Mistwell is right. WotC only has 6 design staff to organise all of their 2nd party production team so we just have to give them more time.
D&D 5E A Board Game style Release Schedule
- Thread starter Jester David
- Start date
Mistwell is right. WotC only has 6 design staff to organise all of their 2nd party production team so we just have to give them more time.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
This is an issue of semantics. The argument being made is, "My interest is wanning, and I think the game is being damage, because of lack of [products for this game at X rate]." It doesn't matter if you call "products for this game" by the word "support" or "gazebo". The point is, there are lots of products for this game, and the rate of said products is relatively high.
And of course it "qualifies for this discussion". Come on now, you don't get to define terms to disallow any contrary discussion. The REASONS people have expressed for their displeasure are about them lacking stuff to play with. If I show there is lots of stuff to play with, that addresses most of their displeasure.
It does not. Pathfinder reaches a huge market share, arguably more than WOTC D&D. It's also the example so many others in this thread who are displeased with this release schedule have cited as their evidence. So, I am addressing the very evidence they used to support their claim. Are you trying to say I shouldn't even do that?
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I am trying to count stuff published by Paizo, for Pathfinder, in the three months between the publication of the Beastiary (the last core book) and that three month mark. It's hard to count "transition" stuff as that was mostly for 3.5e rather than Pathfinder. It's similar though...I guess a list of what was published several months before the Beastiary would help as well, sort of like the D&D Next adventures help as it relates to 5e that was to come.
No, but we can do that as well. I was trying to respond to people who only seem to care about "official" products.
I don't know, and I am not sure I care much. But OK let's assume Paizo had scheduled a whole lot more, publicly, than WOTC has publicly scheduled. Is that what this argument comes down to - you don't care about the quantity of official product support, just the quantity of announced product support?
[Thanks for the list - I am not sure how your download dates relate to publication dates. Most of those don't come up in Amazon with those publication dates, and it's very unclear if it's for Pathfinder or 3.5e].
Last edited:
[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]:
For the fourth? yeah I think fourth time, the thread is not about a lack of third-party 5E material. The thread is about WotC's slow release schedule. This difference is obviously inconsequential to you. It is just as obviously of consequence to other people.
Of course posters on EnWorld will bring up Pathfinder. But people who will never know about EnWorld, or even Pathfinder for that matter, know about and are buying D&D.
For the fourth? yeah I think fourth time, the thread is not about a lack of third-party 5E material. The thread is about WotC's slow release schedule. This difference is obviously inconsequential to you. It is just as obviously of consequence to other people.
Of course posters on EnWorld will bring up Pathfinder. But people who will never know about EnWorld, or even Pathfinder for that matter, know about and are buying D&D.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
For at least the third time, I will explain why you don't get to define what the thread is about, what responses fit within your definition, and what is of consequence to people. If you don't find value in my posts, then simply don't respond to them.
If the REASON people give for it being important for WOTC to publish support books is "because I want stuff to play with", then it is highly relevant if there is other stuff to play with regardless of whether or not it's from WOTC. Because it addresses the position of "Stuff to play with". If you want to make an argument as to why it matters more that it say WOTC on the cover, please make that argument - or at least make that argument better than what's been made already.
But, stop telling people what they can and cannot talk about, particularly when everything I've said has been raised by others in this very thread.
Also, please stop mis-characterizing my argument as being just about third parties. I listed these as well:
The core books (PHB, MM, DMG)
Three official BIG adventures (Phandelver, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Rise of Tiamat), and a fourth on the way in less than a month (Princes of the Apocalypse).
Four good playtest adventures which are incredibly easy to adapt to current rules (Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Murder in Baldur's Gate, Scourge of the Sword Coast).
DM's Screen
Spell Cards
And that's not counting the existing conversion notes WOTC published for numerous older adventures with the playtest that would be easily converted.
And that's not counting all the articles that include hard, crunch-based rules for 5e, like the mass combat rules.
That's all "official support". How does that compare to the first three months of 3.0e? How does that compare to the first three months of 3.5e? How does that compare to the first three months of 4e? How does that compare to the first three months of PF? Those are all relevant questions.
The bottom line is I think it's false to claim D&D 5e is seeing no support, whether you call that support official or not. I don't even think it's even all that slow. I just think the KIND of support some people want is missing. I strongly suspect this issue is really about settings and splat books. If that is the case, people should just say so.
