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

[DaveDash]

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.

That brand guy also said in his forbes interview that they will create more stuff, if that's what people want. Probably not splat, but more story driven content.

 

[Nellisir]

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.

This I can agree with. I doubt that nothing but APs will really work for the TTRPG market, but I don't think that's all they'll be doing so it's not a problem for me.

 

[bmfrosty]

Heh. Next thing you'll tell me is thaco was complicate. Its math a 12 years old can do.

Thac0 is counterintuitive. That was its problem.

 

[Benji]

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).

I think what mistwell meant here (and please forgive me if I'm putting words in mouths) that is it does;t matter what you wanted - these will be side effects of stuff produced at the speed you want it with the staff they have.

It's my only really problem with the 'More stuff' camp, really, because if I could afford more stuff, I'd like it too. But are we assuming that everybody wizards can afford to hire isn't already working? Do we think that they just sit all day throwing spit balls at each other while going "Yeah, we don't have to produce loads of stuff, let's take the rest of the day to play league of legends."? Everyone there is working one something or they wouldn't have a job. So the logic for me is that they're producing all they can and that's it.

 

[Iosue]

Thac0 is counterintuitive. That was its problem.

THAC0 is a DC that goes down the higher you go up in levels. What's counterintuitive about that?

 

[bmfrosty]

THAC0 is a DC that goes down the higher you go up in levels. What's counterintuitive about that?

Mostly because it was riding around the idea that lower numbers were better for some things, but not other things. In order to make it easier to deal with, another calculation was needed, and that was thac0. The current methodology is much tidier, and much quicker to grasp. One less thing to think about.

 

[Morlock]

I think what mistwell meant here (and please forgive me if I'm putting words in mouths) that is it does;t matter what you wanted - these will be side effects of stuff produced at the speed you want it with the staff they have.

I get that, but all we can control is what we ask for. In this case, more content with no loss in standards. I could just as easily say that Mistwell's concerns will lead to lowered quality because the lack of sales will lead to a stagnant design team, and Hasbro will let the budget shrivel to nothing, further eroding quality.

More output doesn't necessarily lead to worse content, especially when we're talking an extra book or two a year, so I find the argument that it does to be tendentious.

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

Not for crystallizing the argument Mistwell's making.

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.

Arguments with SOs tend to be the bottom of the barrel when it comes to logic and reason.

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.

No, I'm just saying your selfish arguments are unreasonable. And yes, "I want chocolate cake taken off the shelves because I can't control my spending" is a purely selfish argument.

But all of this is academic. If you never want to say "no" to your players, then insist that they provide copies of all the rules they'll be using (and you don't have) before you'll approve their characters. Then you don't have to say "no," and you don't have to buy anything. You just have to put the rules into a folder.

 

[Morlock]

What do you do if you can't say "no" to your players, and they decide they want to play Pathfinder because it's got all that lovely crunch? Go tell Paizo to take all that crunch off the shelves?

 

[Parmandur]

What do you do if you can't say "no" to your players, and they decide they want to play Pathfinder because it's got all that lovely crunch? Go tell Paizo to take all that crunch off the shelves?

Most of the people I play with have never heard of Pathfinder, and like 5E bit think it is pretty crunchy as is.

 

[Mistwell]

I get that, but all we can control is what we ask for. In this case, more content with no loss in standards. I could just as easily say that Mistwell's concerns will lead to lowered quality because the lack of sales will lead to a stagnant design team, and Hasbro will let the budget shrivel to nothing, further eroding quality.

So far, they're not seeing a lack of sales. In fact, so far, every report from both them and outside objective sources is that things are selling very well for them. So that's a leap in logic that, so far, hasn't materialized.

More output doesn't necessarily lead to worse content, especially when we're talking an extra book or two a year, so I find the argument that it does to be tendentious.

Assuming that employees are slacking, and if you just gave them more to do in the same number of hours and for the same pay will get you more production, isn't logical. And, we're not talking about an extra book or two - you gave us the example, and your example is double the output. You cannot get double output from people without adding more people and/or more pay, and they don't magically get those just because you want more. In fact, they don't make the money until the product sells, and they don't sell the product until they produce it, so doubling production immediately causes a budget issue for them. Realistically, if you double production but keep staffing and pay the same you're going to see a drop-off in quality control somewhere, whether in editing, or playtesting, or formatting, or somewhere. It's just not a realistic perspective in my opinion, but even if you think it is, all I am asking from you is that you accept others see it differently and that contrary opinion is as valid as yours on this topic.

Also, a tendentious argument which you are biased against to begin with is still a relevant argument. Is it really that hard to admit there is another side to this issue which you simply disagree with based on personal preference?

Arguments with SOs tend to be the bottom of the barrel when it comes to logic and reason.

Again, not for me. They're pretty typical of life. It's weird - you keep assuming your perspective, on a host of topics, is universal. Anyway my point stands, you saying my argument is irrelevant is the same as you dismissing it. There is no real difference there.

No, I'm just saying your selfish arguments are unreasonable. And yes, "I want chocolate cake taken off the shelves because I can't control my spending" is a purely selfish argument.

First, your argument is just as selfish, and second, I made it quite clear there I don't want anything taken off the shelf and your analogy is vacuous. I am saying I want the same amount of cake currently on the shelf, YOU are asking for a change here not me. Except your change harms my interests. Just as the current status quo hurts your interests. Both are selfish, in that we are both expressing what's best for each of us. That doesn't make either of our views irrelevant.

But all of this is academic. If you never want to say "no" to your players

And that's just a blatant misrepresentation of what I said not worth a response. You want to talk about what I actually said then cool. You want to strawman me, go play that game somewhere else.