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

[Tony Vargas]

Indeed. Which is evidenced by the huge success of Basic D&D well into the 80s. Those 1+ million copies of the basic set sold weren't all to new players.

You'd think the vast majority of them would be. Well, or the parents of would-be new players.

Many of the Basic D&D players are like myself, who would switch between AD&D and B/X depending on our mood.

I'd think Basic D&D -> AD&D would have been the more common path, but, either way, you didn't go back and re-buy the basic set did you? (Except for more dice, perhaps? The old ones did wear out.)

But, no, the obvious inference to draw from the basic set out-selling everything else so dramatically is that many, many new players tried (or even just bought and never played) D&D, and did not get into it long enough to become 'advanced players' and buy AD&D and subsequent offerings for more content.

Each has it benefits.

And, between, them, more content than either, alone.

Just for the sake of discussion, not everyone will feel the need to move on.

I didn't say or imply everyone would. But, for the sake of discussion...

I don't really see my players nearing any sense of being done with 5E. However, they do all to one extent or another express frustration with the way Pathfinder has gone.

After 2 years of 5e, and 16 of 3.x, that's hardly a surprising contrast.

I've found it to be a bit cyclical. People want more material, they get it, they use what they will and discard the rest, and then want more. Eventually, they get their fill, and then they want a simpler take or a streamlined version..."core only" or old school games.

Then get bored with that and want something new, then want more material for it.... ...and loop. Sure, that's a fair observation.

people will only make what they need, so they'll create the one class they need...they won't create a splatbook with of classes that they will mostly ignore.

I think you implied some sort of efficiency, there, but the alternative to each DM designing just the missing parts of the game he wants, is not each DM also designing stuff he doesn't want, but one team of designers creating many things of those missing things of high enough quality that most DM's'll be happy to add them. Rather, leaving each DM to fill in the same gaping holes just creates a lot of duplication of effort, which is quite inefficient by comparison.

I think it's smarter to give people the baseline, and then give them the ability to add their own additional material...

It's a plausible strategy if you're trying to use the product line as a stable base for a brand, rather than to build the brand, grow it's market, or make money off it, I suppose.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Each has it benefits, and you don't need more content just because you've become "advanced", whatever that means..

It's funny how some people seem to pretend they don't know what something means when clearly they do.

 

[Hussar]

There's another aspect of this discussion that I don't get. The whole "it's not legal in AL play" thing.

Why is that a bad thing? AL play is a huge gateway for new players. If there was ever a place where the "Wall of Options" to be an issue, that's it. Never minding that new gamer playing a Champion Fighter (because it's the newbie class) beside some experienced gamer whose character includes rules from three or four (or more) different sourcebooks, leading to all sorts of confusion. You've also got that AL DM who now has to police the character sheets drawn from those three or four different sourcebooks, some of which he or she has likely never read.

Expecting every AL DM to have encyclopedic knowledge of ten different sourcebooks is ridiculous.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's another aspect of this discussion that I don't get. The whole "it's not legal in AL play" thing.

Why is that a bad thing? AL play is a huge gateway for new players.

That's why it's a good thing.

Why it's a bad thing is that AL is also a convenient way for returning, experienced or long-time to find a game when they're not currently in an existing group. And the less that's AL 'legal,' the more likely they'll find AL a disappointment (from the player side - my solution was to run, and I'd encourage anyone not finding enough of interest to play in that context to do the same).

 

[hawkeyefan]

You'd think the vast majority of them would be. Well, or the parents of would-be new players. I'd think Basic D&D -> AD&D would have been the more common path, but, either way, you didn't go back and re-buy the basic set did you? (Except for more dice, perhaps? The old ones did wear out.)

But, no, the obvious inference to draw from the basic set out-selling everything else so dramatically is that many, many new players tried (or even just bought and never played) D&D, and did not get into it long enough to become 'advanced players' and buy AD&D and subsequent offerings for more content.

And, between, them, more content than either, alone.

I didn't say or imply everyone would. But, for the sake of discussion...

After 2 years of 5e, and 16 of 3.x, that's hardly a surprising contrast.

Then get bored with that and want something new, then want more material for it.... ...and loop. Sure, that's a fair observation.

I think you implied some sort of efficiency, there, but the alternative to each DM designing just the missing parts of the game he wants, is not each DM also designing stuff he doesn't want, but one team of designers creating many things of those missing things of high enough quality that most DM's'll be happy to add them. Rather, leaving each DM to fill in the same gaping holes just creates a lot of duplication of effort, which is quite inefficient by comparison.

