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

[Shasarak]

I'm confused. You said 3rd parties can't do official settings. I said they can, per the DM's Guild. And now you're saying that doesn't count because it's not official? I'm confused, because 3rd party has never "truly" been official. That's what 3rd party means.

DM's Guild is new, and IIRC, hasn't been done before in the industry. It's always been one-off 3rd party licenses. Now WotC is saying they give their support for all 3rd parties, and is allowing people to use their IP. So everything on the DM's Guild *is* 5e D&D

Personally I would not put my own Campaign world on DMs Guild because that would be effectively giving WotC all the rights to it. Would not be worth the price just to get an "official" stamp.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That is why complaining you can not keep up is so hilarious. If you are enjoying your slow and steady pace through the Rise of Tiamat or whatever then just keep on going enjoying your trip. I dont see any sense complaining about something that you are not actually willing to do anything about in the first place.

I don't think anyone is complaining about not being able to keep up with the material WotC releases. I think people were simply pointing it out. Most who did were doing so in support of the release schedule...so that's kind of the opposite of complaining.

I personally don't need them to ever release another book. I'll happily grab any that they do release that interest me, but I don't NEED any of them. There's plenty of stuff from third parties or on the DMsGuild or from past editions or other games that I can adapt and play. I'm really not worried about it.

 

[Hussar]

Well, considering we're two years in and, by all available information, the core 3 are STILL selling like gangbusters, WotC must be doing something right.

Selling one book 10 times is FAR more profitable than selling 10 books once. When the 5e core books are STILL in the top 100 of ALL books on Amazon, that's freaking AMAZING. That's Fad Era levels of sales.

When you've got things like Fantasy Grounds showing that, 2 years after release, 5e accounts for 57% of ALL games being played, that's spectacular. I mean, good grief, d20 based D&D accounts for 80% of all games being played on that venue.

I'm frankly baffled how anyone claim that WotC is in any way bungling 5e. How much better could they possibly be doing?

 

[PMárk]

I think nobody claimed that they aren't successful financially. However, as it got mentioned, part of it is the recent cultural environment. Also those numbers are all show just a part of the truth. For example, the VTTs are skewed toward d20 games.

And frankly, looking at the number of how much people play the game on Fantasy Grounds is absolutely irrelevant to me when considering whether 5e is still an interesting game to me, or should I go and play something else. I'm not an employee of WotC. That the game sells a lot of core books and lot of people playing it online still won't results in books i want to buy from them. I'm not interested in that kind of numbers porn. I'm happy they are successful, I'm happy lot of people playing the game. I'm not happy they didn't find the middle ground yet for doing this and still publishing material, even through licenses or in pdf in small quantities I'm interested in.

Financial success alone doesn't make it a good and interesting game. Coca Cola is successful, McD is successful, Nike is successful. A lot of singers and bands are successful and making big money whom I don't care a about. I didn't saw 2/3s of the comics-based movies, because I'm not that interested in them.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I think nobody claimed that they aren't successful financially. However, as it got mentioned, part of it is the recent cultural environment. Also those numbers are all show just a part of the truth. For example, the VTTs are skewed toward d20 games.

And frankly, looking at the number of how much people play the game on Fantasy Grounds is absolutely irrelevant to me when considering whether 5e is still an interesting game to me, or should I go and play something else. I'm not an employee of WotC. That the game sells a lot of core books and lot of people playing it online still won't results in books i want to buy from them. I'm not interested in that kind of numbers porn. I'm happy they are successful, I'm happy lot of people playing the game. I'm not happy they didn't find the middle ground yet for doing this and still publishing material, even through licenses or in pdf in small quantities I'm interested in.

Financial success alone doesn't make it a good and interesting game. Coca Cola is successful, McD is successful, Nike is successful. A lot of singers and bands are successful and making big money whom I don't care a about. I didn't saw 2/3s of the comics-based movies, because I'm not that interested in them.

