D&D 5E I think the era of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons had it right. (not talking about the rules).

[Shasarak]

To continue on the topic of WotC and social media for a moment:

Anyone else getting a chuckle out complaints that WotC isn't doing things the way they could in the era of social media existing alongside complaints that WotC is overly reliant on social media in regards to communicating to the D&D fan-base?

Because I'm having a pretty solid chuckle about it.

I know, right? Along with the guys that can not keep up with the 5e release schedule this thread is a laugh a minute. #cantkeepup

 

[Parmandur]

You still haven't answered the question. What is it about the skeletal release schedule you can't seem to keep up with. Pretend money isn't a factor because that's not part of the discussion. Now if you are the kind of person who begins an AP and will not touch anything else until it's finished then I guess I could see your point. The main point going on is that Wizards is not putting out a variety of content and assuming that everyone likes their AP's and will not move on to "B" until they have done "A".

Leaving aside the deeply real issue of money, time. On average, WotC is releasing a huge nee book every four months; me and mine have barely scratched the surface of the first fee books, it's just been two years. Only playing every couple weeks doesn't allow for all that gaming material to be explored, and I am still reading the books in downtime for the fun of it. And I still haven't gotten three of the 11 books out, and they will release more by the time I alot those in. And, based on what WotC has said, I am more typical of their customer base in that regards: ahead of the curve, probably.

If they released more, I would buy less; I know because that's what they already did in prior eds.

There is a huge amount of OGL material, from Lord of the Rings, Kobold Press, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, etc. More than I can shake a stick at, before considering the deluge of excellent material on the DMsGuild (which supplants the magazine material more than adequately, in a remarkably forwards thinking way).

 

[Uchawi]

A casual player can pace their content consumption regardless if the release schedule is increased. The bottom line is how much you are willing to spend. It is the frequent players that consume content more quickly that suffer, unless of course they have a DM that is more open to other versions of D&D being considered for options and/or content. I believe the latter is what WOTC is betting on.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I know, right? Along with the guys that can not keep up with the 5e release schedule this thread is a laugh a minute. #cantkeepup

I wasn't going to say anything about it because it seemed well explained enough by others, but...

I can't keep up with the 5th edition release schedule either.

I've been playing as much D&D as my group can stand to (averages out to about 2 sessions per week, though not of the same campaign) since the Starter Set came out, but we've barely scratched the surface it seems:

• None of my players have played every class they want to try out yet.
• I haven't used all the monsters I want to from the Monster Manual, and Volo's Guide is around the corner giving me even more of them.
• One campaign started with Hoard of the Dragon Queen the week it came out and hasn't finished yet, plus the campaign we started with Lost Mine of Phandelver is still going, and my home-brew campaign on top of that
• I haven't even bought Curse of Strahd or Storm King's Thunder yet because I've already got Princes of the Apocalypse on the shelf waiting to be started

And that's not even counting the side campaigns I run whenever players in the normally schedule campaigns can't show up or a few people have an extra day they can squeeze in a session, or any of the 3rd-party or DM's Guild stuff that interests me.

So just because the schedule is slower than prior editions, or because you don't personally like or "count" whatever is on the schedule, doesn't mean that people saying they can't keep up with it shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Shasarak]

So just because the schedule is slower than prior editions, or because you don't personally like or "count" whatever is on the schedule, doesn't mean that people saying they can't keep up with it shouldn't be taken seriously.

I have one easy way for you to increase your consumption rate: Increase the Difficulty rating of the Monsters faced. A few player deaths should help to dig through that backlog of material. #cantkeepup

 

[Raith5]

5e, as I see it now is a starter game (not in a derogative way), because:

-it has good, stabile, simple rules + GM empowerment, resulting in the everyone need to learn less rules
-very few setting and crunch material, so it's not overwhelming (I never got that mindset, but I'm aware it's a thing)
-big, self-sustaining modules, everyone plays the same, new module every half-a-year, helps building community mindset and easier to new GMs

So it's a good choice for starters and for homebrewers, because of the rules system. Everyone else? Not so much, I think. Note, that I don't think this makes it a bad game, just a game with a specific target audience which I'm feeling less and less a part of. .

This post captures my experience. I currently play both a 4e campaign and a 5e campaign. 5e is a great introduction to roleplaying and does a fantastic job of feeling like the previous editions of D&D but I feel like 4e is a better game with more challenging/interesting monsters and much more depth of character building. Given that I have played D&D since the days of 1e, I feel that I need some depth in the gameplay options. I also dont have time to tinker with 5e or doing any real homebrewing, so I think going forward I would rather put up with 4e's warts rather than tinker with 5e.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I have one easy way for you to increase your consumption rate: Increase the Difficulty rating of the Monsters faced. A few player deaths should help to dig through that backlog of material. #cantkeepup

Intentionally killing off PCs is a way to increase my consumption rate of willing players - and that is the opposite of using the materials available.

 

[Shasarak]

Intentionally killing off PCs is a way to increase my consumption rate of willing players - and that is the opposite of using the materials available.

I find it hard to believe that current players are less willing then they historically used to be, especially with how easy it is to roll up a new character.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I find it hard to believe that current players are less willing then they historically used to be, especially with how easy it is to roll up a new character.

There is a big difference between a player being willing to roll up a new character because the current one died, and a player being willing to play under a DM that intentionally kills off player characters.

 

[Shasarak]

There is a big difference between a player being willing to roll up a new character because the current one died, and a player being willing to play under a DM that intentionally kills off player characters.

It is pretty rough to go around intentionally killing PCs but I guess if it helps you to go through content faster then it is all good.