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

[Morlock]

Mistwell, here's why your concerns aren't relevant:

1. You just muster an erg of gumption, and get over worrying about telling your players no (being told "no" builds character; so does telling someone "no," for that matter). This way, people who want more stuff aren't subject to your rather ephemeral, easily-solved objection.

2. For a sloppy company, maybe. I'm not asking Wizards to be sloppy. I want more stuff, with no drop in quality.

3. I don't want Wizards to reference a ton of books in each of their books. And when they do, I figure they can just reprint the relevant parts from the referenced books as a free downloadable PDF (good), or in the text in question (not as good).

4. See #1.

If you tried to get rid of or limit any of these abilities, the players would argue with you.

This is, unfortunately, a DM error, not a player error. You have to put your foot down. Tell him if he doesn't like it, HE can do all the hard work of DMing, and you can sit back and play in his campaign and power-game and give him grief, and see how he likes it.

Sorry if that seems too strong. I just don't take that nonsense. At all. I am a (very) benevolent dictator, but in the end, a dictator. Players want to argue? Show them the first rule of D&D, it concerns DMs. I mean, you've said it yourself; your players pushed you into burning yourself out. You can be perfectly delicate about it: "I don't DM that stuff, sorry. I don't argue about the topic, either, sorry."

As an aside, we don't need an OGL
::: points everyone over to necromancer games :::
https://www.froggodgames.com/5th-edition
see all those books? not one S&D.... and all of them are now part of the OGL pool of content to draw on.
that's why there is no real motivation by WoTC to publish an OGL, we all ready have one.

I assume by "S&D" you mean Cease and Desist? Someone upthread made the best response to this. TL;DR version, game designers (with the apparent exception of the men at Frog God Games) are EXTREMELY RISK AVERSE (I'm being kind) and there's a chilling effect when they aren't specifically invited, as they were with OGL/D20/whateveryouwannacallit. For my part, I agree with FGG, walk like ya got a pair. But I'd like to buy some books from those Extremely Risk Averse guys, too.

Evenings are not for working. Evenings are for enjoying. If I was forced to take a leave of absence from my job due to something like jury duty (which we don't have here in Sweden) and my boss wanted me to work in the evenings to compensate, I'd tell him to shove it.

If I was too dense to get out of jury duty and I had a sweet job at Wizards, I'd find a way to get some (extremely hobbyish) work done along the way.

 

[Parmandur]

Doesn't matter if Mistwell convinces you or not; those are what the data has shown WOTC, and the basis for their actions.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, here's why your concerns aren't relevant:

They are exactly as relevant as your desires. You telling me I can do things differently is the same as me telling you to do things differently. You pretending a company doesn't have finite resources and time for quality control and creating reference documents is fantasy (of the bad kind).

My preferences are real, they're relevant, and if they infringe on your preferences, well that's OK because your preferences infringe on mine as well. We have different desires for the game - no need to dismiss mine because they don't match yours.

 

[Morlock]

I'm not dismissing them, I'm just saying why they aren't relevant.

They are exactly as relevant as your desires.

Not really. E.g., your desire to not have to tell players "sorry, I don't use that book in my campaign" isn't as relevant as, "well, if there are 6 books for sale on the shelves, that satisfies both customers who want 3 books, AND customers who want 6 books."

E.g., relevant and reasonable:
"I only want 3 books"
"I want 6 books"

Not relevant and reasonable:
"I want 3 books on the shelf and no more"

 

[Morlock]

"I want chocolate cake taken off the shelves because I can't stop eating it and it's become a health problem for me" really isn't a relevant concern to the people who like chocolate cake and can control themselves. In fact, it looks like an infringement on their freedoms. Trying to reverse that logic kind of falls short.

 

[Parmandur]

"I want chocolate cake taken off the shelves because I can't stop eating it and it's become a health problem for me" really isn't a relevant concern to the people who like chocolate cake and can control themselves. In fact, it looks like an infringement on their freedoms. Trying to reverse that logic kind of falls short.

A better analogy is the one Jester Canuck used upthread, of selling six flavors of jam rather than forty.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not dismissing them, I'm just saying why they aren't relevant.