And that's fine. But do you go to forums for those comic-based movies and complain about how they're doing it wrong? That's the odd difference here. Not just you specifically, but why come to a forum for 5e and complain about how you don't like it when many, many other people do. In fact, so many people like it that folks are trying the game after years of hiatus, or for the first time at all, simply because of how streamlined and easy to jump into it is. I don't know, coming to a forum to start a thread about how 5e isn't doing business/anything as well as any other edition just feels weird. If you don't like it, you don't like it. But at least acknowledge that the majority will rule on how this edition continues to play out.

 

[PMárk]

The difference is: I'm interested in D&D. I don't care about what Madonna does, because I' not interested in her music. I like D&D, i think 5e is a good system, so i think it's understandable that I and other people voicing our opinion of how the game could do better. Because we want this game to be for us also.

Moreover, it's not like we're complaining about why D&D is not a game for us when it never was. The thing is, D&D had a lot of things we liked. Great settings, great books, interesting options, enjoyable novel lines. I think it's natural we don't want to lose those good things. I'm not complaining about Madonna doesn't make symphonic metal, because she never did that. D&D did those things in the past and we aren't happy to see them being neglected. It's harder to lose things than never having them.

There are a wide plethora of games I never got interested in and believe me, I don't go to their forums to complain.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

But if you liked those things in the past, you still have them available to you. The older editions have massive amounts of content to explore, and they'll always be there.

The fundamental difference here is your use of the term "better". That's too subjective. More content does not equate to "better" for many, many people. It does to you, I would assume, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just not likely the majority opinion. WotC trolls forums, redddit, reads social media input, etc. On top of that, they release surveys for the more "hardcore" that would actually be willing to take the survey. Even those results did not motivate them to speed up their "process", and they have generally come away from these things with the consensus of "people are happy with this edition, EVEN the slower release schedule". I could be wrong, sure. But this seems the most likely and logical conclusion based on the information it is possible for you or I to have.

 

[PMárk]

But if you liked those things in the past, you still have them available to you. The older editions have massive amounts of content to explore, and they'll always be there.

Ah, I knew this will be coming! The problem is, D&D, unlike games as WoD and CoC isn't backward-compatible with it's earlier iterations. Between editions everything changed. The rules changed, the classes changed, the monsters changed, even the lore changed. Converting to 5e is easier, but it's still a LOT of work I not necessarily have time to do. Also, we won't get new content, updated lore, novels, etc.

The fundamental difference here is your use of the term "better". That's too subjective. More content does not equate to "better" for many, many people. It does to you, I would assume, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just not likely the majority opinion. WotC trolls forums, redddit, reads social media input, etc. On top of that, they release surveys for the more "hardcore" that would actually be willing to take the survey. Even those results did not motivate them to speed up their "process", and they have generally come away from these things with the consensus of "people are happy with this edition, EVEN the slower release schedule". I could be wrong, sure. But this seems the most likely and logical conclusion based on the information it is possible for you or I to have.

Yes, it's personal preference, but for ME, having content I don't have to use, if I don't want is strictly better, than having no content. It's already the situation, because i have content I'm not interested in, like the majority of the APs, but I1m not saying they shouldn't do these, because there's a lot of people enjoying them. I just wish they would also make content I'm interested in, even in small quantities, or through licensers. Again my problem is they are doing just one end of the spectrum.

Catering toward the casual crowd and newbies isn't a bad thing. Absolutely neglecting every other content that's not necessarily for them IS a bad thing in my book and i think it will cost them in the future.

 

[darjr]

I think the slower release cycle is good for new players. Good for old players who don't want to be on a treadmill again. Good for lapsed players, for lots of reasons, the slow burn being one of them, maybe because they were used to no turnout for older editions. But I think the biggest bang is that DM's don't have to invest so darn much anymore. It is the DM's who usually share the largest burden. A slow burn, burns them out less.

 

[darjr]

Then don't switch editions. That's what I think the earlier poster meant.