D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[Tony Vargas]

It has always seemed silly to me to self-inflict wounds of using too much optional material all at once. The PF core works by itself just as good as it did the day it was released.

People do a lot of silly things, especially when they're gaming, yeah. There are a some contexts, though, where there's no good alternative. Organized play, for instance, needs to set what's in and what's out. Too much stuff in, and you run into those same 'self-inflicted' issues, too much stuff out, and you alienate players who really wanted to use some of that stuff.

"Comparatively slow"? There is certainly a range of much slower release that 5E could follow without complaint from me. But the actual rate of *advertised upcoming* splat material is zero. And it is clearly creating negative response.

You can't really think there'll never be another supplement for 5e? I suspect there will be, they're just not pouring out every month. That's slow compared to the pace of 3.5 or 4e - but they both had shorter runs than the classic eds that had slower paces of release and lasted 10+ years each.

Maybe slow and steady actually will win the race this time around.

 

[Tony Vargas]

BryonD, I know I cannot convince you of anything. I'm just trying to point out that the picture you have painted is hardly the only possibility. "All the data we do have strongly suggests that PF was kicking 4e's butt"? Really? The brand new Pathfinder couldn't budge 4e until they stopped publishing 4e material. And even then, it wasn't right away. Had they kept publishing 4e material, I have a pretty strong suspicion that 4e would have chugged right along at top spot the entire time.

Let me repeat that, Pathfinder ONLY took top spot when WOTC stopped publishing anything. It took WOTC completely forgoing ANY new material for Paizo to take over top spot.

Which leads me to suspect that a very modest publication schedule will put WOTC back in 1st place.

It certainly should be there, right now - with new core books pitted against late supplements. But they'll have to put out /something/ to keep that going. I'm confident they will.

I anxiously await to hear you talk about how Pathfinder is a sub-par game since it's no longer commanding the top spot. You certainly waxed at length, and continue to do so, about the failure of 4e. When are you going to start talking about how Pathfinder just isn't a satisfactory game?

The edition war had everyone grasping at sparse data to try to 'prove' that the game should only be played their way. Right now, Byran and the other h4ters can celebrate being validated by 5e reversing most of the improvements made by 4e, but fewer of the improvements made by 3.x/d20.

 

[BryonD]

BryonD, I know I cannot convince you of anything. I'm just trying to point out that the picture you have painted is hardly the only possibility.

I've never claimed it is the only possibility. But I am questioning how the low (currently zero advertised) output is a good possibility. Your answer seems to be to say that things that have had success might not be good enough, therefore "Abracadabra"

"All the data we do have strongly suggests that PF was kicking 4e's butt"? Really? The brand new Pathfinder couldn't budge 4e until they stopped publishing 4e material. And even then, it wasn't right away. Had they kept publishing 4e material, I have a pretty strong suspicion that 4e would have chugged right along at top spot the entire time.

Let me repeat that, Pathfinder ONLY took top spot when WOTC stopped publishing anything. It took WOTC completely forgoing ANY new material for Paizo to take over top spot.

And WotC only stopped producing new material because........

Which leads me to suspect that a very modest publication schedule will put WOTC back in 1st place.

Obviously it already has. But what happens two years from now?

So, if 5e stays in #1 spot in the next quarter, what's your new interpretation going to be then?

My god, if it ISN'T #1 next quarter I'll be shocked. It is still new shiny

That Paizo is now a failure because it couldn't maintain it's market dominance? That people are being driven away from Paizo into the arms of 5e because of a poor game? After all, that's precisely your interpretation now of 4e, so, if 5e stays on top, doesn't that mean the exact same thing for Pathfinder?

Hey, everyone come look at Hussar putting words in my mouth. (deja vu)

What I will say is that people will play games they like. It is a much more complicated process when comparing people choosing between two games they like. (Which isn't to say that the 5E/PF balance is a fair assessment of either game, there are lots of other factors here)

4E started out the gate losing a ton of D&D players. These are not 4E players, these are former D&D players that never embraced 4E to begin with. (the ones 4E fans said were not needed). So those players don't fit the PF to 5E transition. No one is lining up to play 5E because a radical change in PF alienated them.

Second, and again by your own statements, 4E lost fans quick. You said that 2 years to the Essentials "reboot" and then two years after Essentials. was a "failure". Burn-out is normal for any game. I agree with you that the rate of player burn-out observed for 4E was bad. If some people are now going to 5E from PF then THAT would have some equivalence. But, first, I'm not sure that a a great portion of the 4E burn-outs were necessarily going to PF. Maybe so, but I never got the impression. And second, 6+ years (plus beta plus it was a recycled game) is a vastly more reasonable time period for burn-out.

So I don't see much comparison.

You've long maintained that the reason 4e failed is due to its inferiority to Pathfinder. That if 4e had been a "good" game, then it would not have lost top spot. So, logically, if Paizo loses top spot to 5e, then it must be for the same reason - it's an inferior product.

I anxiously await to hear you talk about how Pathfinder is a sub-par game since it's no longer commanding the top spot. You certainly waxed at length, and continue to do so, about the failure of 4e. When are you going to start talking about how Pathfinder just isn't a satisfactory game?

I have long and repeatedly stated that 4E is a AWESOME game for a target portion of the fan base. I did say that it was sub-par for much of the overall fan base. That is a very important clarification.

Five years from now Pathfinder will still be on my shelf and just as awesome as ever. If 5E expands and grows and gets better and better, we can assume for sake of argument that it is demonstrably better at providing the gaming experience that a majority of the fan base want. In that case 5E will have moved the bar and by the new standard PF as it currently exists will have become sub-par and the success of it will follow.

