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

[Dire Bare]

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?

Nah, not tricky at all. Subjective. From a player's point-of-view, you either like having tons of options or you might start feeling splat fatigue. Or somewhere in-between!

During 3E, I purchased every single splat until the very last year of the edition, where I suddenly was afflicted with splat fatigue for the very first time. At first, I loved purchasing all of the new books and absorbing all of the fluff and crunch. But towards the end, I realized I wasn't using all of those splats and that many of the options within were redundant, unnecessary, and really just filler.

During 4E my drive to "catch 'em all" was reacquired, but I hit the wall of splat fatigue even faster and harder. I got bored with the splat treadmill. In part, that was due to 4E's design, everything looked the same, even if it played differently.

And looking back, I remember that among my gaming friends, I was one of the few who was actually purchasing all of those splats, for D&D, WoD, and other games. Most of my friends had the core books and one or two splats that catered specifically to their preferences. I was the dude with all of the books, until I got tired of being that guy.

For 5E, while there are books I'd like to see and purchase, I am not eager to get on the splat train again. I want fewer releases, with each release being more carefully thought out and less new crunch and certainly no filler crunch.

It's not wrong to want lots of D&D releases, you want what you want and that's fine. But WotC has figured out that a lot of their fanbase wasn't buying splats in the first place, and many of the rest of us are definitely splat fatigued. Why spend time and money producing tons of content that the majority of your customers aren't interested in, and driving the edition treadmill closer to 6E with each splat? While some fans will be left wanting, I think WotC's decision is the right one for the long-term health of the game and the brand.

 

[Nellisir]

For an edition to be evergreen, it should never have a subsequent edition. Repackaging, or reprints with minor errata are fine, but the books you bought when it was new should still be adequate and compatible with new products decades later.

By that definition no product can be evergreen, because no one can ever guarantee that there won't be a subsequent edition in the future.

 

[Dire Bare]

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?

Heh, I'm responding twice as I have a different point, didn't want to confuse the two.

The idea that you *can't* create the character you want due to a lack of sourcebooks is, IMO, rather silly. Sourcebooks don't provide you *necessary* options to realize your dream character, they provide options that inspire new character ideas. Ideally, anyhow.

Of course, if you had a neat character from 3E using options that don't exist in 5E, at least not yet, then you have a conundrum, but not a difficult one. Either make up a NEW character totally different from the one you played before, or find a way to represent that old character with existing options and your IMAGINATION! Work with your DM and make a new race, background, subclass, or feat! In 5E, it's really easy!

The only way to *solve* your problem with splat is for WotC to immediately produce 5E versions of EVERYTHING they have ever published for D&D!!! Which, of course, isn't remotely practical. Anything in-between their existing, minimalist strategy and producing EVERYTHING simply makes a subset of fans happy and leaves another subset saying, "Where's my Complete Tiefling splat?"

 

[MerricB]

I get your point here. Out of curiosity, how does Paizo & Pathfinder play into this theory? If PF is an extension of 3.5, then it's been rolling for more than 3 years. And if it's not, then it's been rolling for....well, I have a 4th printing of the Core Rulebook, dated 2010. So we're working on 5-6 years.

My feeling is that Paizo have been extremely fortunate with their subscription system. It allows them to sell a lot of product that they'd never sell if they were relying on people buying them in gaming stores.

(Unfortunately, it also makes a lot of gaming store owners not like Paizo very much.)

I think we'll get a much clearer picture over the next 12 months of where Pathfinder actually is.

Cheers!

 

[chriton227]

By that definition no product can be evergreen, because no one can ever guarantee that there won't be a subsequent edition in the future.

Just because you can't guarantee that a product will be evergreen doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. Chess, Backgammon, and Monopoly are evergreen so far, someone who knows how to play Monopoly with a copy they bought last week could easily play with a copy from the 70s, while there have been cosmetic changes the core game mechanics are virtually unchanged. The fact that there are themed versions of Monopoly and Chess don't affect the evergreen status, since the themes are purely cosmetic or limited optional rules that are intended for use within that particular themed version only.

