D&D 5E Is long-term support of the game important?

[Stormonu]

I think the best long-term support the company can give is to keep the core rules in print. Everything beyond that is gravy. I do sort of wish that WotC had clung to the idea of an "evergreen" ruleset, though I wouldn't have been particularly happy if the ruleset had been straight 4E.

I somewhat like Paizo's scheme in that one of their big focuses is the Adventure Path. Though it's been getting a little touchy with the integration of their supplement books into the AP line, I like the core of the idea - make available a base set of rules, throw out a not-required supplement every so often to add a bit of new life to the game, but focus on making the line "living" by pumping out a series of adventures to give folks a reason to keep buying product. Unfortunately, looking through the likes of the Reign of Winter AP, they seem to be losing sight of making the APs themselves the focus, and not their rulebook supplements.

However, I remember one of the reasons I had migrated away from AD&D 2E to Vampire was that the D&D game was feeling long in the tooth - and having a ruleset that felt like it was stuck in the stone age. Sticking to an aging ruleset has its drawbacks, especially when you start running into bloat or the "been there, done that" feel that can set in with players that have become too familiar with a ruleset.

 

[Mistwell]

Just to pick your nitpick - The Unearthed Arcana was not an option. It was expected to be used and published as such. Subsequent material, such as published modules, referenced UA and would be impossible to play without it.



It's hardly like the system was ever static.

Is that the standard for "not optional"? Because the recent Pathfinder modules all reference directly quite a number of supplements (as in up to a dozen in one adventure path). Is all that material now considered "not optional"?

 

[Hussar]

Is that the standard for "not optional"? Because the recent Pathfinder modules all reference directly quite a number of supplements (as in up to a dozen in one adventure path). Is all that material now considered "not optional"?

Well, why not? Can you run those modules without the supplements? I'd say that if you cannot run the module without them, then they are no longer optional.

Isn't that a pretty standard definition of "not optional"? If something is required, then it isn't really an option is it?

 

[Mistwell]

Well, why not? Can you run those modules without the supplements? I'd say that if you cannot run the module without them, then they are no longer optional.

Isn't that a pretty standard definition of "not optional"? If something is required, then it isn't really an option is it?

You can always make something up on the fly, work around it, or look it up online.

When comparing the cost of editions, I've never seen anyone include all dozen books from each adventure path in the true cost of the Pathfinder rules. For that matter, I've never seen anyone include UA in the cost of the 1e rules for cost comparisons of editions.

I'm not saying it would be unreasonable to do that, I've just never seen anyone look at it that way.

 

[Hussar]

Well I guess it depends. Forex if a module said that an NPC was a tenth level Favored Soul and gave no stats other than that then that's not really optional.

Thing is, Core 3 is a 3e thing. Previous editions certainly didn't make that distinction.

 

[Umbran]

Well, why not? Can you run those modules without the supplements? I'd say that if you cannot run the module without them, then they are no longer optional.

Yeah, but a module or two is not the system as a whole. The modules are themselves very, very optional. The rules only become non-optional for those running the particular modules in question.

How many 1e modules actually reference UA? We're talking about stuff that was published between 1985 (when UA was published) and 1989 (when 2nd edition was published), and were for AD&D (as opposed to Basic, or the like). Looking at a list... that doesn't leave too many as even possibly referring to UA, much less them making it effectively required for the game in general.

 

[Remathilis]

WotC is first and foremost the Magic: the Gathering company. It was the game that put them on the map and makes them a bajillion dollars every quarter (rounded up to the nearest bajillion). And MtG is a very cyclical game. You release an annual starter set and then expansions every few months, and never, every have to look backwards. Old sets just cease to exist.

I sometimes wonder if WotC's "Core Rules Set + Supplements + Setting" idea wasn't influcenced by M:TG's system...

I have no problem with the idea of WotC's original plan of a ".5" edition after 5 years and a new edition after 10. I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach to the RPG publishing game. Just don't make a whole new freakin' game every edition. Maintain some continuity. Someone who bought B2 in 1978 with Holmes Basic could go on to use it with AD&D in 1979, Moldvay Basic in 1981, Menzter Basic in 1983, and AD&D 2nd Edition in 1989. D&D had continuity for 20 years. D&D was distinct from AD&D which was distinct from 2nd Edition, and yet they were essentially the same game. Then WotC takes over and 3e is suddenly not compatible with 2e. 4e comes out and it's not compatible with 3e. 5e comes out (and I like 5e), and sure enough it's not compatible with 4e..

Conversion from AD&D to 3e was completely doable. It involved much more work than 1e to 2e, but things primarily worked the same enough to allow it. A 5th level wizard looked remarkably similar in 3e as he did in 2e, controlling for feats and magic items. They had access to the same spells, fireball worked pretty much the same, etc. That is not do-able with 4e due to the nature of the powers structure and the development over 30 levels.

I don't think that's fair. I think we did need a new edition, and it needed to be 4e, not 3.75. We needed substantial revisions. It's not just a question of profit and greed; the system has its problems. It's bloated and filled with sacred cows, the math is strained, and there are a few wrong turns that 3e uniquely took as well.

The issue with 4e is that it took those problems and magnified them to previously unseen levels, discarded much of what was good about previous versions, and that they booted the OGL. And then went off the rails with some other new stuff they added.

3.X, even in Pathfinder, shows its age poorly. Its still needlessly fiddly, overly complex, and too focused on certain assumptions that even Paizo can't fix it. D&D NEEDED A 4th edition. I'm not sure it needed the one it got.

Is that the standard for "not optional"? Because the recent Pathfinder modules all reference directly quite a number of supplements (as in up to a dozen in one adventure path). Is all that material now considered "not optional"?

To their credit, Paizo puts all its core rulesbooks online for free. If something is referenced in an AP, its available to look at for no money, no subscription, nothing. All you need is a computer, internet access, and either a screen or a printer.

 

[Kinak]

You can always make something up on the fly, work around it, or look it up online.

Yeah, it's a lot harder to get angry at someone for requiring something when they make it available free online.

Personally, I'd much rather have an online system (be it the PRD or 4e subscription) that I can search than flipping through books, even if there are only ever a few core books. So Pathfinder's approach works very well for me.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[adamc]

The more I am thinking about long-term support of the game the more I think it is important for the game.

In most respects, it isn't that important to me. I don't really care about WoTC-generated content, and I don't really need rules updates, items, etc. It is nice to get new classes and feats -- they need enough play-testing for balance that I probably wouldn't generate them on my own.

What I find essential is software support for features like the character-builder -- in a system as complex as D&D, and sprawling over as many books as D&D likes to, I really want software support. And I want something like the monster-builder too, although the current adventure tools could use some work.

I think that's the future for generating revenue in this space -- make it more convenient for me to DM games. (Or play in them.) But I have a lot of doubts as to whether the existing major players have the right aptitudes to exploit that.

 

[Jester David]

3.X, even in Pathfinder, shows its age poorly. Its still needlessly fiddly, overly complex, and too focused on certain assumptions that even Paizo can't fix it. D&D NEEDED A 4th edition. I'm not sure it needed the one it got.

That certainly mirrors my opinion.
A Fourth Edition was inevitable and the game needed some revision, but we got a complete overhaul rather than a revision.

Paizo could have fixed the game had they wanted. But, at the time, they were thinking Pathfinder would be a niche product that appealed to people not ready to stop playing 3e, and opted to focus on backwards compatibility rather than larger changes. At this point it's unlikely, but if they ever do a revised version of Pathfinder it will likely fix a lot of things.
Of course, with D&D5 being the "simple" game, Pathfinder is free to really focus on the fiddly and complex.