D&D 5E Mearl's Book Design Philosophy

[Maxperson]

They've got some crunch. OK, it's got some crunch. OK, not much.
It's not nothing, is what I'm trying to say.

Slow pace of release, is all.

I'm not going to pay for a full book for only a little bit of crunch, and it's absurd to expect me to. I'd end up paying 5x as much for what I use, compared to someone who is using the setting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not going to pay for a full book for only a little bit of crunch, and it's absurd to expect me to.

Why not? It's one book. In 2 years. Whose budget is that tight?

I'd end up paying 5x as much for what I use, compared to someone who is using the setting.

I've heard people say that SCAG was worth it for a couple of the Bladesinger cantrips, alone.

So anyone who might actually care about the setting, and yet not already know everything in SCAG, might have gotten some 'consumer surplus?' Lucky them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not going to pay for a full book for only a little bit of crunch, and it's absurd to expect me to. I'd end up paying 5x as much for what I use, compared to someone who is using the setting.

Roughly 1/3 of SCAG is splat (51 pages). Just because you don't want to spend money on a book like that doesn't mean other people are as adverse. I haven't met anyone who plans on using 100% of all the material in all of the books. We look at it, and if it has things we think have a value (which can be more than rules, by the way), we buy it. What you call absurd is entirely reasonable to someone else. But really, the bottom line is if you don't want to buy it, then don't. No one is forcing you. Likewise, don't act like the material doesn't exist just because you don't think the ratio of page count to splat is what you prefer.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Roughly 1/3 of SCAG is splat (51 pages). Just because you don't want to spend money on a book like that doesn't mean other people are as adverse. I haven't met anyone who plans on using 100% of all the material in all of the books. We look at it, and if it has things we think have a value, we buy it. What you call absurd is entirely reasonable to someone else. But really, the bottom line is if you don't want to buy it, then don't. No one is forcing you. Likewise, don't act like the material doesn't exist just because you don't think the ratio of page count to splat is what you prefer.

Precisely, they are releasing books with crunch, just not on a splat model ("Complete book of *" where the * is filled in by a specific thing, like Fighters or Elves). The market will bear the multifunctional books, or it won't; so far, the SCAG seems to have sold very well, based on the Amazon data, and Volo's looks to be making waves. So I expect we will see more fluff/crunch hybrid with diverse themes coming down the pipeline.

And nobody "expects" anybody to buy them; no gums pointed at anybody's head.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Precisely, they are releasing books with crunch, just not on a splat model ("Complete book of *" where the * is filled in by a specific thing, like Fighters or Elves). The market will bear the multifunctional books, or it won't; so far, the SCAG seems to have sold very well, based on the Amazon data, and Volo's looks to be making waves. So I expect we will see more fluff/crunch hybrid with diverse themes coming down the pipeline.

And nobody "expects" anybody to buy them; no gums pointed at anybody's head.

Oh, it's very clear their model is to go away from "let's do a setting book, and let's do an adventure campaign" and go to "let's combine both into one book. It's more efficient and saves money." CoS, SKT, PotA, etc all have a lot of generic setting material in them to the point where they don't need to have another book just for a Ravenloft setting. Also, with the exception of FR (which had to have the setting completely rewritten due to the changes from the Spellplague, etc), you can use all the older material in 5e, so why would they feel it a priority to rewrite the setting? I can pull World of Greyhawk off my shelf and use it easily with any 5e campaign I may want to run.

 

[Jester David]

I'm not going to pay for a full book for only a little bit of crunch, and it's absurd to expect me to. I'd end up paying 5x as much for what I use, compared to someone who is using the setting.

Right. So you said.
You're not going to buy a book that is only 1/3rd crunch, even through you're unlikely to even use that amount of new content and all the new options provided.
You'd rather buy a book that is all crunch, for the added *chance* the some of the extra options *might* appeal to you. You'd rather buy a book with more filler crunch and unbalanced options written to pad the book and hit a word count rather than filling an actual need at the table.
Sure, either way you only use the tiniest fraction of a book. The subclass. The feat. The race. And the rest is wasted. But if it's going to be wasted content that won't be used, it might as well be content that you *could* use as a player. Right? Even if it means tanking future sales of the game and flooding the edition with broken, untested mechanics.

 

[Maxperson]

Roughly 1/3 of SCAG is splat (51 pages). Just because you don't want to spend money on a book like that doesn't mean other people are as adverse. I haven't met anyone who plans on using 100% of all the material in all of the books. We look at it, and if it has things we think have a value (which can be more than rules, by the way), we buy it. What you call absurd is entirely reasonable to someone else. But really, the bottom line is if you don't want to buy it, then don't. No one is forcing you. Likewise, don't act like the material doesn't exist just because you don't think the ratio of page count to splat is what you prefer.

LOL No. That's like putting something tasty in the middle of something I am allergic to. Is it there? Sure. Is it there for me? No. I can afford to pay for 2/3 of a book that I will never use? Sure. I can also afford to go light a $100 on fire, too. That doesn't mean that it's something reasonable to do.

You don't get to dictate to me what counts for me and what does not. That material might as well not exist for me, since it's only available in a book that I have to burn money to have.

 

[Maxperson]

You're not going to buy a book that is only 1/3rd crunch, even through you're unlikely to even use that amount of new content and all the new options provided.

False.

You'd rather buy a book that is all crunch, for the added *chance* the some of the extra options *might* appeal to you. You'd rather buy a book with more filler crunch and unbalanced options written to pad the book and hit a word count rather than filling an actual need at the table.

False.

Sure, either way you only use the tiniest fraction of a book. The subclass. The feat. The race. And the rest is wasted.

False.

But if it's going to be wasted content that won't be used, it might as well be content that you *could* use as a player. Right? Even if it means tanking future sales of the game and flooding the edition with broken, untested mechanics.

False.

You aren't very good at this. How about instead of telling me what I will and won't use, what I do and do not want, and what I want for the future of the game, you just mind your own business. Tell me what YOU will and won't use, what YOU do and do not want, and what YOU want for the future of the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

LOL No. That's like putting something tasty in the middle of something I am allergic to. Is it there? Sure. Is it there for me? No. I can afford to pay for 2/3 of a book that I will never use? Sure. I can also afford to go light a $100 on fire, too. That doesn't mean that it's something reasonable to do.

You don't get to dictate to me what counts for me and what does not. That material might as well not exist for me, since it's only available in a book that I have to burn money to have.

I'm not dictating to you what counts for you and what doesn't because that's subjective opinion. However, you don't get to dictate what exists and what doesn't just because you personally don't like it. It does exist. I'm looking at it right now. So when you say it doesn't exist, you are objectively incorrect.

I'm paraphrasing, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson just said about a month or so ago: "The problem with debate in this country is people act like their opinion carries as much weight and should be treated as equal as objective fact."