D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

Tony Vargas said:

It is a little silly to say that the wealth of cool D&D stuff in the 90s killed TSR. Yeah, it was going too deep on novels, collectible games, and general mis-management. But, really, so what?

We don't have to point to the slow:release correlation in the 80s to shore up speculation that slow release will be successful for 5e.

It already has been successful.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm happy we got the settings we did.

Corwin said:

The point I've been making was never about not wanting more options...

Click to expand...

Sure sounds that way.

Corwin said:

Who's saying any of that?

Click to expand...

Again, you were.
But I can't see what you mean, only what you actually type out and post.

It was reminding people, who are complaining about not enough splat, that the "splat" that would have been seen as such in previous editions is baked into the core books already.

Click to expand...

With a very few exceptions, like the EK & AT (3.5 DMG), the character options in the 5e PH were pulled from prior ed PH1s.

Shasarak said:

I would love to see the argument that more books = shorter lifespan of an edition.

Click to expand...

Ok, one more time for the hard of reading:

2e - fast release schedule results in TSR closing its doors, selling off D&D to a CCG company.
3e - fast release schedule results in a 2 year (ish) lifespan.
3.5e - fast release schedule results in a 4 (5) year lifespan.
4e - fast release schedule results in a 2 year lifespan
4e essentials -fast release schedule results in a 2 year lifespan, WotC completely shutting down publishing for a further two years and millions of dollars spent on a completely new version of the game.

So, what evidence can you produce that a faster release schedule is healthy for the hobby. I've got 4 straight version of the game where fast release killed the game within a VERY short time. What can you point to?

Tony Vargas said:

Sure sounds that way. Again, you were.
Quit saying things you don't mean, and maybe the thread velocity will get back under control. ;P With a very few exceptions, like the EK & AT (3.5 DMG), the character options in the 5e PH were pulled from prior ed PH1s.

Click to expand...

I believe that [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] is talking more about character possibilities given combinations of class, subclass, class options, background, and feats as provided in the 5E PHB. Those options can be used to achieve many character concepts that were added later on in prior editions as classes unto themselves.

So, for instance, do we need a Swashbuckler class released in a splat book when you can very clearly create a Swadhbucklet type of character with just the options in the PHB? He's saying that many of the options added later inprior editions have already been taken into consideration, even if not in class for class manner.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, necessarily, but I think that there is at least some truth to the idea.

Hussar said:

4e essentials -fast release schedule results in a 2 year lifespan.

Click to expand...

Actually, Essentials slowed down a lot. There were 10 'evergreen' (ha!) products innitiatially, but they constituted the same sort of material in the usual 3-book set, basic set & DM screen formula. There were 3 hardbound 'heroes of...' books after that, and some adventure and setting-related stuff. Nothing like the fire-hoses of 3e & 4e.

hawkeyefan said:

I believe that [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] is talking more about character possibilities given combinations of class, subclass, class options, background, and feats as provided in the 5E PHB.

Click to expand...

I'm sure when he's asserting numbers of options, he is thinking of decision points like that, and I don't see a problem with thinking of them that way, at all. Just with claiming there's more of them than in other modern eds, each over a 'comparable' (not at all comparable, because different pace of publication, different strategy) 2-year span.

Those options can be used to achieve many character concepts that were added later on in prior editions as classes unto themselves.

Click to expand...

IDK, there was a lot of cr- er..fine non-core material - produced for 3e.

So, for instance, do we need a Swashbuckler class released in a splat book when you can very clearly create a Swadhbucklet type of character with just the options in the PHB?

Click to expand...

We actually got a 'swashbuckler' in SCAG. So, apparently, for some value of 'need.'

hawkeyefan said:

I believe that @Corwin is talking more about character possibilities given combinations of class, subclass, class options, background, and feats as provided in the 5E PHB. Those options can be used to achieve many character concepts that were added later on in prior editions as classes unto themselves.

