Get Rid of Splatbooks Altogether

[Incenjucar]

There is certainly a question of quality that could be addressed, but that's a matter of WotC QA and scheduling policy rather than book format. Non-splatbooks would suffer just the same as splatbooks would if the QA policy isn't improved.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Hopefully WOTC decides to print something beyond the initial releases. I fear they'll just put everything in the DDI to cut costs.

 

[CM]

Keep player material in the player books and DM material in the DM books.

I hate when a splatbook wastes space on a mini-adventure; I'd rather have that stuff in Dungeon magazine as a web enhancement.

Also, better than half the time I'll take a published adventure, gut the fluff and just use the main plotline and adapt it to my own campaign. Crunch based on an adventure in this situation has a good chance of also needing adaptation, or being completely irrelevant.

 

[GSHamster]

One could easily say that we buy splatbooks because thats what they sell. I have many splatbooks of varying quality for several editions but stopped a while back because they became boring and essentially replaced the production of quality fluff so to speak. This was due to decisions made beyond any of our control. Eventually I just felt like some balance should return to the marketplace and I stopped indulging in their splat wares. I am thankful at least that some others also see it this way.

In my view, the OGL experience provides proof of my assertion. WotC created the OGL so that other companies could make adventures, as WotC felt adventures were not profitable. And indeed, a lot of the early 3rd party products were adventures. But as time went on, the the 3rd party mixture shifted from being adventure-heavy to splatbook-heavy.

Since this involved multiple companies and product lines, it is reasonable to state that the final product mix reflected consumer demands and preferences, rather than producer desires.

 

[BeholderBurger]

In my view, the OGL experience provides proof of my assertion. WotC created the OGL so that other companies could make adventures, as WotC felt adventures were not profitable. And indeed, a lot of the early 3rd party products were adventures. But as time went on, the the 3rd party mixture shifted from being adventure-heavy to splatbook-heavy.

Since this involved multiple companies and product lines, it is reasonable to state that the final product mix reflected consumer demands and preferences, rather than producer desires.

I personally think that because splat books are easier to develop (mainly composed of untested filler) rather than the imagination heavy fluff that DM's would be helped with and because they cater to a bigger market (The players) they are the obvious product to create if the company is ONLY interested in a bottom line (Which was my original assertion). The game is utterly reliant on DM's though. Nothing the players do means anything without a DM, a Setting and a good quality, imaginative adventure. This VITAL component is hardly served now by either WOTC or the 3rd parties (Sorry for those few companies that do deliver good quality adventures and campaign material). This is massively detrimental to the game as a whole i think.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I rarely buy splatbooks. I don't really care if WotC makes them, because I just won't use the bloody things. I can make my own splat material, if I want. So can my players, for that matter. Something I find far preferable, to a ton of schlock coming from "official sources." I decide what makes it into my campaign, not WotC.

I'll buy good, interesting adventures. I rarely run them, but like to read and collect modules. Even if I DM 5e, most of my adventure buying money will no doubt continue going to LotFP, Mythmere Games and similar folks.

I'll buy setting material that I like. I've never ran a published setting, but again, enjoy reading and collecting that sort of material.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I understand where this idea comes from. It's more than understandable to want to see greater context and fluff for the various classes, feats, and other player options. But, from a purchasing standpoint, this proposal can't work.

First, I need to address an underlying assumption, which is that D&D Next will have an ever-growing selection of player options at a rate similar to the past two editions. I'm really hoping that the next edition isn't so exceptions heavy, and that most player concepts can be built right out of the Player's Handbook. After that, I mostly want to see material needed to support different environments, cultures, and game types.

Thus, instead of books like Complete Arcane or Primal Power, I'd prefer books like Manual of the Planes, Heroes of Battle, and Cityscape. These give the various player options the context you're looking for, and also include lots of adventure hooks.

Finally, I have no problem with an adventure providing feats, magic items, or other player options needed to support that adventure. That is, so long as they're really there for that purpose.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I understand where this idea comes from. It's more than understandable to want to see greater context and fluff for the various classes, feats, and other player options. But, from a purchasing standpoint, this proposal can't work.

First, I need to address an underlying assumption, which is that D&D Next will have an ever-growing selection of player options at a rate similar to the past two editions. I'm really hoping that the next edition isn't so exceptions heavy, and that most player concepts can be built right out of the Player's Handbook. After that, I mostly want to see material needed to support different environments, cultures, and game types.

Thus, instead of books like Complete Arcane or Primal Power, I'd prefer books like Manual of the Planes, Heroes of Battle, and Cityscape. These give the various player options the context you're looking for, and also include lots of adventure hooks.

Finally, I have no problem with an adventure providing feats, magic items, or other player options needed to support that adventure. That is, so long as they're really there for that purpose.

Those are DM books (adventure hooks), not player books. Like I mentioned, players outnumber DM's at least 4 to 1 (probably more), so putting out just stuff for DMs cuts their market by a whole whole lot.

 

[the Jester]

What if it was framed this way:

"A new mega-adventure and campaign sandbox set on the high seas with detailed rules on ships and sailing, diseases and hindrances seafarers deal with, 30 new sea monsters, 5 new classes for high-seas campaigns and 15 new spells for your next Pirate Wizard!"

Not if it's all in the same book.

DO NOT put material players are going to need to reference heavily in adventures, unless it's in a separate booklet. Basically, I strongly STRONGLY feel that player material shouldn't come with spoilers. The 3e version of the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide is a particularly egregious and offensive example IMO.

Really, though, what you are suggesting in the OP seems to be more like "A new mega-adventure and campaign sandbox set on the high seas with detailed rules on ships and sailing, diseases and hindrances seafarers deal with, 30 new sea monsters (including some basics like sahuagin, sharks, kraken and merfolk that should have been in the Monster Manual!), 5 new classes for high-seas campaigns (including the druid and swashbuckling rogue, which should have been in a Players Handbook or the like!) and 15 new spells for your next Pirate Wizard (including classics like water breathing and free action, which should have been in the Players Handbook too!)!"

I don't want to have to buy "The Swampy Ziggurat of Snakey Snakes" to get details on the yuan ti, stats for giant snakes, rules for poison and disease, the ranger and barbarian and the like. If I want to have access to the barbarian, plus the "lighthouse keeper" background and stats for a roc, I shouldn't need to buy three different adventures in order to get it. I shouldn't have to buy ONE adventure to get it.

No, this is a terrible idea. You can gussy it up and wrap it in a bow, but it's still a terrible idea. You can spray it with perfume and put lipstick and a dress on it, but it's still a terrible idea.

 

[Kavon]

I would spend money on a book with good player's options.

I will not spend money on adventures that contain the same player's options, spread out over a dozen booklets.
And I don't want to wait for some compilation to be released, nor do I want to
be forced to subscribe to anything.

Apparently you like adventure modules - good for you. I don't (as a player or as a DM, we always make our own stories).
Keep that stuff away from my goodies, thank you very much.