Last edited:
Our exchange began because you responded to a post about WotC releases (itself in response to a post by you about WotC releases) by listing third-party releases. I called that response out as disingenuous and irrelevant. I'm not telling you what you can't talk about; I'm observing that your argument is inapplicable to its target. The larger issue is your inability/unwillingness to accept that some folks don't want third-party materials.
And now you're tilting at another windmill, that 5E is seeing no support. No one is making that argument. The issue is, the release schedule is too slow for some.
And now you're tilting at another windmill, that 5E is seeing no support. No one is making that argument. The issue is, the release schedule is too slow for some.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Look at the post you're referring to. You will find it's full of WOTC releases as well. I think said that again, to make it clear. You're obviously not reading what you're responding to. Which is OK, but then don't chastise others for not responding "right".
Do you not want third party material? Are you actually against third party material? That would be a new argument. It's not one that's been made, or made prominently, in this thread.
OK, not "no" support, but "not enough". I am arguing it's seeing sufficient support, relative to other WOTC releases and PF. Stop with the semantics, and reply to the argument I am actually making. I listed all the official support. You didn't respond. Here it is again, so you can't claim you didn't see it:
The core books (PHB, MM, DMG)
Three official BIG adventures (Phandelver, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Rise of Tiamat), and a fourth on the way in less than a month (Princes of the Apocalypse).
Four good playtest adventures which are incredibly easy to adapt to current rules (Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Murder in Baldur's Gate, Scourge of the Sword Coast).
DM's Screen
Spell Cards
And that's not counting the existing conversion notes WOTC published for numerous older adventures with the playtest that would be easily converted.
And that's not counting all the articles that include hard, crunch-based rules for 5e, like the mass combat rules.
That's all "official support". How does that compare to the first three months of 3.0e? How does that compare to the first three months of 3.5e? How does that compare to the first three months of 4e? How does that compare to the first three months of PF? Those are all relevant questions.
No, I'm not against third parties designing and publishing 5E material. I don't see how that topic is relevant to whether WotC is releasing 5E material too slowly.
I think WotC is releasing stuff too slowly as well. Here's what I would count:
July - Starter Box
August - PHB, HotDQ
September - MM
October -
November - RoT
December - DMG
January - screen
February -
March -
April - Princes of the Apocalypse
I think counting the screen is pretty questionable as it pretty much reprints existing information.
I think WotC is releasing stuff too slowly as well. Here's what I would count:
July - Starter Box
August - PHB, HotDQ
September - MM
October -
November - RoT
December - DMG
January - screen
February -
March -
April - Princes of the Apocalypse
I think counting the screen is pretty questionable as it pretty much reprints existing information.
HobbitFan
Explorer
A couple things:
1. The staggered release of 5E with the books coming out piecemeal and with other products in-between means that some people are figuring when 5E came out at different times than others. It seems like some people are counting when the Player's Handbook cam eout, some the starter and some only when all three core books were out. That's changing the period of time we're talking about here.
2. I don't think I would count the playtest adventures as 5E material....
1. The staggered release of 5E with the books coming out piecemeal and with other products in-between means that some people are figuring when 5E came out at different times than others. It seems like some people are counting when the Player's Handbook cam eout, some the starter and some only when all three core books were out. That's changing the period of time we're talking about here.
2. I don't think I would count the playtest adventures as 5E material....
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
So you don't count any of the playtest adventures, playtest conversion notes of older adventures, free articles with crunch additional rules like the mass combat system or Eberon races and classes, spell cards, or third party material (and maybe not even the DM screen). OK, well I think that's an unusual argument at least. Those are all, to varying degrees, things which support the DMs and players of the game in some direct fashion as they all provide usable stuff for current games.
To decide if their release schedule is too slow, or too fast, or just right, you'd have to know what demand there is for things which are not already provided.
And to know that, you have to account for things which are in fact already being provided.
So you'd want to know all the other stuff you're not counting - they all contribute to the body of material people use to play the game right now.
That makes those things relevant to this topic. Otherwise you're deciding what is "too slow" in a vacuum. You need some context to decide if something is going to slow, and the context here includes all those things I listed.
But regardless, if you still don't see why it's relevant, that's fine. Others do see it as relevant. So even if my argument is not persuasive to you, it still belongs in this topic as it appears to be at least somewhat persuasive to others.