It's a plausible strategy if you're trying to use the product line as a stable base for a brand, rather than to build the brand, grow it's market, or make money off it, I suppose.

I didnt mean for that to be the extent of additional content. I think we will all see the sorts of content people are clamoring for, given some time and some more growth of the audience.

What I meant about empowering DMs and players to create content is that if a specific group wants a Shaman, I see it as better for that group to create a Shaman Class than I do for them to buy a book with the Shaman and 9 other classes in it.

Their need will have been met without excess material. Because my view is that all that extra material, often viewed automatically as "official", can prove negative to some games.

I just prefer gamers solving problems that they know exist at their table rather than designers trying to guess at what problems may exist for many tables and creating an abundance of options to try address them.

That is not to say that I believe this must always be the case, but that's a trend I think would be a nice default.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's why it's a good thing.

Why it's a bad thing is that AL is also a convenient way for returning, experienced or long-time to find a game when they're not currently in an existing group. And the less that's AL 'legal,' the more likely they'll find AL a disappointment (from the player side - my solution was to run, and I'd encourage anyone not finding enough of interest to play in that context to do the same).

While I largely agree with you, I think where it becomes a problem is for folks who are not new players whose only option is to play in AL games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What I meant about empowering DMs and players to create content is that if a specific group wants a Shaman, I see it as better for that group to create a Shaman Class than I do for them to buy a book with the Shaman and 9 other classes in it.

Then you see a group that includes a talented game designer with copious free time.

As much as I enjoy tinkering with games, myself, I'm not always inspired to create just the variant a player at my table might want, and there's no guarantee I'll do that great a job - assuming I have the time to indulge the whim. Buying a book with some chaff in it is no problem, 35$ compared to many hours of work with uncertain results? Even if I don't like the version in the book, it's likely a closer starting point than a PH1 class.

So, no, I can't agree it's better for that group. And it's certainly wildly inefficient for many groups to all be spinning their wheels designing similar things from scratch, while capable professionals sit on their hands for lack of work.

Their need will have been met without excess material. Because my view is that all that extra material, often viewed automatically as "official", can prove negative to some games.

It's many orders of magnitude easier to pick one thing and ban the others than to make something from scratch.

Much better to get over the idea that you can't decline something because it's 'official' than to campaign to deprive everyone of the opportunity to use something just because you fear you may not like it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then you see a group that includes a talented game designer with copious free time.

As much as I enjoy tinkering with games, myself, I'm not always inspired to create just the variant a player at my table might want, and there's no guarantee I'll do that great a job - assuming I have the time to indulge the whim. Buying a book with some chaff in it is no problem, 35$ compared to many hours of work with uncertain results? Even if I don't like the version in the book, it's likely a closer starting point than a PH1 class.

It's possible, sure. But I also think the PHB classes are indeed a great foundation for most other possible classes. Not all, certainly...the possibilities are pretty much limitless....but almost every class that I've seen in each edition is at least somewhat indicative of one f the PHB classes.

And I don't know if it takes as much work to create something serviceable for a game. Classes would take the most work, for sure, but I don't know if it has to be hours and hours. Probably comparable to the amount of time it would take to read the typical splatbook. There'd be an ongoing bit of playtesting and refining, that'S probably true.

And such work need not be solely on the DM.

So, no, I can't agree it's better for that group. And it's certainly wildly inefficient for many groups to all be spinning their wheels designing similar things from scratch, while capable professionals sit on their hands for lack of work.

Well, no. The designers are not sitting on their hands with nothing to do. They're working on the books that WotC actually will release, whatever those will be. This is part of why I want groups to be more empowered to create content. The choice right now is homebrew Shaman or no Shaman.

And I don't think groups would be spinning their wheels designing similar things. Only those groups who had an active interest in the Shaman Class (to stick with my previous example) would be working on it.

It's many orders of magnitude easier to pick one thing and ban the others than to make something from scratch.

Much better to get over the idea that you can't decline something because it's 'official' than to campaign to deprive everyone of the opportunity to use something just because you fear you may not like it.

Picking one thing and banning the others...to me, that's a waste. Yes, it's easier...but I don't know if that makes it better. But I also think you're misinterpreting my intent. I don't really want to deprive anyone of anything. I want to see people get what they want, but I don't want it to affect the game negatively. Obviously, everyone has a different idea of what bloat means...I am on the minimal bloat end of the spectrum. I don't want bloat. Do I think there are classes that should exist that don't yet in 5E? Yes. Do I think they should exist? Yes. How many do I think? Maybe 3.

