D&D 5E Does this seem to be the edition that was made for splatbooks?

[Lalato]

What do you think sells the most copies; a book that every player and DM might use at some point, or a book that's aimed at a single campaign? Historically, the 2E Complete Books were some of the best sellers for TSR, and their successors for 3E likewise--at least, it was a long series that everyone seemed to have. For Pathfinder, I believe the hardbacked books dominate the booklets for sales, and while they're a little less focused then the 3E Complete books (which in turn were a little less focused then the 2E books), they're not campaign books. There's a case to be made that stuff like Advanced Player's Guide, that targets everyone is the most effective (though that burns out fairly quickly), and that campaign books that sell best are going to be nigh that generic.

Citation please!

 

[prosfilaes]

Citation please!

Citation for what? Designers & Dragons: The '70s says that the 2E Complete books were some of the best selling roleplaying books in their years. As I said for 3.5 Complete books, there's, what, eight of them, which in a well-managed company says they were selling, and anecdotally, where I played 3.5, at least one person had virtually all of them. For PF, they're the big expensive books they keep in print, so again, hopefully best sellers. The only character enhancement book in the top ten at Paizo right now is Champions of Corruption, which is a (recent) booklet, but for non-clerical followers of evil gods, so hardly broader then something like Complete Fighter.

 

[Lalato]

Citation for what? Designers & Dragons: The '70s says that the 2E Complete books were some of the best selling roleplaying books in their years. As I said for 3.5 Complete books, there's, what, eight of them, which in a well-managed company says they were selling, and anecdotally, where I played 3.5, at least one person had virtually all of them. For PF, they're the big expensive books they keep in print, so again, hopefully best sellers. The only character enhancement book in the top ten at Paizo right now is Champions of Corruption, which is a (recent) booklet, but for non-clerical followers of evil gods, so hardly broader then something like Complete Fighter.

Here's the quote which are you basing this off?

Starting with PHBR1: The Complete Fighter’s Handbook (1989) each book used “kits” to better define various AD&D classes and races. The first four were designed in tandem, but after that, an unbalancing power slowly found its way into the series. Nonetheless the books were great sellers for TSR for many years.

That's all I see in that entire document that refers to the sales of these books. It looks like just an offhand remark about it. I wouldn't extrapolate from that they were "best" sellers compared to other RPG products out at the time.

 

[prosfilaes]

That's all I see in that entire document that refers to the sales of these books. It looks like just an offhand remark about it. I wouldn't extrapolate from that they were "best" sellers compared to other RPG products out at the time.

I see, it was http://www.rpg.net/columns/designers-and-dragons/designers-and-dragons4.phtml that I was remembering. 1992 had Complete Bard as #7, and 1993 had Elves at #4 and Humanoids at #7. The 3 lists for 2010 have D&D4's PHB3, with several other D&D4 character books and PF's APG showing up on at least one list for that year.

 

[ranger69]

There is certainly a need for more subclasses, and backgrounds.
However, it remains to be seen how these are provide by WOTC. I feel that these will be doe through world, and/or adventure arc booklets.
Backgrounds should be reasonably easy to homebrew in discussion between player and DM.

Of course a lot is speculation until we know what the DMG contains.

I think the next rule book may well be psionics. Hopefully done I such a way that the effects of magic and the effects of psionics has very little crossover. However given some of the spells already published in the PH it will be difficult.

 

[Parmandur]

Home brewing backgrounds is easy, since they are all mechanically equal, or close enough that the PHB has full guidelines for doing so.

 

[Greg K]

Like a lot of other people in the thread I'd much rather we get supplements that expand several classes at once, rather than just one (like a lot of 2e/3e splatbooks)

Personally, I want them to focus one class per splat. Then again, Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook, Shaman's Handbook, and Witch's Handbook, along with TSR's 2e Complete Priest's Handbook and Complete Thief's Handbook are among my favorite class supplements for any edition. The classes get a much more thorough treatment and you are less likely to have to search through several different supplements to find your kit, class variant, build, subclass, etc.. (assuming the authors do their job properly).

 

[Grainger]

I don't like the splatbook model for one very simple reason: Say the fighter book comes out. The folks playing fighters in my game can get new interesting stuff. But the clerics? They are stuck until their book comes out. If it is a campaign-theme book then everyone gets the options at once.

Not just that, but the DM should be in control of what rules apply in his/her campaign. It's awkward when it becomes the default presumption that players can import who rule-sets, and it puts huge extra workload on the DM (they have to keep up with each and every new book, whereas with campaign-centred books they don't need to read them if they're not interested in that play style or world background).