So, for instance, do we need a Swashbuckler class released in a splat book when you can very clearly create a Swadhbucklet type of character with just the options in the PHB? He's saying that many of the options added later inprior editions have already been taken into consideration, even if not in class for class manner.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, necessarily, but I think that there is at least some truth to the idea.

Click to expand...

Perhaps in flavor, but certain mechanics are quite distinct from what you could try to come up with in the phb. The fact that SWAG is a seller would answer that question with "yes". And for those that don't, then inaction (not buy the book) makes this a non-issue for them.

Tony Vargas said:

Actually, Essentials slowed down a lot. There were 10 'evergreen' (ha!) products innitiatially, but they constituted the same sort of material in the usual 3-book set, basic set & DM screen formula. There were 3 hardbound 'heroes of...' books after that, and some adventure and setting-related stuff. Nothing like the fire-hoses of 3e & 4e.

I'm sure when he's asserting numbers of options, he is thinking of decision points like that, and I don't see a problem with thinking of them that way, just with claiming there's more of them than in other modern eds, each over a 'comparable' (not at all comparable, because different pace of publication, different strategy) 2 year span. IDK, there was a lot of cr- er..fine non-core material - produced for 3e. We actually got a 'swashbuckler' in SCAG. So, apparently, for some value of 'need.'

Click to expand...

Yeah, but did we really need the SCAG Swashbuckler? I'm not saying it's a bad subclass...it introduced an interesting mechanic, so that's cool...but was there really any need for it? From a conceptual standpoint, can't a character that evokes the archetype be created with the PHB? I mean, duelist fighting style combined with a high Dex and a finesse weapon and you're already almost all the way there...and that's before backgrounds or feats.

As for the timespan, I don't think he was saying over 2 years...I think he was saying that the 5E PHB presents more options than other editions did at the start AND even after they added some options over time. If I followed his point correctly.

nswanson27 said:

Perhaps in flavor, but certain mechanics are quite distinct from what you could try to come up with in the phb. The fact that SWAG is a seller would answer that question with "yes". And for those that don't, then inaction (not buy the book) makes this a non-issue for them.

Click to expand...

Yes, purely from a flavor standpoint, the combinations of options in the PHB is impressive. The background aspect alone is huge.

So I guess maybe a question that needs to be asked is...if a designer comes up with a mechanical element, how do they decide how to implement it? Subclassor feat or what?

Sometimes, I don't know if a given mechanical trick justifies the creation of a class, or even a subclass.

Jester David said:

Okay.
There are six real editions of D&D: 1-5 and Basic.
1e lasted from 1977 to 1989.
BECMI D&D lasted from 1983 to 2000.
2e lasted from 1989 to 1999 (or 1989 to 1995 and 1995 to 1999).
3e lasted from 2000 to 2003.
3.5e lasted from 2003 to 2007.
4e lasted from 2008 to 2010.
4e Essentials lasted from 2010 to 2012.

So the longest editions are, in order, BECMI, 1e, 2e, then 3.5e.

BECMI didn't have any real accessories beyond the level increasing books (Companion or Immortals) and the Creature Catalogue as everything else was a some combination of world book or adventure.
It's in super high demand. The books fetch a very high price on the secondary market. And the Red Box is arguably the best selling D&D product of all time.
1e only had the 8 accessories and a wealth of adventures. Even those were fairly small most of the time.

In contrast, 2e only had a half-dozen hardcover expansions. But it had soooo many softcover books and TSR struggled for money and eventually went bankrupt.
Given I'm separating Essentials, I could probably arguably separate the 1995 Revised 2nd Edition products. The mid-edition relaunch which was an attempt to revitalize the game and boost sagging sales. It really served the exact same purpose as 3.5e and Essentials. And it launched with a whole host of new accessories and tweaks to the system.

Following that were the four super short editions. Each edition grew shorter and shorter. Each edition had increasingly more "assumed" crunch.


So the longest lasting versions of D&D are BECMI and AD&D by a wide margin, which are also the ones with the fewest waves of player accessories and splatbooks.

