D&D 5E D&D classic settings or new worlds to explore?

[Fildrigar]

Oh yeah, while I'm at it, for crying out loud, WotC, please bring back the 32-module for quick and easy placement in any campaign setting!

One small problem with this ( and I still have to admit I'd love to see the return of the 32 page module ) is that newer DMs didn't grow up planning and crafting their own campaigns, so this forum would be overrun with people asking "How do I fit module V-7 into Forgotten Realms/Eberron/Whatever setting I'm playing in. Maybe I'm just a Disgruntled Old(tm) but a constant stream of that would annoy me. See also; "They didn't make this situation on page 20 perfectly clear," "This NPC on page 8 isn't fleshed out enough," "This band of Orcs on page 11 belongs to X group, and the didn't include two pages of background on them," and "etc, etc, etc." Take all the questions about the current AP products, and multiple by eight.

Those of us who have been doing this for years would *love* this kind of product. Kids these days, on the other hand...

 

[Umbran]

Kids these days, on the other hand...

... would take one or two modules fumbling a bit, and then figure it out. Rather like we did the first time we did it.

 

[aramis erak]

Absolutely that's what they want.

But what after the PHB, MM, and DMG do folks consider to be "must buy" D&D books?

What I'd consider "must-buy": manual of the planes, psionics

What I'd consider excellent "one-and-done" probable buys: Lords & Castles, Birthright campaign setting, council of wyrms campaign setting.

What I wouldn't mind seeing outsourced again: ravenloft.

 

[Quickleaf]

And that's the big question.

I think they can get away with one big accessory. But then it's diminishing returns.
The player's guides might be a better way to trickle that out, especially if they continue to make them Print on Demand for interested people.

I'd like to say Manual of the Planes, but the older ones still function.

I wonder if they could silence some of the complaints on absent content by releasing a playtest document of new classes and slowly updating them as needed.

Yes, it is the big question.

I'm not sure if even WotC's marketing gurus know. Or maybe their conclusions was "nothing is a must buy after the core 3", and that's one of the reasons they're pursuing multimedia.

You think one big accessory per year would be a "must buy"? Something like a Monster Manual 2, Manual of the Planes, or Dungeoneer's Survival Guide?

I wonder if, given their small crew, commitment to book quality/size, and the multimedia innitiative, they have the time & resources to produce such a book in addition to their adventure books?

Or maybe they've got things lined up so that their accessory books line up with whatever storyline they have in mind? So release MM2 during, say, the Alice in Wonderland/Dungeonland inspired storyline, taking advantage of the new fey/weird monsters in MM2 to tell their story.

 

[Quickleaf]

What I'd consider "must-buy": manual of the planes, psionics

They've alluded that when they present psionics (or, by extension, other new rules options) they want to do so within the context of their yearly story. I wonder if this means they would want to include the psionics rules in a psionics-themed adventure release? Or include the planes in a planar-themed adventure release? That approach is a possibility given what they've said and how they've included new player options in the adventure books so far.

If, for example, the psionics rules came packaged in an adventure focused on "the mind flayer threat", would the book be considered a "must buy" for you? And would it make any difference if those psionics rules were also presented in a free PDF?

 

[halfling rogue]

One small problem with this ( and I still have to admit I'd love to see the return of the 32 page module ) is that newer DMs didn't grow up planning and crafting their own campaigns, so this forum would be overrun with people asking "How do I fit module V-7 into Forgotten Realms/Eberron/Whatever setting I'm playing in. Maybe I'm just a Disgruntled Old(tm) but a constant stream of that would annoy me. See also; "They didn't make this situation on page 20 perfectly clear," "This NPC on page 8 isn't fleshed out enough," "This band of Orcs on page 11 belongs to X group, and the didn't include two pages of background on them," and "etc, etc, etc." Take all the questions about the current AP products, and multiple by eight.

Those of us who have been doing this for years would *love* this kind of product. Kids these days, on the other hand...

But that's not really a problem for WotC is it? That people are going online talking about their new product? Lost Mine of Phandelver didn't have NPCs fleshed out enough. It didn't have situations spelled out perfectly. Are there 3 wolves or 2 in the Cragmaw Hideout? But it was an instant classic. Granted it's not 32 pages, but you could easily cut half the content in Lost Mine and have a fun module. Removing the monsters in the back and a handful of the sandboxy sidequests and you could probably keep the core adventure. I would actually like to see more 64 page modules. I think they struck gold with Lost Mine and would love to see them emulate it in the future.