Sure, the DM can always say "no", but this creates a very awkward situation**. A player excitedly rushes in with a new book, saying "I can't wait to do this!" and the DM says "not in my game you're not". To which the player thinks "waah - you swine - I just spend £30 on this!". When actually, this wouldn't have happened if the hateful book hadn't been released in the first place.

Thankfully, the first "splat" release does exactly that, by keeping it specific to a campaign. I won't be running the campaign, so I don't even have to think about the damn thing, let alone read it, care what's in it, or have to rule on whether we're using it in my game.

And don't get me started on the "you have to buy this to keep your character competitive" aspect of it (I've never liked the damn things ever since TSR explicitly advertised them this way ).


TL;DR: Let's keep supplementary rules firmly in the province of the DM. If the DM doesn't explicitly go out of their way to choose them, they shouldn't be a player option. By all means release cool new options, but let's frame them as DM books, not things the players feel entitled to bring to the table.



*that's not to say that the DM shouldn't listen to player tastes, of course

**I am English, and avoiding awkward situations must be done, at all costs

 

[Nivenus]

What do you think sells the most copies; a book that every player and DM might use at some point, or a book that's aimed at a single campaign? Historically, the 2E Complete Books were some of the best sellers for TSR, and their successors for 3E likewise--at least, it was a long series that everyone seemed to have. For Pathfinder, I believe the hardbacked books dominate the booklets for sales, and while they're a little less focused then the 3E Complete books (which in turn were a little less focused then the 2E books), they're not campaign books. There's a case to be made that stuff like Advanced Player's Guide, that targets everyone is the most effective (though that burns out fairly quickly), and that campaign books that sell best are going to be nigh that generic.

You have to take into account more than just the sales though. You also have to account for the costs of production. It seems to me that churning out book after book of splatbooks, one after the another, is a lot more expensive than producing a couple of thematic or setting books a year.

Furthermore, there's also the possibility that too many books - as evidenced by 2e, 3e, and 4e - can have a burnout effect, where gamers gradually became less and less invested in an edition because of a preponderance of new rules and new material. I honestly think 4e's "must-buy" attitude towards not just the original core three books, but their second and third iterations, as well as the "Essentials" package, probably hurt it more than a little. It certainly didn't seem to help the brand.

Based on the current approach of a slow reveal, it seems WotC may agree.

Personally, I want them to focus one class per splat. Then again, Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook, Shaman's Handbook, and Witch's Handbook, along with TSR's 2e Complete Priest's Handbook and Complete Thief's Handbook are among my favorite class supplements for any edition. The classes get a much more thorough treatment and you are less likely to have to search through several different supplements to find your kit, class variant, build, subclass, etc.. (assuming the authors do their job properly).

I think I may be in the minority here but I don't think most classes need that many options. A lot end up being pretty redundant and fulfilling very similar options. What - for example - do you need a swashbuckler class for that a fighter/rogue multiclass with a few specific feats couldn't do? What purpose does separate barbarian and berserker kits (as existed in 2e) serve? At some point you're reinventing the wheel for the sake of selling more books.

I agree that there's quite a lot of room for more subclass/background diversity in 5e as well as more feats or even a few extra classes. But I don't think we need the cascade of sourcebooks 2e and 3e had (or possibly even as many as 4e).

 

[Sailor Moon]

Not just that, but the DM should be in control of what rules apply in his/her campaign. It's awkward when it becomes the default presumption that players can import who rule-sets, and it puts huge extra workload on the DM (they have to keep up with each and every new book, whereas with campaign-centred books they don't need to read them if they're not interested in that play style or world background).

Sure, the DM can always say "no", but this creates a very awkward situation**. A player excitedly rushes in with a new book, saying "I can't wait to do this!" and the DM says "not in my game you're not". To which the player thinks "waah - you swine - I just spend £30 on this!". When actually, this wouldn't have happened if the hateful book hadn't been released in the first place.

Thankfully, the first "splat" release does exactly that, by keeping it specific to a campaign. I won't be running the campaign, so I don't even have to think about the damn thing, let alone read it, care what's in it, or have to rule on whether we're using it in my game.

And don't get me started on the "you have to buy this to keep your character competitive" aspect of it (I've never liked the damn things ever since TSR explicitly advertised them this way ).


TL;DR: Let's keep supplementary rules firmly in the province of the DM. If the DM doesn't explicitly go out of their way to choose them, they shouldn't be a player option. By all means release cool new options, but let's frame them as DM books, not things the players feel entitled to bring to the table.



*that's not to say that the DM shouldn't listen to player tastes, of course

**I am English, and avoiding awkward situations must be done, at all costs

4th edition was the only edition that deemed everything core. In every other edition, those things were optional. If your players rushed in without checking with the DM then that's their problem. The game has been drilling it into people's heads for years about checking with the DM first. They shouldn't steer away from that because a few players like to jump the gun instead of asking first.