Now, correlation does not equal causation. So the two examples could just be flukes. The short lifespan of 3e and 4e could be attributed to failures of those systems.
However, it makes sense to try a lighter release schedule to see what happens. To follow a model somewhat simmilar to the most successful and longest lasting version of D&D: BECMI - albeit without separating the Core Rules into several different products.
If the edition starts to fail, they can always add more content. But it's foolish to try what's been done four or five times in the past and expect a different result. Because once you introduce bloat you can't undo it.

Click to expand...

To not include Moldvay's basic is a freaking crime. At the very least you should put is as part of BECMI as the rules largely went unchanged between the two editions. And I don't think I've ever seen an edition list of D&D that didn't include OD&D. It was out for what? 5 years before the PHB came out? That's longer than 4e's time, so it should count, right?

Look, at the end of the day, in the paraphrasing Neil Gaiman WotC is not your bitch. That's the full argument right there. They will produce what they want to produce and what they think will make the most money.

We can argue 'till the cows come home that they should produce more, or whether or not what they are producing is the best way, or whether or not DM's Guild material is "real" D&D material but, again, in the end, it doesn't matter. WotC is doing what they are doing and, from every single shred of evidence we have, they are doing fantastically well. I mean, good grief, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, right now, is sitting at #6344 in all books. Pathfinder Core #9562!

The WORST selling WotC product is outselling Pathfinder's best. That's STUNNING. Granted, that's not the whole story, but, good grief, how much better does WotC have to be doing to make people think that maybe, just maybe, they know what they're doing?

Hussar said:

They will produce what they want to produce and what they think will make the most money.

Click to expand...

What would make the most money (from TTRPG book sales) is a flood of product aimed at their core fanbase. If they were limited to making money off books...

There's so much more potential to make so much more money from even, say one unsuccessful movie, though, that, instead, keeping the brand stable and it's image solid may be the better bet. A brand your few, devoted fans keep dropping money on even as they rip eachother (and the brand) to pieces in public, may not be the best foundation for striking out into more profitable markets.

I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you, there. The bottom line is that WotC isn't making it's TTRPG products for the people who may actually play them, yes?

hawkeyefan said:

Yeah, but did we really need the SCAG Swashbuckler?

Click to expand...

Not any more than we needed a 5th edition in the first place, no. Not particularly more or less than a bladesinger or battlerager. But, whoever felt they needed it has it, now, and whoever doesn't care can quite safely ignore it.

One book a year like SCAG probably wouldn't do in D&D from bloat in less than 30 years. Making it to the 50th anniversary would probably be fine, though. 10 years of stability as a foundation to whatever big launch they might want to do (movie, VR game, body sculpting, nation-building, cell phone app - who knows how effed up the world will be in 2024) at that point to finally break through into /something/ remotely mainstream.

From a conceptual standpoint, can't a character that evokes the archetype be created with the PHB?

Click to expand...

From a conceptual standpoint the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Druid, Bard and Warlock could all be created from just the core 4 classes with sufficient application of re-skinning, MCing, feats & backgrounds (and another generous portion of re-skinning). Your GOO 'warlock' is just a wizard with the hermit background RPing all that lovecraftian stuff while casting the same old wizard spells on the same neo-vancian schedule as every other wizard, because mechanics don't matter. Etc.

It is entirely possible to create a system that lets you build to any concept, without needing new 'classes' or other material. It's been done. It's just not D&D. Soooo not D&D.

As for the timespan, I don't think he was saying over 2 years...

Click to expand...

Yeah, he was pretty clear abou that, and I think it's a terribly unfair bar to expect 5e to clear. 5e is PH + 1 'splat' (barely) into it's run. That it's two years notwithstanding, that's comparable to 4e PH1 + Manual of the Planes, not the whole run of 4e, which was also little more than 2 years!

Sometimes, I don't know if a given mechanical trick justifies the creation of a class, or even a subclass.

Click to expand...

It sure seems like 5e classes are designed with the need for such mechanical distinctiveness in mind.