty darn compact) but supporting an entire class with new options (particularly powers) grows the page count pretty rapidly. All the books we've seen so far that provide new powers are also accompanied (to my knowledge) by a new build or something similar that demands adding many powers at once. In other words, we don't often get a "trickle of crunch."
Contrast this to 3.5, where spells (for example) were usually individually bulky but could be introduced piecemeal and only needed to support a fraction of the classes. The page counts between editions might not change much, but in 3.5 the amount of crunch applicable to a given player could change wildly depending on the types of classes they preferred to use. The net effect for 4e is that no class is as inherently compact as a 3.5 rogue or fighter, so players gravitating to those types are more likely to be aware of the growth of 4e options. I'd also guess that a disproportionately large percentage of 3.5 spellcasters (particularly wizards) were played by precisely the people that enjoyed the growth of crunch inherent in constantly introducing new spells, and would have greater tolerance of it. In other words, a self-selection effect. That is a very broad characterization, but it certainly fits the encyplopedic feel of the 3.5 wizard that some people think is missing from 4e.
The second point is pretty simple, the compendium has really made it clear how many game elements have already been introduced in the first year of the game. For most of us, I think, the "size" of the game is estimated from the crunch available to us. With the compendium we can be quite accurately aware of just how much stuff there is...and those numbers are pretty large. For example, I kept track of a decent percentage of 3.5 feats in a spreadsheet, and by the end had around 1600 from 34 books. At this moment the compendium reports 998 4e feats from all sources, and 729 from 8 rulebooks. Whether this greater pace in the number of feats is "too much" or makes building characters that much harder could be endlessly debated (generally 4e feats have simpler prereqs, simpler effects, characters gain more of them, and a great many apply only to a specific class or race) but the number feels huge.
Third, "everything is core" has been intrepreted by some people to mean that new crunch is "less optional" than in previous editions. Even if this is an unconscious response I think it tends to enhance the completist urge among consumers taken as a whole. The individual who resents these implications is probably more likely to think the amount of material is inappropriate, even if nothing else had changed from 3.5.
Fourth, and related to the last point, is the business model underlying 4e. Roughly, maximize the number of potential buyers for every book by reducing setting-specific material and emphasizing "generic" material whenever possible. Whether this is a good choice (financially or from the hobbyist's perspective) has been discussed pretty thoroughly in other threads, but it can enhance the "too much too quickly" perspective. In short, even if the total amount of material produced were precisely the same as in previous editions, every consumer that isn't a completist already is being marketed more material than before. From the perspective of the individual consumer that can feel like more material has been produced, and it potentially influences the perspectives of a large percentage of the total D&D audience.
These points aren't exhaustive, and they aren't immune to nit-picking, but I think the basic thrust is sound. Putting them together, it doesn't surprise me that the "too much too quickly" perspective is oft repeated.
I don't have a settled opinion on the topic, but I'd lean toward thinking the amount of material produced is reasonable given the structure of 4e. I like a lot about 4e, but my greatest reservation is the "sameness" of classes from a mechanical perspective -- that diversity was something I absolutely adored about 3.5 even if it caused the occasional problem. With respect to the current topic that is somewhat ironic, since even if 4e has a far greater number of possible options than 3.5 it generally feels to me like the possible differentiation is less.
Last edited by Ainamacar; 9th July 2009 at 08:45 AM..
Reason: Early morning writing, early morning mistakes.
Gamers Online Now: 1,269
Linear Mode
