D&D 5E I believe a slow and light product release can cause more harm in the long run.

[BlueBlackRed]

From my own history, too many players options released too quickly can destabilize a DM's game.

4E released so many books so fast, every few months at least two players wanted to switch to the "hot new thing" character class or revise their current PC.
When you're attempting to tell a story, it's detrimental when this happens way too often.

I wouldn't mind seeing players options books released every year at the minimum.
(Hypocritically, I'd like to see Monster Manuals a bit more often to start with because I need some more monster variety.)

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, not only do I not want that many more books, I agree with others: I don't want them to be made. Not worth it for the games health.

 

[Greg K]

From my own history, too many players options released too quickly can destabilize a DM's game.

4E released so many books so fast, every few months at least two players wanted to switch to the "hot new thing" character class or revise their current PC.
When you're attempting to tell a story, it's detrimental when this happens way too often.

Personally, the DMs I know, myself included, are the ones that determine what does and does not enter the games we run and have no issue telling players, "No" if something is inappropriate or will otherwise interfere with the game being run. As such, new material cannot destabilize our games. Therefore, I don't see the issue being with the release schedule, but , potentially, with you as a DM being unable to say, "No" and set the boundaries for the game you are running.

 

[bedir than]

Personally, the DMs I know, myself included, are the ones that determine what does and does not enter the games we run and have no issue telling players, "No" if something is inappropriate or will otherwise interfere with the game being run. As such, new material cannot destabilize our games. Therefore, I don't see the issue being with the release schedule, but , potentially, with you as a DM being unable to say, "No" and set the boundaries for the game you are running.

Tell your players "no" often enough and they look for new DM/GM.

 

[Shiroiken]

Citation please?

Also I would like some data you have that places me in the minority.

Thanks.

I do not have it readily at hand (my search-fu of the WotC website is weak). However, it was discussed by Mike Mearls at the end of the playtest and near the release of 5E. If you search his articles from sometime last summer you'll probably find it. While he did not give specifics (he seldom does), he said almost exactly what I posted.

 

[Greg K]

And it's needless. It's so needless. Let's look at the rest of my D&D shelf:

I've circled a few editions. 1st Edition is in red, 2nd Edition is in blue, and 3rd Edition is in green.

Now I'll highlight the books I actually used during my games. The products where more than a single page was used. Books where a single feat or magic item were used don't count.
Most of those books could have been novels or GURPs for all the play they saw at my table.

Who held a gun to your head and made you purchase the books? Nobody. You made the decision to buy the books. If you are were the DM (and it sounds as if you were), you choose what to use and what not to include. It is not hard to look through books and see if it will be worthwhile purchase based upon what you will include in your game.

Now, some tables might have a higher percentage of use, but I guarantee there were some options no one ever used. There were some spells or Prestige Classes or feats that not a single player every took in the fifteen years the edition was on shelves. Because they just weren't good. There were so many bad options created because a quota needed to be filled.
That's bad. We shouldn't have bad options. Nothing should be created that people honestly don't think is a valid and reasonable option for somebody. But the more content is created - even if just a book every six months - the less and less chance an option will be chosen. The less and less valuable the books become. The more it just becomes a wasted purchase.

Padding and filler is a separate issue. WOTC put a lot of what I felt was garbage in their 3e products in the form of PrCs.Guess what? I bought little of their supplements. I definitely didn't buy their Race or Class oriented books and very little would be allowed from them if a player wanted to use them (Ari's Complete Mage would be an exception if I didn't use the Wizard specialist material from Unearthed Arcana)

On the other hand, when I run, I use supplements from Green Ronin along with a few supplements from Monkey God, Lion's Den, Blue Devil, EN World and even one or two from Malhavoc which were smaller products with tighter focus and little padding and/or approached the topic in a manner that I liked compared to WOTC's take.

Yet despite my dislike for the majority of WOTC's 3e supplements and PrCs, a lot of people liked them and used them. I don't hold it against WOTC for producing supplements for which many fans liked and found use even if I did not. I just told players, "No" a specific supplement would not be in use or just a few specific items from a supplement would be allowed and, rather than purchase it myself, found other supplements which I would find useful.

