Would you rather we get more setting neutral content than adventures?

Chronos96 · Apr 18, 2019

I love 5th edition a lot I think it's done wonders for accessibility and exposure to a new group of players or people that maybe wanted to play but didn't know how. That being said after 5 years I've grown pretty tired of the glacial release pace. I'm not saying that I want a new supplement every month but I wish the releases weren't so staggered in the Fall/Winter Seasons. Ideally I wish Wizard's would figure out how to consistently develop and playtest things so that they could get a book out the middle of every physical quarter.

I appreciate that they're generally committed to keeping the quality and value of their releases high but I don't know if the fluff/crunch......something for the Dm/something for the player format is working for me as a consumer anymore.

It's been stated ad nauseum that most adventures fizzle out/ don't make it past level 10 but if I'm being honest I don't really buy the adventures to play them directly and typically just cannibalize elements from them. I would much rather they focus on toolboxes for the dm and player options.

I know they've stated their philosophy of wanting the books to both be useful for the player and the dm but honestly I feel like they'd be better consolidating their efforts entirely on one or the other for each release. I know we have Volo's guide, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's etc. and I know Wizard's has said they don't want to make a "Player's Handbook 2" but I feel by not focusing on one thing the releases end up being a little weaker than should be.

I get the philosophy behind wanting the players to feel that every release is useable to both the player and the dm and I agree with it in theory but in practice I don't feel that it's necessarily sustainable in the long run. As of now with all the books not counting the Ghost's of Saltmarsh and the Acquisitions INC book we have 17-18 books 10 of those are adventures and the other eight are the three core books and the additional supplements, there's already more material than anyone could possibly use. That's not including homebrew.

Again I don't want the days of 3rd edition or 4th with a new supplement every month but I don't get Wizard's hesitation to make a legitimate Monster Manual 2 or Player's Handbook 2 or even a DM's guide 2. Let's call a spade a spade

The DM's Guide 2 in 4th edition was one of my favorite books. In my opinion it's better to do one thing extremely well instead of trying to dilute it with other material.

Baldurs_Underdark · Apr 18, 2019

I do not own a single adventure book, and yet I am able to DM multiple campaigns. I use the Forgotten Realms wiki and the standard books (PHB, DMG, MM), and then create a few plot hooks and then sit back and watch what the players do. There is a wealth of maps and background info online, so if they go somewhere unexpected it takes me only 1 evening of searching to be prepared for the next session.

Eubani · Apr 18, 2019

I have tried to have this discussion in the past unfortunately I kept getting hit with the strawman argument that more automatically means you want a flood thus causing a lowering of quality and the down fall of the edition. There is plenty of non adventure material that this edition has not touched upon let alone the modularity we were promised, so I think we can easily handle 1 or 2 non adventure books extra a year.

Chronos96 · Apr 18, 2019

Right, like for example if they were to do the third edition weather books (Frostfell, Stormwrack, and the Dessert one) I wish they'd just have it all as one giant book instead of three. I really want either a manual of the planes book that really goes in depth with the Feywild/Shadowfell concepts or maybe a two-volume series. They've shown that they're willing to split adventures why not source material when it warrants it?

Shiroiken · Apr 18, 2019

I'll agree that a stable timeline of 4 books a year would be good, I think a plan of 3 adventures and 1 non-adventure book per year is fine. I'm not happy that this year's non-adventure is AInc, but I didn't care for the Ravnica book either. Something they could/should do is use the adventures to push various aspects. For example, the Ghosts of Saltmarsh is supposed to expand sea adventuring rules, and an adventure in Sigil or the Elemental Planes could expand knowledge of the Planes.

DEFCON 1 · Apr 18, 2019

Chronos96 said:
Right, like for example if they were to do the third edition weather books (Frostfell, Stormwrack, and the Dessert one) I wish they'd just have it all as one giant book instead of three. I really want either a manual of the planes book that really goes in depth with the Feywild/Shadowfell concepts or maybe a two-volume series. They've shown that they're willing to split adventures why not source material when it warrants it?

What is it about these 3rd and 4th edition books they have already done that you feel are not usable for 5th edition?

DEFCON 1 · Apr 18, 2019

Eubani said:
I have tried to have this discussion in the past unfortunately I kept getting hit with the strawman argument that more automatically means you want a flood thus causing a lowering of quality and the down fall of the edition. There is plenty of non adventure material that this edition has not touched upon let alone the modularity we were promised, so I think we can easily handle 1 or 2 non adventure books extra a year.

Heh... yeah, but you, I and everybody else also know that we aren't going to get it, because they've told us from the beginning we weren't going to get it. So every time there's an attempted discussion to lament about this fact... people rightly or wrongly show up to question why you are bothering to have it since its the same discussion that's been had for the past five years with the same complaints and the same reasoning and the same explanations. With the results of the discussion being that nothing is changed.

So people right keep wondering what exactly is the point? I mean, if its just to get your voice out there and to hear from a couple other people who agree with you, then okay, I understand that to a certain extent. And as these threads do in fact generate some of those voices, then the threads are succeeding I guess. But in that regard, all the naysayers who show up shouldn't matter or affect your group's collective agreement, because its not as though their voices are stopping your voices from producing tangible effects, because none of our voices are producing *any* tangible effects-- positively or negatively. WotC already has their schedule and they have been successful with it and aren't changing it except on their own time and terms.

DND_Reborn · Apr 18, 2019

I think, as usual, money is one of the goals in striving for both player and DM content in the same book--that way people who typically only play or DM will both buy the book. IMO it is a horrible system but it has been done since the beginning so it is nothing new.

I am not familiar with a lot of the books (I didn't even know the revised "Against the Giants" was part of Tales From the Yawning Portal LOL

) but I would like to see some better organization. One book with all the character creation stuff, one book of all the new spells, one book about the Underdark, etc. I hate having to browse through different books looking for this or that.

Morrus · Apr 18, 2019

Chronos96 said:
I love 5th edition a lot I think it's done wonders for accessibility and exposure to a new group of players or people that maybe wanted to play but didn't know how. That being said after 5 years I've grown pretty tired of the glacial release pace. I'm not saying that I want a new supplement every month but I wish the releases weren't so staggered in the Fall/Winter Seasons. Ideally I wish Wizard's would figure out how to consistently develop and playtest things so that they could get a book out the middle of every physical quarter.

There's four this year, I think.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh
Acquisitions Inc.
New storyline (The Descent)
Whatever the fall book is

Guest 6801328 · Apr 18, 2019

Depends on what kind of setting-neutral content.

More player options? Not necessarily, and not very often. Certainly not one a year.

Options for DMs? Sure.