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

[Sailor Moon]

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.

Well Pathfinder kind of prooves your theory wrong about burnout because they steadily churn out books and the people keep buying. You don't have to buy these extra books. I have never understood the compulsion to buy all the books and then complain there are too many. There is nothing stopping you from setting book limits for your games.

 

[Grainger]

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.

Many players don't care - or even know - what WOTC say, though. They might just buy a book on a whim ("cool, I can't wait to do XYZ"). It happened to me years ago with one of the Creature Crucible books for BECMI, for example, years and years before 4e was even conceived. I had to say "no", he was disappointed/peeved, and I felt like a killjoy. It's not the end of the world, but it is frustrating for all involved.

My comment about avoiding awkward situations was a joke, but I'd still rather any extra rules content was clearly aimed at the DM, and not players, even if that means I have to spend more on books than I would otherwise. For various reasons, I just want the rules to in the DM's province as much as possible, and not a concern of the players.

By the way, I realise it may be more commercially viable for WOTC to market these at players, but that's not my call. I'm just stating my preference, not what would make most money for WOTC.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Many players don't care - or even know - what WOTC say, though. They might just buy a book on a whim ("cool, I can't wait to do XYZ"). It happened to me years ago with one of the Creature Crucible books for BECMI, for example, years and years before 4e was even conceived. I had to say "no", he was disappointed/peeved, and I felt like a killjoy. It's not the end of the world, but it is frustrating for all involved.

My comment about avoiding awkward situations was a joke, but I'd still rather any extra rules content was clearly aimed at the DM, and not players, even if that means I have to spend more on books than I would otherwise. For various reasons, I just want the rules to in the DM's province as much as possible, and not a concern of the players.

By the way, I realise it may be more commercially viable for WOTC to market these at players, but that's not my call. I'm just stating my preference, not what would make most money for WOTC.

So someone was disappointed. I fail to see the problem to be honest. It's a game, there are many things that lead to disappointment whether it's in game or out.

So basically we scale back the amount of content because we are afraid someone is going to be disappointed. I could understand if an inmate was on death row and he wanted to play that one option one last time but other than that, they can get over it.

 

[Grainger]

So someone was disappointed. I fail to see the problem to be honest. It's a game, there are many things that lead to disappointment whether it's in game or out.

So basically we scale back the amount of content because we are afraid someone is going to be disappointed. I could understand if an inmate was on death row and he wanted to play that one option one last time but other than that, they can get over it.

Holy hyberbole, Batman! If we were only allowed to talk about things where life and death were at stake, then close the boards now.

It goes a lot further than someone being disappointed, and it's reductive to just portray my point as such. It's an issue of which areas of the game are the DM's province and which are the players'. As I said, I'd rather that the rules were the DM's province, for various reasons, and hence I'd rather not see any player rule-books, and I gave one (colourful) reason why that is a good thing. I am not saying that there should be no optional rules - just that it should placed in the hands of DMs and not players.

Anyway, in more general terms, there's no need to be so dismissive, even if that was my only point. We're talking about preferences here, I'm not sitting on the board of WOTC, deciding what should happen, nor am I even saying what I think WOTC should or shouldn't do (that would be a commercial issue, not based on what individual DMs want). I'm just stating my preference. This is a discussion board about D&D, and one of the things we get to talk about is what we'd personally like. I mean, how dare I express an opinion on a discussion board?!!!

 

[Sailor Moon]

Holy hyberbole, Batman! If we were only allowed to talk about things where life and death were at stake, then close the boards now.

It goes a lot further than someone being disappointed, and it's reductive to just portray my point as such. It's an issue of which areas of the game are the DM's province and which are the players'. As I said, I'd rather that the rules were the DM's province, for various reasons, and hence I'd rather not see any player rule-books, and I gave one (colourful) reason why that is a good thing. I am not saying that there should be no optional rules - just that it should placed in the hands of DMs and not players.

Anyway, in more general terms, there's no need to be so dismissive, even if that was my only point. We're talking about preferences here, I'm not sitting on the board of WOTC, deciding what should happen, nor am I even saying what I think WOTC should or shouldn't do (that would be a commercial issue, not based on what individual DMs want). I'm just stating my preference. This is a discussion board about D&D, and one of the things we get to talk about is what we'd personally like. I mean, how dare I express an opinion on a discussion board?!!!

You can express what you like but you are the one who used disappointment as your reason so that's what I based my response off of. I find the disappointment excuse to be a poor one to be honest. The PHB has always been the only book for player's as core until 4th edition came along. Thats all books beyond the core three were known as optional, they even said so in the intro.

 

[Grainger]

The PHB has always been the only book for player's as core until 4th edition came along.

That may be so, but I don't consider any books as essential for the players. For example, in my main campaign, which ran for the best part of a decade, none of the players had a single book (aside from the aforementioned character options book, which was owned by one player). In the AD&D 2e games I played in during that time, only one player bothered to buy the PHB or any "splat" books, and he was a sometime DM. Players of non-spellcasting PCs rarely, if ever, even flicked through a rulebook. This lack of player-owned books wasn't ever commented on, let alone an issue.

I'm running a 5e campaign at the moment, and the other players don't have any books. I'm about to start a larger 5e campaign where two players have the Starter Set rulebook between them, and perhaps one or two of the players will some day buy the PHB.

Now, I'm not at all saying this is typical, or that it should be typical. Just that you can have a great game with a minimum of player-owned books. It is basically a matter of taste, based largely on how tactically/optimisation-oriented the players are.

Now whether or not the material is "core" or not, as I stated before, I would much rather any character options are presented to the DM (so it can be "released" by the DM to suit the campaign) rather than the players. It just makes it clearer that this is all in the domain of DM fiat. As soon as the books go out as "player" books, the implication is that DMs should be allowing this stuff, whether labelled "core" or not. There's also the issue with DMs just allowing everything without assessing it - an issue if the only game in your area does this (in the UK, at least, game groups are relatively few and far between - there are no advertised 5e groups in my entire county - so you have to put up with what you're given). The fewer potential ways to "break" the game, or a particular campaign, the better.

Luckily, so far the upcoming optional material is campaign-specific, so I won't be forced to figure out what's in there, as I won't be running that campaign. If I feel like it, at the time, then great, but my DMing time is usually much better spent on adventure and gameworld preparation than keeping up with new optional player rules.

 

[Mercule]

No. I see 5E as being ripe for a revitalization of Dragon Magazine. Bring on a descriptive critical hits article (or one every couple years). Give me an Archer Ranger (sub)class, maybe even a Death Master or Gladiator. How about an article on pain and enduring damage (which has already been done, on the boards, IIRC). Just do one-off modules that benefit the game as a whole. Every couple years, release a "Best of" with fan favorites and semi-official rules clarifications or improvements.

1E lasted right around a decade with about a dozen hard-covers published. There were lots of adventures and the Dragon was fantastic.

 

[The_Gneech]

No. I see 5E as being ripe for a revitalization of Dragon Magazine. Bring on a descriptive critical hits article (or one every couple years). Give me an Archer Ranger (sub)class, maybe even a Death Master or Gladiator. How about an article on pain and enduring damage (which has already been done, on the boards, IIRC). Just do one-off modules that benefit the game as a whole. Every couple years, release a "Best of" with fan favorites and semi-official rules clarifications or improvements.

1E lasted right around a decade with about a dozen hard-covers published. There were lots of adventures and the Dragon was fantastic.

I second that emotion!

-The Gneech