 

[Mercurius]

The catch being, WotC really wants every book to be a must-buy. If people know that in 2-3 years there'll be a new setting, then they're not going to buy the FR book now. And if they already bought the FR book, they're not going to buy the new setting. And it's potentially confusing for new players, possibly making them ask "is this the same game?"

I don't think there is such a thing as a "must-buy," except for the PHB. The DMG and MM are almost must-buys, but only to DMs. And so it declines from there in a curve. It seems that with 5E, WotC has decided to cut things off at a very "fat" part of the curve, at least relative to past editions, although to be honest I wonder how the story arcs are selling relative to setting books or splats.

Even if they release a new setting every 2 years, it will take a long time to go everywhere. There are a good dozen campaign settings. Are you really going to be happy waiting 24 years for your setting of choice?

And not every setting *needs* an update. You can run an Eberron game using the rules pamphlet and a 3e or 4e book. Literally nothing has changed in the world. The market for settings is awkward because you're selling to non-fans (who don't care and/or already have a setting they like) and fans (who have books from previous editions). A Greyhawk fan already has the Greyhawk material, otherwise they wouldn't be a fan. They have more content then you can fit in a single book. And the mechanics for Greyhawk haven't changed.

WotC's current strategy seems solid: focus on the Realms. That world has changed and needs an update, and they need to release at least one setting product for new players.

Other settings can benefit from the Eberron approach, where we get a document of essential races and classes. Pair that with DnDclassics.com and we have all the content we need. We don't need new Dragonlance books, we need a PDF with kender, draconians, primal sorcerers, and moon magic, then make the classic products and the licenced 3e books available as PDFs.

At best WotC can expand on the Realms. Kara Tur and Al Qadim sourcebooks would be neat and offer opportunities for new stories while still remaining in the Realms.

OK, it is hard to disagree with you here. Given what you say, I could see a Realms book, one or two supplements, and then maybe a new setting. But as I've argued for years now, I think one of the reasons 4E suffered is that it didn't have a living world like Golarion to tie it together, to unite the community. Maybe the Realms can be that, but I think they can--and should--diversify a bit. At least eventually. In a few years people will be ready for something new.

The problem with a setting, overall, is that it is a niche-of-a-niche product. If you write a Dark Sun product... only those who like and play in Dark Sun are going to use it. For a game like D&D, that traditionally supports multiple settings, developing a product on a particular setting is developing a product that you *know*, from the outset, is only going to be attractive to some smallish segment of the overall player base. The payback on that development is going to be limited.

So, you wind up considering opportunity-cost - with the same creative resources, can you create something that more people will buy and use? If so, then it pays both you, and likely the game, to do that other product.

Yes, true, but everything is a niche product - or at least down the line in the "product tree" from the PHB. As I said to Jester, the question is where WotC chooses to cut things off in terms of diminishing returns on product - "nicheness."

One thing to consider, though, is that Paizo has produced a fairly comprehensive edition in Pathfinder, not dissimilar to 4E or 3E, although with a focus more on adventures and "mega-splats" rather than yet another "Complete This or That." So it must be profitable enough for Paizo to stay the course, at least so far - six years in their cycle - and with no sign of slowing or veering. It seems that the powers-that-be at WotC have decided that they need a higher profit margin, or at least a much slower roll-out - which may be good for Hasbro, but is not so good for 5E fans. I mean, don't you want a 5E Manual of the Planes? A living setting? An Unearthed Arcana once in awhile?

It doesn't have to be all (2E, 3E, 4E) or almost nothing (5E) in terms of product support. There's a middle ground possible, that would feed the game.

I'm not giving up hope, mind you, and think we could have surprises in store for us. But I do harbor a fear that what we've seen so far is all that we're going to get, which as a fan of the game would be quite disappointing.

Absolutely that's what they want.

But what after the PHB, MM, and DMG do folks consider to be "must buy" D&D books?

