D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Corpsetaker]

I agree, but we may have different definitions of what a "healthy" D&D brand looks like.

To me, the D&D brand is sickly if it's too tightly coupled to a specific setting. Settings are their own (sub) brands. I don't care about the health of most setting brands. Even the ones I really enjoy (Eberron, for example), are way, way down on my list of concerns. Which gets me to where the wheels come off the whole bus.

Although I agree with @Corpsetaker's general ideas, including the DMsGuild, I specifically want a D&D that has less support for the Realms. I would enjoy it if they replaced it with elements from other settings or even train-of-thought examples that never show up in actual published settings, but I'd be fine with just leaving a void when the Realms currently sits.

I would love to see an adventure using other settings (sans the FR ties, like CoS has) and a SCAG-type book for Khorvaire (Eberron) and the Nyr Dyv (Greyhawk). I'd also like to see a something akin to a Best of Dragon book published that drew from the current Unearthed Arcana and DMsGuild to give use the best content for new races, classes, and rules modules.

While I do love the Realms, I also enjoyed setting neutral source books that had small entries for how to apply the material to the various settings.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options
...
Wanting more content doesn't equal wanting mountains of bloat, it's wanting variety.

If "content" means more races and classes and feats and spells to select from (ie, variety of character options), then wanting content definitely means wanting "splat options." These things are functionally equivalent.

How many options it takes to become a "mountain" or a "ton" is a matter of perspective. Someone playing the Basic Game for two years might consider the PHB to be a ton of options.

I've used I think three races, three classes, three subclasses, and three adventures in the time I've played 5e. I might be an outlier, but I've already got more options and variety than I'll functionally use for many years to come.

I don't shop on DMsGuild because it doesn't have the official stamp of approval.
...
Again please don't interrupt with shouts of "DMS GUILD!" because fan made stuff has always been around and never has it ever been acknowledged as part of the edition's content

It's worth thinking about what you're asking to have happen. You're asking that WotC to cater specifically to your desire for more content/variety/splat. You could perhaps consider that maybe your desire doesn't match up with what's best for D&D or what's best for most players. Maybe what you want is actually incredibly niche, difficult to do, and with questionable payoff. If that's the case, does it still make sense to ask WotC to deliver that to you?

I for one and fully interested in a source book on the Feywild made for 5th edition, as well as FR regional sourcebooks for areas that were never fully covered back in the day.

What if those things only appeal to such a small fraction of the D&D audience that they cost more to produce than they'll make back in sales? Wouldn't it be better for D&D overall to not do that?

I hate the whole attitude of not needing more until you've played everything that's already out. Again, this is about variety because I don't currently like all the options, just like I don't like all the AP's so I want to be able to say no thanks to that, but yes please to something else.

How many different characters do you want to play right now with the options that exist? How many of those have you played? Because I've been able to say "yes please" to all the options I've wanted to play, with many, many options left over that I'd like to play but just haven't for one reason or another. Taking out all the options you're not interested in, how long could the other ones last you in play?

Or, perhaps an alternate question: how much should WotC spend on making options just so you can read about them in a book?

Putting out reasonably more material will not cause D&D to become a bloatfest. Anyone who tells you that is just flat out wrong. Nobody is asking for the 10,000 powers of 4th edition, the 20 settings of 2nd edition, and the 50,000 feats and spells of 3rd edition.

Okay, but that still doesn't mean that making "content" for the sake of making content is a good idea. Just because you don't feel like there's a happy medium doesn't mean that MOST people don't feel like it's a happy medium.

And WotC's market research is the best anyone has at determining what is a happy medium, what is a mountain of options, and what is too few.

Your personal opinion of the option volume might not reflect the opinion of most D&D players, and more options might not be really what they need.

 

[Mercule]

By "we", do you mean you and WotC?

I mean myself and, well, anyone who disagrees with me. I'm pretty sure that includes WotC, since they have repeatedly taken action that indicates that they are fine, even happy with the idea of treating the D&D brand as being synonymous with the Realms brand. Meanwhile, I think that would be equivalent to killing the D&D brand. It would be better, IMO, to have WotC/Hasbro recognize the D&D game as unprofitable, kill all production of it, and not sit on the IP than it would be for it to continue, but only as the tabletop instrument of the Realms brand. If they want to cash in on the Realms and make some money, I'm fine with that. Please just remove the D&D logo and name from the novels, video games, and movies. If they want to keep the D&D logo, that's actually fine, but do it as a subscript-type thing, maybe a secondary fade in the title sequence, etc. The Realms are no more important to what makes D&D D&D than is Birthright, Darksun, or Spelljammer.

While I do love the Realms, I also enjoyed setting neutral source books that had small entries for how to apply the material to the various settings.

