D&D 5E Crystal Ball: A year in, how do you think 5E will unfold going forward?

[Morlock]

I'll put it this way:

"Fifty books! No way in hell am I buying all of that crap!"
"Five books? Where's the beef?"

See what I mean?

 

[Corpsetaker]

Fixed for you, and not a very good example. If anything a "classic" example of scope creep are U.S. military projects, like the M2A2 Bradley, etc.

Scope creep is when the stakeholders (usually the customer) adds in new stuff into the project before it's been completed - which is bad for fixed price projects, but not bad at all for other projects such as agile/t&m, which are designed with scope creep in mind.

While I think there is 'adequate' content for 5e and Corpsetaker is unable to see the forest for the trees in regards to that, he does have a point.

When we played 3rd edition we never really went outside of core. Everyone had a blast. This idea that more books = YOU MUST BUY THEM AND THEY WILL RUIN YOUR GAME is simply not true.

The actual real fact of the matter is more books = diminishing returns for a company. Pazio has found a way to be successful at it, and a lot of people are invested in that model. Wizards have not found a way to be successful at it, the feedback they got saying a good portion of their custom base wasn't interested in it was the icing on the cake for them.

Splat books are appealing to players, not DM's, because they put power in the hands of players and take power out of the hands of the DM. It's why there will always be a divide between pathfinder and D&D, and why pathfinder is not going away any time soon. That model however is valid, appealing, and successful in the right hands. Huge portions of players love to be able to mess with crunch heavy builds, and have that level of power they will not get from 5e.
WoTC has wisely decided they cannot simply compete with Pazio, nor be successful with this kind of business model. They're maximizing RoI (No splatbooks) to keep D&D alive as long as possible, and grow the brand through other more appealing revenue streams.

What I'm seeing from these arguments is people assuming that anything beyond what Wizards is going to put out will automatically create powercreep, bloat, and just all out wreck the game. You don't have to put out as many products as Pathfinder and still produce a significant amount of stuff. I just tried to look up exactly how many products are there but I can't seem to find an exact number so apologies. Let's just say there are a lot.

Seems to me that maybe Wizards isn't as confident in their own system as they make it out to be because if they did, we would see more products being put out. People buy Pathfinder stuff because they like the system, not out of some sort of habit. Maybe Wizards needs to stop being afraid, be confident in their rules and let go a bit more.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Splat books are appealing to players, not DM's, because they put power in the hands of players and take power out of the hands of the DM. It's why there will always be a divide between pathfinder and D&D, and why pathfinder is not going away any time soon. That model however is valid, appealing, and successful in the right hands. Huge portions of players love to be able to mess with crunch heavy builds, and have that level of power they will not get from 5e.

I'm going to have to disagree here.

DM's always have the power when they actually take the initiative to use it. Players only have as much power as the DM allows and no amount of books can ever change that.

 

[DaveDash]

What I'm seeing from these arguments is people assuming that anything beyond what Wizards is going to put out will automatically create powercreep, bloat, and just all out wreck the game. You don't have to put out as many products as Pathfinder and still produce a significant amount of stuff. I just tried to look up exactly how many products are there but I can't seem to find an exact number so apologies. Let's just say there are a lot.

Seems to me that maybe Wizards isn't as confident in their own system as they make it out to be because if they did, we would see more products being put out. People buy Pathfinder stuff because they like the system, not out of some sort of habit. Maybe Wizards needs to stop being afraid, be confident in their rules and let go a bit more.

I think it's more the fact the WoTC tried this strategy with 4e and got burnt badly. The higher-ups (Hasbro probably) have deemed that it was a huge commercial failure, and they're not to repeat such folly.

This is why we see D&D 5e today. Not because splatbooks are bad, because they're simply trying to keep the TTRPG costs and risks to an absolute minimum, potentially in order to actually keep the doors open. For all we know, they may be forced to 'pay back' the millions of dollars invested in 4e in order to simply keep going. At the very least, its clear it's an absolutely zero risk strategy from the TTRPG point of view.

It's not a matter of splatbooks being good or bad. It's a business decision. They can make more money from creating a CRPG and selling DLC (which requires no reprint and can target a much larger audience), while keeping the pulse of the TTRPG alive in order to retain interest in the brand.

 

[DaveDash]

I'm going to have to disagree here.

DM's always have the power when they actually take the initiative to use it. Players only have as much power as the DM allows and no amount of books can ever change that.

