D&D 5E Light release schedule: More harm than good?

[Hussar]

Sigh. Nice spin BryonD. My point is that we have had a new edition every three or four years FOUR times now.

From the perspective of being an evergreen product, that's an utter failure.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

From the perspective of being an evergreen product, that's an utter failure.

Obviously. I'm not sure if it's such a bad thing for gamers, though.

 

[BryonD]

Sigh. Nice spin BryonD. My point is that we have had a new edition every three or four years FOUR times now.

From the perspective of being an evergreen product, that's an utter failure.

5 (+ Pathfinder) > 4

2 < 3

It isn't spin to point out that the number your stated are factually wrong.

I'm not sure that "evergreen product" was ever declared as a goal. I'm pretty certain the massive impact on the market and the success achieved over the lifespan was quite the success.

Trying to call the 3E era a "failure" (much less an "utter failure") is laughable spin.

 

[Hussar]

Obviously. I'm not sure if it's such a bad thing for gamers, though.

Oh I agree. But, despite attempts at the derail into more 3e fanwank, in the context of this discussion, having to spend millions of dollars every few years to rerelease your game isn't the current goal.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Oh I agree. But, despite attempts at the derail into more 3e fanwank, in the context of this discussion, having to spend millions of dollars every few years to rerelease your game isn't the current goal.

WotC/Hasbro's goal is to make sure that, in the next couple of years, the D&D brand will generate more profit than it has during the last couple of years. They have decided that a light release schedule of RPG products is the way to achieve that. I'm not sure it will work, nor am I convinced that it has anything to do with providing a better experience for TTRPG gamers.

 

[Iosue]

5 (+ Pathfinder) > 4

2 < 3

It isn't spin to point out that the number your stated are factually wrong.

I'm not sure that "evergreen product" was ever declared as a goal. I'm pretty certain the massive impact on the market and the success achieved over the lifespan was quite the success.

Trying to call the 3E era a "failure" (much less an "utter failure") is laughable spin.

You're missing his point, though. He's not talking about what's successful and viable in the fan community, he's talking about what's successful and viable for the companies making it.

So you can't just tack Pathfinder onto 3.5 and say "Look at the success!" The fact is that 3.5 was no longer making WotC the kind of money it needed, so it had to be revised and resold. Pathfinder doesn't change that -- it's actually an example of what he's talking about. Paizo redid the core rules (big public playtest and everything), and started from Square One. Not surprisingly, people started calling Pathfinder bloated and unwieldy 4 or 5 years after release (if not sooner). We're starting to hear rumors of a new edition of Pathfinder. Paizo may be better positioned to handle this than WotC, but again, they are two different companies with different goals and different strategies.

 

[Iosue]

You mean... like Gnomes?

No, I'm talking about product, and an audience made up of groups rather than individuals. Gnomes, if you remember the thought experiment, are represented in half the total groups. If WotC could sell a product that was bought by half the groups playing D&D, they'd be deliriously, over the top happy.

 

[Hussar]

WotC/Hasbro's goal is to make sure that, in the next couple of years, the D&D brand will generate more profit than it has during the last couple of years. They have decided that a light release schedule of RPG products is the way to achieve that. I'm not sure it will work, nor am I convinced that it has anything to do with providing a better experience for TTRPG gamers.

Totally agree with you.

And Iousue has the right of my point. And just to add, the only reason we have Pathfinder is because there was no OGL. Had 4e had an OGL then Paizo wouldn't have even considered staying with 3e. Pathfinder was a huge risk. It paid off, but smart money would have stuck with 4e at the time instead of sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into a system that was pretty much abandoned by everyone else.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And Iousue has the right of my point. And just to add, the only reason we have Pathfinder is because there was no OGL. Had 4e had an OGL then Paizo wouldn't have even considered staying with 3e. Pathfinder was a huge risk. It paid off, but smart money would have stuck with 4e at the time instead of sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into a system that was pretty much abandoned by everyone else.

I think they would have stuck with Pathfinder even if there was an OGL. I've posted it before, but the conversation I overheard at D&D Experience when Jason Bulmahn was on the phone with someone back at Paizo talking about his experience playing 4e was REALLY negative. He seemed actively depressed over the whole situation. This was the first time he had played 4e and he spent most of it saying "Yeah...it's just...bad. Almost everyone else I've talked to this weekend feels the same way. I don't know what to say. I don't know what we are going to do."

I know, because my heart sank. I know Jason and I was super excited about 4e at the time. I had the beta rules and I was running the game at the con. To see one of the people I looked up to slagging it that hard really brought down my weekend.

Which is why it didn't surprise me when a couple of days later they announced Pathfinder. I think that regardless of the OGL status that Jason wouldn't have wanted to write 4e stuff. It really seems that the decision was made because Paizo felt 4e was horrible and that enough other people agreed with them that they should provide that alternative game for those people who wanted to keep playing 3.5e.

 

[delericho]

It's character options that are the serious bloat issue. Character classes, subclasses, feats, weird weapons, backgrounds, spells, and magic items. When you *need* seven books to create the character you want...

Tricky question: is it worse to *need* seven books to create the character you want, or to be unable to create the character you want because five of those books don't exist?