That's the same as dismissing them. Tell you what, next time you're in an argument with a significant other, tell them their argument is irrelevant and see if they feel like you're dismissing their argument or not.

Not really. E.g., your desire to not have to tell players "sorry, I don't use that book in my campaign" isn't as relevant as, "well, if there are 6 books for sale on the shelves, that satisfies both customers who want 3 books, AND customers who want 6 books."

Yes, it's just as relevant. I've been playing since 1977. Decades of experience and habits. You're asking me to change the way I do things, to satisfy your desires for how you do things. Screw that. My desires are just as relevant as yours. Doubling the number of books does NOT satisfy me as a customer, for the reasons I gave, which are all harmed by that faster release schedule. You pretending quality control is identical at double the release speed is unrealistic. You pretending creating additional PDFs to cover cross-referencing down the road without additional resources is unrealistic.

E.g., relevant and reasonable:
"I only want 3 books"
"I want 6 books"

Not relevant and reasonable:
"I want 3 books on the shelf and no more"

So now I am being unreasonable by having a different preference than you for how many books I want them to make? You're looking like a hypocrite to me. My reasons are as sound as yours. Probably more so, as you're acting like quality control is not related to speed of production, which is not reality for any industry. QC suffers as production increases.

 

[Mistwell]

"I want chocolate cake taken off the shelves because I can't stop eating it and it's become a health problem for me" really isn't a relevant concern to the people who like chocolate cake and can control themselves. In fact, it looks like an infringement on their freedoms. Trying to reverse that logic kind of falls short.

I don't want anything taken off the shelf though. I want a slow release schedule, like the one we're getting. Your freedom is not infringed by having a slower release schedule than you prefer. Nobody is taking something away from you, and there is no implied right to it or inherent freedom involved with it. It's just a new game - you're not entitled to a faster release schedule for a new game.

 

[Iosue]

The Night Below was a 192 page (3 x 64 page) boxed "adventure path" released in 95, so Dancey would not have been sololy focused on the smaller adventures when WotC was doing their review of sales.

Indeed, he was also focused on underpriced, undersold boxed sets, which is another thing you don't see WotC doing. Essentially, WotC's Big Story AP strategy looks nothing like the adventure support TSR was providing in the late 1990s.

Refresh my memory. How many hardcover adventure paths has WotC put out to date? Do you have sales figures on them?

Furthermore, to date WotC has produced exactly 2 types of product, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

If I had to guess, I'd say production costs have more to do with the lack of 32 pages modules than desirability or connectedness.

But that's exactly it. When Dancey and WotC decided to get out of the adventure game, the simple reason was that adventures were not a good ROI. The resources needed to bring adventures to print were too great relative to the revenue that they brought it. Better then, to open up the game, let the smaller publishers handle adventure support, and have WotC focus on high-end, Core Book-type items.

WotC has found that that high-end Core Book strategy is not without its own problems, so they're coming back to adventures. But again, not in the 1990s TSR model, but in the WotC "let other companies handle the small stuff, and we focus on high-end premium products" model. So, rather than multiple small adventures and a few cost-ineffective box sets, all aimed at different niches in the market, they are going with limited hardback adventure paths, tightly focused on a common setting and tied in with their other products. It's a better use of resources and plays to WotC's strengths.

What makes them think this will be successful? Well, all those folks at WotC who said, "We have to get out of the adventure business," left WotC and started up Paizo. Which makes its bread with...premium adventure paths.

As far as I can see, WotC is still experimenting with product delivery, still figuring things out. Will the strategy work? I don't know. Will it be the same in 2016 and 2017 as it is in 2015? Probably not. But, if the issue is, "First adventures are bad, then they aren't", well that's comparing apples with oranges. Sure, we're talking about fruits and adventures, but very different forms of those fruits and adventures.

 

[delericho]

As far as I can see, WotC is still experimenting with product delivery, still figuring things out. Will the strategy work? I don't know. Will it be the same in 2016 and 2017 as it is in 2015? Probably not. But, if the issue is, "First adventures are bad, then they aren't", well that's comparing apples with oranges. Sure, we're talking about fruits and adventures, but very different forms of those fruits and adventures.

This. WotC have discovered a bunch of strategies that don't work. So they're trying something different. They can't be sure that this one will work, of course... but at least it has a chance.