True in theory, not always true in practice.

5e is a very DM friendly, put power in the hands of the DM system. Pathfinder is rules lawyer mechanics heavy and crunch heavy. By defacto this puts more power in the hands of players, due to the workload DM's may have to exercise to make it more like '5e'.
From a game point of view, I actually find pathfinders model far more appealing than 5e's 'rulings not rules' philosophy. However, I don't play pathfinder simply because I find the system (mechanics wise) too dated now.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I think it's more the fact the WoTC tried this strategy with 4e and got burnt badly. The higher-ups (Hasbro probably) have deemed that it was a huge commercial failure, and they're not to repeat such folly.

This is why we see D&D 5e today. Not because splatbooks are bad, because they're simply trying to keep the TTRPG costs and risks to an absolute minimum, potentially in order to actually keep the doors open. For all we know, they may be forced to 'pay back' the millions of dollars invested in 4e in order to simply keep going. At the very least, its clear it's an absolutely zero risk strategy from the TTRPG point of view.

It's not a matter of splatbooks being good or bad. It's a business decision.

There is no proof that it was the number of books that caused 4th editions end days. Unless they specifically did surveys asking people why they may not have purchased later 4th edition products then maybe we could get a better view on what happened but they didn't. If they see that later books aren't selling then there could be loads of reasons why but it seems that took a shot in the dark and just picked one. I would say the errata was a contributing factor. Why spend money on a book when you know it's going to get loads of errata like all the rest. Now from what I know, PHB 2, Martial Power, and a few others sold extremely well, but books like Heroes of Shadow did not because it was not a good book, not because of too many books printed.

 

[Corpsetaker]

True in theory, not always true in practice.

5e is a very DM friendly, put power in the hands of the DM system. Pathfinder is rules lawyer mechanics heavy and crunch heavy. By defacto this puts more power in the hands of players, due to the workload DM's may have to exercise to make it more like '5e'.
From a game point of view, I actually find pathfinders model far more appealing than 5e's 'rulings not rules' philosophy. However, I don't play pathfinder simply because I find the system (mechanics wise) too dated now.

There is no theory about it. It's all down to the DM saying no and that's always been the intent of the game.

As a DM you pick and choose what tools you want to use to build your campaign, you then offer that campaign to your players and see if they want to play it.

 

[Morlock]

A D&D shelf has got the basics out of the way when it has the core books, some adventures, a campaign setting or two, and some kind of crunchy book (*cough*psionics*cough*). It's still got places to go, if that's what the publisher wants, but it's not still being rolled out, either. Right now, it still feels like it's halfway rolled-out, with not a peep for where the other half is.

Edit: sure, let's say the D&D dept. is in dire straits and can't afford to publish settings and a rules supplement or two. So, have Hasbro's suits call Kobold, Green Ronin, whomever, and set them up with licenses for a cut.

 

[DaveDash]

There is no proof that it was the number of books that caused 4th editions end days. Unless they specifically did surveys asking people why they may not have purchased later 4th edition products then maybe we could get a better view on what happened but they didn't. If they see that later books aren't selling then there could be loads of reasons why but it seems that took a shot in the dark and just picked one. I would say the errata was a contributing factor. Why spend money on a book when you know it's going to get loads of errata like all the rest. Now from what I know, PHB 2, Martial Power, and a few others sold extremely well, but books like Heroes of Shadow did not because it was not a good book, not because of too many books printed.

I never argued that at all.

There is proof however that more books = diminishing returns, and WoTC has gone on record to say that they mostly make money from core book sales.

If you're a company what are you going to focus on? Printing expensive books that a very small slice of your consumer base may buy? Or focus on much more lucrative products such as CRPGs and DLC etc?

 

[Corpsetaker]

I never argued that at all.

There is proof however that more books = diminishing returns, and WoTC has gone on record to say that they mostly make money from core book sales.

If you're a company what are you going to focus on? Printing expensive books that a very small slice of your consumer base may buy? Or focus on much more lucrative products such as CRPGs and DLC etc?

If I was a gaming company, I wouldn't be worrying about being on the profit treadmill. As long as all my overhead was covered I would be fine.

The problem with Hasbro is that making a profit is not good enough. If I make 500 this year and I only make 450 the next year then something is wrong and I need to rework my strategy and lay off a few people, even though I am still making profits.

There are reasonable limits and I think Wizards is way below even those.