 

[HobbitFan]

I don't want a crowded, bloated release schedule BUT I want them to start getting to campaign settings before YEARS go by.

 

[Celtavian]

It's pretty early to freak out over things. I think what has people more concerned is the lack of a release schedule. We're fairly used to a release schedule that lets us know what is coming a year or more in advance. Right now, we're in the dark about what they will be releasing an when. The last book I heard release details about was Princes of the Apocalypse. That book is out. I have no idea when another book is coming. I have no idea what it will be. I'm hoping this is just a temporary problem as WotC lays out plans for releases and then gives us some kind of schedule.

I don't mind a book or two a year beyond modules. Rules bloat and power creep are pretty annoying. I want high quality products, not rushed and shoddy products with one or two good things in each book and everything else the equivalent of filler. I'm willing to wait for new books. But I would like to see some kind of release schedule soon just to have an idea of what to look forward to.

 

[pogre]

I'm a core books only kind of guy - so I like the release schedule. To me, it is easier to get new players into the game with this kind of schedule.

However, there are a few folks I know who share the OP's concerns. I imagine they will gravitate to Pathfinder.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Why am I seeing a lot of "I don't need this" or "I don't need that"?

Because you said this in your first post: "I believe releasing products lightly and slowly is going to cause a lot of people to become extremely critical, angry, and a bit selfish."

The majority of people replying to this post are trying to give you their view of why your sentence statement above isn't likely to come to pass. As it seems to be turning out to be, the majority of folks posting here are quite happy with very little or extremely slow release books. No extreme criticism, no anger, not much in the way of selfishness. So they don't need or really even want a plethora of books. Thus, your sentence/statement looks like it is incorrect (at least on these boards with regards to the 5e posters in this thread; this may or may not be indicative of the larger masses of 5e players and DMs...there's just no way to really know for certain).

If you want to go that route then you are definitely not Wizards' kind of customer because technically you don't "need" to buy a new edition because the previous ones still work just fine.

This isn't about needing anything so I'm not sure it seems to creep into several posters remarks. This is about the many gamers out there who do want more product. Also, could we please stop with the disingenuous comments about bloat and mountains of books? It's like some of you can't differentiate the now release schedule and the one from that last two editions. Nobody here has said they want mountains of books. I certainly haven't and it seems that if you want more than what is currently planned then you suddenly must be in the "wants tons of books" category of people.

First, I'm pretty sure I (and every single RPG'er I know personally...roughly 15 to 20...with the exception of 3) am *exactly* the kind of customer WotC wants. They want people who are happy with a slow release schedule and who are happy to use their creativity and "rulings not rules" approach to campaign management and enhancement. This may be anecdotal, but I've seen and heard of quite a few "old timers" who were either playing an earlier version or an OSR version of an earlier game, or who have been out of the RPG loop for the last decade or so...and have specifically come back to D&D because of 5e and WotC's approach to "stuff".

Second, as others have said, "mountains of books" to one person is "barely enough" to another. Personally, I think the best release schedule of all time was for 1e. This was ever so slightly more than a book per year (77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85/85/85 [big year!], 86/86, 87). If WotC put out 1 major book every year I'd be quite happy. What I dreadfully want to see, however, is a return to the 32-page "adventure module with detachable cover" as well as some print form of Dungeon and Dragon.

Now, the big sticky wicket with me and books for 5e is that of quality. I've gotten hundreds if not thousands of hours of use and enjoyment out of my 1e collection. The 1e DMG was my go-to book for pretty much any fantasy RPG I play. It still is...although I substitute the Hackmaster 4e GMG quite often. I still haven't used every monster out of the MM, MMII or FF...and I've used the Keep on the Borderlands module for basic D&D to run campaigns that have lasted two years...on three separate occasions. If that kind of quality shows up in what WotC puts out...I don't think they have anything to worry about at all.

^_^

Paul L. Ming