Archetypes I am more open to. And I think we'll see more of them. We've seen a couple already. I think that the SCAG was a good example of the level of crunch I think is good. Many would laugh at that, and that's fine. There won't ever be a consensus. So i prefer they take it slow with releasing crunch and adding to the system. For anyone who really wants, the DMsGuild exists and they can also design things themselves.

 

[Hussar]

That's why it's a good thing.

Why it's a bad thing is that AL is also a convenient way for returning, experienced or long-time to find a game when they're not currently in an existing group. And the less that's AL 'legal,' the more likely they'll find AL a disappointment (from the player side - my solution was to run, and I'd encourage anyone not finding enough of interest to play in that context to do the same).

Sure, and that's fair enough. But, then again, as I understand it, you only play one character per season of AL right? You don't mix and match a bunch of characters over the course of a season. Well, I suppose you could, but, wouldn't you be at a significant disadvantage since your new character couldn't take the items that your last character was carting around? Granted, I don't play AL, so, if I'm way off base here, I have zero problem being corrected.

If that's true, isn't there like 2 AL seasons per year? One per AP? So, we've had 4 (6?) 5e Adventurer's League seasons so far. How many of the existing options has an AL player actually played? Particularly if we're talking about a lapsed player who is just picking up 5e. Two, maybe three characters? It's not like 5e characters have no options as it stands. They do have quite a few.

I suppose there might be a group of lapsed, experienced players (at least experienced in other editions) who would like more options than what's on the table right now, but, again, what percentage are we talking about? That seems a pretty specific group to cater to.

And, again, we don't want to make it harder to DM AL games either. We WANT more DM's don't we?

Think about it this way. How much experience playing either 3e or 4e or Pathfinder would you expect an organized play DM to have before they sit behind the screen? 4e had what? 40 supplements? There's no way you'd have DM's who would actually know what you are bringing to the table. Same with 3e or Pathfinder. And, as the number of supplements grows, the barrier to running AL games grows higher as well. I've never played Pathfinder, but, I have played lots of 3e. I wouldn't dream of stepping up to run at a Pathfinder Society game. That many splats? Not a chance. Heck, even a 3e organized play game would be pretty darn intimidating. 4e? Again, not a chance. There's just far, far too much to track.

So, it comes down to tradeoffs. Do we cater to long term players and give them more and more options at the cost of making it harder and harder to run AL games? Where's the tipping point? Say every supplement increases complexity by 5%. This is a totally imaginary number that I'm just making up. That means after 20 supplements, you've doubled the complexity of the game. Doubling complexity seems like it would make it vastly more difficult to get people to run the game, considering it's not easy to get DM's right now.

So, if you produce 5 supplements per year, you've pretty much written off getting new AL DM's in 4 years. That doesn't seem like a viable business strategy.

Instead, why not give people time to actually digest what you've produced. We've had a couple of smaller supplements - SCAG and a few web supplements - and apparently we're getting a fairly major release next year. Now, why not sit on that for a year, maybe even two? Let all the fallout shake out of the system first, THEN make a new release.

1e managed to get by just fine with a new options release several years after initial release with Unearthed Arcana. Basic/Expert managed to truck along very healthily for years on small updates. 2e started the splat churn with a ridiculous release schedule. 3e-4e continued that trend. Why not step back? It's apparently working fantastic with sales being extremely strong with what they are doing. I just don't get the issue here.

What WotC is doing is WORKING. By all accounts 5e is a phenomenal success. Outstanding success. When the hobby DOUBLES in size (more than doubles actually) after the release of 5e, why on earth would you possibly change the formula?

 

[happyhermit]

Indeed. Which is evidenced by the huge success of Basic D&D well into the 80s. Those 1+ million copies of the basic set sold weren't all to new players. Many of the Basic D&D players are like myself, who would switch between AD&D and B/X depending on our mood. Each has it benefits, and you don't need more content just because you've become "advanced", whatever that means. The great thing about D&D (and TTRPG in general) is that you have an infinite amount of content as long as you have your imagination.

That is actually a really great point. I was going to respond to the idea that as all players gain experience they necessarily will want more mechanical options, which is clearly false. Aside from 5e, Basic is the D&D that I have the most love for, your post makes me think about the similarities.

If this thread hadn't told me that it was inevitable for an experienced player to crave more options I wouldn't think I lack the necessary level of experience for much of anything in D&D. I started with Basic decades ago and have played (and GMed) at least a bit of every system since. I have played many other systems in the mean time, and read or watched even more. So, just how much more experience is required for me to hit upon this need for more?