Nothing is a "must buy." As I said above, it is a curve of diminishing returns. The question all publishers must ask is where to draw the line. Clearly WotC is choosing to draw the line when the curve is still quite thick, at least so far. We can hope that they stretch it out a bit.

Yes, it is the big question.

I'm not sure if even WotC's marketing gurus know. Or maybe their conclusions was "nothing is a must buy after the core 3", and that's one of the reasons they're pursuing multimedia.

You think one big accessory per year would be a "must buy"? Something like a Monster Manual 2, Manual of the Planes, or Dungeoneer's Survival Guide?

I wonder if, given their small crew, commitment to book quality/size, and the multimedia innitiative, they have the time & resources to produce such a book in addition to their adventure books?

Or maybe they've got things lined up so that their accessory books line up with whatever storyline they have in mind? So release MM2 during, say, the Alice in Wonderland/Dungeonland inspired storyline, taking advantage of the new fey/weird monsters in MM2 to tell their story.

As I said above, it doesn't have to be all or almost-nothing. There are countless variations between 2E-to-4E style glut and 5E minimalism.

I think a good middle ground would be something like this as far as yearly out-put goes:

One big splat expansion book - a Manual of the Planes, MM2, Fiend Folio, Unearthed Arcana, etc
Two story arcs (as is)
Several short adventures
One setting book

That's maybe 6-8 products a year. Paizo publishes less than that and is not just surviving, but thriving.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, true, but everything is a niche product - or at least down the line in the "product tree" from the PHB. As I said to Jester, the question is where WotC chooses to cut things off in terms of diminishing returns on product - "nicheness."

And, at least for the moment, I figure they have some understanding of resource commitments vs profits from past experience upon which they are basing their strategy.

I mean, don't you want a 5E Manual of the Planes? A living setting? An Unearthed Arcana once in awhile?

Me, personally? Not really, No, and Not yet, respectively. I've never run a game with a lot of plane-hopping, so a MotP is low on my priority list. I don't typically use published settings that aren't intrinsic to their respective games. And my folks haven't come near to running through the richness already present in the 5e rules, so that we don't need major variations yet.

I could use some stand-alone adventures, or adventure seed / plot point products - I'd be very pleased if they entered into some licensing agreements with 3rd parties for such stuff, honestly. But even then, I don't need much - I'm only now coming to the end of a multi-year campaign based on the plot points and setting material found in just the core Deadlands rulebooks.

It doesn't have to be all (2E, 3E, 4E) or almost nothing (5E) in terms of product support. There's a middle ground possible, that would feed the game.

Well, do remember - they've never *tried* running the business at a low-output rate. This is the first attempt at this ever for D&D, a game that holds a spot fairly peculiar in the minds of gamers, such that it isn't clear you can extrapolate from other publishers. I would rather expect them to aim a bit low, and rev up over time if the balance sheet called for it.

 

[Mercurius]

OK, fair enough [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]. And I agree - as far as utility goes, as I said in another thread I started, I most want usable parts like adventures, short to long scenarios, sites, etc.

I personally don't use a ton of product in my actual game, but enjoy reading and browsing books and occasionally find ideas to through into my campaign. Any interest I personally have in setting books and most splats is for reading entertainment. But I also like the idea of a fuller lineup of products; it feels like it brings the game and community alive.

 

[77IM]

I thought this was worthy of its own thread, so here we are. One thing I find interesting here is that both posters are, I think, speaking truths that seem opposed but actually aren't.

A long time ago I read a good thing about balancing audience expectations between the familiar and the original, best explained by an analogy. If you go see a James Bond movie, you have certain expectations based on decades of earlier James Bond movies: you expect action, suspense, badassery, gadgets, villains, etc. If you don't get those, you will likely be disappointed. OTOH, if the movie sticks TOO closely to the formula, you will be just as disappointed; when you see a new James Bond movies you expect all those plot elements to get mixed up in new and interesting ways, with some sort of clever twist.

That's the fine line that Wizards has to walk with their D&D products. They can't JUST release a rehash of what has come before, or people will be like, "been there, done that." If they release something totally original, people will be like "WTF is this thing??? I wanted D&D!" Even if Wizards walks that line perfectly there will still be individual members of the audience who feel one way or the other, based on individual preference for familiar vs. original.