And I got that, from your post. I was just calling out that I actively wanted less support for the Realms, so even though I agreed with pretty much everything else, WotC is still in kind of a Catch 22.

 

[nswanson27]

Your personal opinion of the option volume might not reflect the opinion of most D&D players, and more options might not be really what they need.

You make a speculation that he's in the minority. Now, what if this is actually the majority? Does that change your reasoning at all? I for one agree with his opinion, and I find a lot of the comments rebutting asks for any bit of new content, and citing prior edition extremism, is akin to Chicken Little mentality. Just my honest opinion.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Your personal opinion of the option volume might not reflect the opinion of most D&D players, and more options might not be really what they need.

But my opinion could also be what most D&D players want as well. If there is any value in DMsGuild, it does show that tons of people are interested in things outside the PHB. Wotc has no way of knowing exactly what everyone wants, mostly new players because they don't know anything outside of the current. Giving them more content could be the best thing since sliced bread.

Just a note on market research. A lot of that is nonsense because we do the same thing where I work. Big companies do not let customers run the show. My company does surveys all the time but rarely does anything close to what the customers want unless it is in line with what the company already wants to do. This is called PR. It gives customers the illusion that their choices matter so they feel like they are in a bit more control.

 

[Corwin]

I mean myself and, well, anyone who disagrees with me. I'm pretty sure that includes WotC, since they have repeatedly taken action that indicates that they are fine, even happy with the idea of treating the D&D brand as being synonymous with the Realms brand.

All the market research they've shared has indicated that their choice to do so was a popular one.

Meanwhile, I think that would be equivalent to killing the D&D brand.

I trust only them to make decisions for their product. Who are we to armchair quarterback? Especially when they seem to be getting it right so far.

It would be better, IMO, to have WotC/Hasbro recognize the D&D game as unprofitable, kill all production of it, and not sit on the IP than it would be for it to continue, but only as the tabletop instrument of the Realms brand. If they want to cash in on the Realms and make some money, I'm fine with that. Please just remove the D&D logo and name from the novels, video games, and movies. If they want to keep the D&D logo, that's actually fine, but do it as a subscript-type thing, maybe a secondary fade in the title sequence, etc. The Realms are no more important to what makes D&D D&D than is Birthright, Darksun, or Spelljammer.

Are you of the opinion that those other settings will not be developed or addressed? Like, ever? Or just not quickly enough for you?

 

[Corpsetaker]

I trust only them to make decisions for their product. Who are we to armchair quarterback? Especially when they seem to be getting it right so far.

Well you do realize they are human just like us and just because we don't work at Wizards doesn't make us less knowledgeable about RPG's. I don't trust them to make the right decisions because they have a history of making bad decisions and things about this edition show that trend.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

Well you do realize they are human just like us and just because we don't work at Wizards doesn't make us less knowledgeable about RPG's.

That is false. They are not "humans just like us." They are "humans who work at WotC unlike us." Also, are you claiming you know more about RPGs than WotC? It sounds like that's what you were implying. I just want confirmation.

I don't trust them to make the right decisions because they have a history of making bad decisions and things about this edition show that trend.

You, by necessity of not working for WotC, can know only half truths. And would have to resign to work under a theory of "twisted theories". Nothing more. Your incomplete knowledge makes you ill prepared to decide what is best for WotC. That's why I say I trust only them to make decisions on what's best for them. They have all the data you can never have. And they want what's best for themselves. Not what's best for Corpsetaker. Or Corwin. Or anyone particular someone else.

 

[nswanson27]

Well, I disagree with your opinion, and my anecdote can beat up your anecdote ... so how about that?

But this is pretty simple, innit?

1. People like 5e, because otherwise ... why are you commenting here?

2. Said people refuse to make their own modifications (DIY!) or use DM's guild products or retrofit the billions and billions (sorry, Carl Sagan) of prior D&D products for use in D&D, because they want official WoTC product for reasons.

3. Thus, they are entitled to more stuff from WoTC.

4. Now, WoTC has a very limited staff. And they have done extensive research to determine what works and doesn't work after ... um ... prior efforts. And 5e seems to be working!

5. Nevertheless, there must be more 5e stuff. Now, one can look at history and see that every edition eventually fell under the weight of stuff (yes, every edition is a unique and special snowflake, and there were other reasons, but eventually too much cruft accumulates and you need to reset - D&D editions are like comic books in that way).

6. So, even if WoTC is wrong and you are correct, and even if you they start releasing lots of official stuff, that only means that it will necessarily lead to the end of 5e sooner.

This is the abbreviated form of the argument. Others may elaborate if they choose to do so.

So the OP thread is about people on this forum putting unfair pejorative labels on others when they ask for any new bit of content along with smug "I know better than you" and "Just be happy with what you have, son" attitudes. It breaks down honest and respectful conversation.
He wasn't directly talking about WotC.