3e D&D isn't evergreen, since to use the 3.0 books with 3.5 you needed to perform minor conversions, and to use 3.0 or 3.5 with Pathfinder you need to perform more extensive conversions. For me to consider 3.0/3.5/PF evergreen you would need to be able to run a 3.0 module with Pathfinder without needing to remap changed skills, calculate CMB/CMD, address changed feats, skills, spells, class abilities, and hit dice for NPCs. Heck, I had to pay attention to system changes when running the original 3.5 version of Pathfinder's Rise of the Runelords with the Pathfinder RPG rules, and tripped on some during play where I asked players to make skill checks for skills that didn't exist. Pathfinder RPG may end up being evergreen, but that would mean that when and if a new edition came out, all of the original Pathfinder supplements would need to be compatible, which would make it harder for Paizo to encourage sales of the new versions of the old supplements.

Many RPG companies use the system changes in new editions as a sort of planned obsolescence to encourage sales of the new books. Shadowrun comes to mind, with Rigger Black Book, Rigger 2, and Rigger 3 covering the same material for three different editions. GURPS on the other hand stayed pretty static across editions, so the previous edition sourcebooks were still very usable with the new editions, and instead of releasing new versions of the existing sourcebooks, for the most part they focused on new books covering new ground, and updated the old books as needed when they decided to do a reprint incorporating errata and such (look at how few of the books on this list had different versions for different editions). Of all the systems I've played over the years, I'd consider GURPS and Hero System to be the closest thing to evergreen RPGs I've seen.

 

[Nellisir]

Just because you can't guarantee that a product will be evergreen doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.

My point was that if a definition comes with a qualifier in every case, it's not a very good definition. You're welcome to point out exactly where I said D&D shouldn't be evergreen. I think it would be great if it was. I don't think it will be, but that's at least as much about complexity and cultural tastes as the game design.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

By that definition no product can be evergreen, because no one can ever guarantee that there won't be a subsequent edition in the future.

If a game has been the same for as long as you can remember, and you don't foresee it changing, then we can call it evergreen. Chess, Checkers, Monopoly, Sorry, Candyland, and the like are clearly evergreen. Most games, in fact. I don't foresee Dominion having a second edition, even with occasional expansions.

Tabletop roleplaying games have been an exception, but it doesn't have to be this way.

 

[delericho]

The idea that you *can't* create the character you want due to a lack of sourcebooks is, IMO, rather silly. Sourcebooks don't provide you *necessary* options to realize your dream character, they provide options that inspire new character ideas. Ideally, anyhow.

Fair enough, but some things are much easier than others, and easier to work around. For example, it would be very difficult at present to play a Dark Sun campaign in 5e at the moment as psionics is so integral to that setting and not currently supported.

The only way to *solve* your problem with splat is for WotC to immediately produce 5E versions of EVERYTHING they have ever published for D&D!!! Which, of course, isn't remotely practical. Anything in-between their existing, minimalist strategy and producing EVERYTHING simply makes a subset of fans happy and leaves another subset saying, "Where's my Complete Tiefling splat?"

All true, and it's going to be difficult for WotC to square that circle.

But there are reasonable expectations of support and unreasonable ones. Complaining because Shifter variant #276 isn't covered is one thing. But where something is large and therefore difficult to homebrew, where something is integral to one or more of the published settings, or where something was previously a core option that is now no longer supported, it's much less unreasonable to want support... and where the likelihood is that it will be years before it is supported, or indeed it may never be supported, it's not unreasonable to complain.

 

[BryonD]

For an edition to be evergreen, it should never have a subsequent edition. Repackaging, or reprints with minor errata are fine, but the books you bought when it was new should still be adequate and compatible with new products decades later.

Sure

I'm not certain that is realistic from a business perspective. And is achieved many times over from a play perspective. Just look at the people who play Basic D&D, 1E, etc...

The "compatible" part is of course open to debate. But people adapt stuff all the time.

For the record, I'm not personally hung up on "evergreen". I like buying new things and seeing new ideas.

If the game itself meets your definition of evergreen, but lack of new product drops the buzz out and it become shard to find groups, is it still evergreen? Being able to actually play with other people (easily form a group) is not on your criteria. Should it be?

No challenge meant in that. I'm just saying, the very idea is complex.

I think WotC wants it to be "evergreen" and their definition is "it is still the buzzword for geek activity recognized by the mainstream, so we can market it". If I'm right (at least a 3% chance, maybe more) then they will play a game of trying to string the fan base along. And all of our debates about what we actually want or think become moot.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think the book I want most is a hardcover book with blank pages where I can put my house rules.