The intrinsic awesomeness of both 4E and PF will be unchanged and individual players and groups will still prefer them for a range of very sound reasons. But if another game dominates them in delivering what fans want, then that will be the new "par".

 

[BryonD]

and the other h4ters can celebrate being validated

Any takers?

Hello?



And Tony, 5E didn't validate anything.

 

[BryonD]

You can't really think there'll never be another supplement for 5e? I suspect there will be, they're just not pouring out every month. That's slow compared to the pace of 3.5 or 4e - but they both had shorter runs than the classic eds that had slower paces of release and lasted 10+ years each.

Maybe slow and steady actually will win the race this time around.

Of course I don't think that. But people keep saying the current pace is great "as-is" and I keep asking for link to what they are talking about.

Somewhere in the mix I said that what WotC should do now is IGNORE ME completely, get their act together over the next few months and then start talking about what is coming in the future. And then deliver on that, no excuses. And while they are delivering on that, be starting the next cycle so that as the new thing is out and just starting to lose the "new shiny" the next thing is being hyped. This can easily be maintained on a 2 - 3 covers a year pace.

I'm not looking for them to replace the D20 3PP flow all alone. But show something.
If they were managing communications better from the start, it wouldn't be as it is now.
But taking the time to do better long term is vastly preferable to dropping the ball again.
But once you have your act together, show something.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Obviously it already has. But what happens two years from now?

I suspect 5E will still be in the top spot.

Paizo's bread and butter are the APs, but their rules splatbooks crossed the "bloated" marker quite some time ago. I have no trouble believing Paizo's spring 2017 AP could compete neck and neck with whatever spring 2016 AP Wizards puts out, but I seriously doubt there is any hardcover Paizo could put out at this point that could compete with a major "Unearthed Arcana", "Oriental Adventures" or "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" hardcover release.

Honestly, two years from now I expect Paizo to have announced a Pathfinder 2.0, as at this point they're already running into the exact same diminishing returns product churn that prompted Wizards to move to such a light release schedule for 5E.

 

[BryonD]

I suspect 5E will still be in the top spot.

Depends. It certainly has the inside track.
I want it to happen.

But if they really overdo the slow play AND Paizo reacts well (don't assume they won't be smart) then anything could happen.
I'm certainly not ready to bet against 5E yet. But it depends.

Paizo's bread and butter are the APs, but their rules splatbooks crossed the "bloated" marker quite some time ago. I have no trouble believing Paizo's spring 2017 AP could compete neck and neck with whatever spring 2016 AP Wizards puts out, but I seriously doubt there is any hardcover Paizo could put out at this point that could compete with a major "Unearthed Arcana", "Oriental Adventures" or "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" hardcover release.

That is a matter of opinion. But when more people agree with that opinion then not, it starts to hurt. I love "more stuff", but to me the new stuff Paizo is putting out simply isn't cool enough to join the shelf with what I have. That isn't exactly what you said. But I think it still counts as evidence in your favor.

Honestly, two years from now I expect Paizo to have announced a Pathfinder 2.0, as at this point they're already running into the exact same diminishing returns product churn that prompted Wizards to move to such a light release schedule for 5E.

Again, I'm not going to bet against you here.

 

[pemerton]

as also mentioned upthread, while not selling PDFs of the core may help brick and mortars and thus help M:tG, the lack of releasing other stuff does nothing to support Brick and Mortars

Yes. In reply to a post of yours, I quoted and linked to a blog by a store owner talking about this.

the actual rate of *advertised upcoming* splat material is zero. And it is clearly creating negative response.

<snip>

paying attention to more of the fan base is important.

There is some reason to think that increasing the rate of output alienates some actual fans, and also creates a barrier to entry for new customers (hence new fans).

Does the negative response from some fans show that WotC is miscalculating here? I'm not sure.

 

[pemerton]

The WotC (and WotC-derived) versions of D&D are all enjoyable in surprisingly different ways, and in each case I think it's somewhat to do with the different way you "win" each of them.

<snip>

In 5e the inspiration mechanic is so powerful that you win the game by gaining and spending inspiration as rapidly as possible.

Great post, and the best thing I've seen on Inspiration in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, that is factually incorrect. Pathfinder tied 4e the same quarter that Essentials launched and surpassed it in spring of 2011. Source.

To be clear, Essentials released in Q3 2010, and proceeded to beat Pathfinder the next two quarters.

For perspective, Pathfinder, according to the same source, beat D&D the quarter 5e was released. Not tied.

Wizards released a number of 4e books for the rest of 2011. In fact, a total of four books were released in 2011 following the end of the second quarter and one in 2012. Source.

4 is a number of books, and it was pretty clear that WotC had already given up on Essentials at that point. Again, for perspective, from the same sources, more than 21 4e products came out in 2009, and 4e beat out Pathfinder for a full year starting with the launch of Pathfinder's core books - always the biggest sellers.

Yes, Pathfinder eventually beat Essentials (which represented a significant change in direction from 4e), when it was down to just shaking the dregs out of the pipeline.

Now D&D is beating Pathfinder, again, with the core books - no surprise, again, they tend to sell best. It'll be interesting to see if it continues with just a couple of big adventure modules a year coming down the line.

Does the negative response from some fans show that WotC is miscalculating here? I'm not sure.

If WotC has learned anything from the edition war, hopefully it's that there will always be negative fan reaction to anything/everything, and that whipsawing the game's direction & design goals around in response to every little criticism doesn't help.

If they have learned that lesson, 5e will chug along with bounded accuracy and a stately pace of releases long enough for the naysayers to get tired, and the broader fan base to evaluate, and hopefully, accept, the latest version of the game. (And, no doubt, become so attached to it they respond to the next with a flurry of criticism, as well).