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

[Sacrosanct]

I think the thinness of content has played into this.
But honestly I think it is largely the nature of the bounded system. I've been very vocal in praising it and I'm not retracting that. But two years later it is kinda done. And when they do put out a new class or spell they feel very mechanically shallow. I'm not going to try to defend my opinion here. It is my opinion and is shared by my group, so that is good enough. But for examples sake, a new class is still going to be the same prof bonus plus their prime attribute to hit one simple AC. I'm eager to get back touch ACs and frequent ability damage, and size modifiers, etc etc etc.
Things feel more distinct and customized.
.

If your group wants that and has fun, you don't need to defend that position. That's the only reason you need. For me, it's the opposite. I was really turned off by 3e for the same reasons you like it (funny how that often works that way with subjective preferences lol). For me, all those things slow the gameplay down way too much for my tastes. For my group, we prefer the game focus on the flow of the adventure, rather than have it a glorified constant mathematical process with swords thrown in

I'm not THAT much of a math nerd....

 

[pkt77242]

Go back and re-read it. He calls out the adventure paths and such just like I do. The OP is about general content releases, not what has already come out.

Why don't you go back and read it. I don't see him mentioning "general" releases. In fact he mentions wanting regional sourcebooks from other areas of the Realms. How would that count as general releases. I am not saying that he wouldn't like some general releases though.

You put general releases in his mouth. He only complains about APs which I and most others agree aren't splat. So yeah, how about you re-read the first post. Thanks.

 

[BryonD]

If your group wants that and has fun, you don't need to defend that position. That's the only reason you need. For me, it's the opposite. I was really turned off by 3e for the same reasons you like it (funny how that often works that way with subjective preferences lol). For me, all those things slow the gameplay down way too much for my tastes. For my group, we prefer the game focus on the flow of the adventure, rather than have it a glorified constant mathematical process with swords thrown in

I'm not THAT much of a math nerd....

No argument from me.
I can do the math in my head, I actually enjoy that. And it adds value.
Clearly a lot of people see it each way. ("a lot" being a reasonable generalization within the context of the overall TTRPG marketplace based on the market persistence of various games)

 

[BryonD]

My feelings on 5e very much mirror yours, however as DM, I'm not nearly that confident in my mastery of 3.x, hence we have instead stayed with 5e and created house rules for touch attacks, ability damage and the like. It is easier for me to incorporate - that just means my players needed to be happy with me (along with their input) modifying/updating rules as we played.

Heh.
My 5E game was certainly highly house-ruled as-is. And one might argue that it was not a fair shake because of that. But I made it *more* complex, so I'm certain without that I would have burned out more quickly.

As to mastery, my sincere but unsolicited advice is: first play what you like; but second, don't let lack of confidence shake you. If your driving motivation as DM is to make the players beg you to DM again next time, then you will do fine even when you don't get the rules right. And then, the more you play and push yourself the broader your range of comfort will become.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, I don't agree. Remember, we disagree about a fundamental point. I believe firmly that a majority of players wants some general release content, so my "needs" are not just my own.

Regardless of how many want "general release content", you've indicated that you would want more frequent release of such material. That you would not be enticed back to the game by the release of one source book unless you knew another would be coming shortly thereafter. Correct?

Don't you see that as more specific than the people who seem to be buying what WotC's currently putting out? You want a "general" release...so not setting specific would be my guess on what that means, or perhaps a specific setting book that's not already been done. There are folks that consider SCAG and the upcoming Volo's Guide to be the kind of book you're looking for. I know you don't see it that way, and I understand why...but your requirement is more specific than that of many others.

And then you also expect them to continue with such material at a faster pace than they currently are doing. Again, that's a pretty hefty expectation. That'd would dramatically multiply their workload (1 source book a year would increase their workload by about 50%) or require them to hire on new designers or a significant amount of freelancers. Either of those has the possibilty to yield positive results...but each also has the risk of affecting the quality of all of their products, and the risk of affecting their profits.

That all certainly seems a long a long way to go to get the business of this lapsed player who will be enticed to this edition by the release of a general content book that is then followed by more general content books with some kind of regularity. Yes, I have no doubt that there are such people...I just don't know if it is a significant enough population to cater to. Not at the cost of reaching others.

Again what you want. Why does it have to be a "general" release? Crunch works well across settings unlike fluff, so why the demand for "general"?

The crunchy bits of SCAG are useable in most campaigns. Yes if you play in a very particular setting it might not work but the same could be said of a "general" release. What crunchy parts from SCAG won't port easily to most settings?

Even fluff can be repurposed and used in any setting. Not necessarily an entire book's worth, but I personally have gleaned lots of material from one setting/movie/novel and transplanted it to my own. We all have. Saying that you can't get anything useful out of a book like the SCAG or anything else tied to a particular setting unless you play only in that specific setting seems odd. Especially in the case of a "kitchen sink" kind of fantasy setting like FR.

 

[Shasarak]

But, that's not true. I'm making assumptions backed by the past fifteen years of experience.

Every time WOTC has produced large numbers of splats, they have had to change editions. What's the tipping point? 10 supplements? 20? 30? I don't know, but, there is quite apparently a tipping point. And the further back WotC can push that tipping point, the better it is for the health of the hobby.

Do people want more content? Well of course. That can probably go without saying. But, is it a good idea to actually produce that content? Well, apparently not if you care about the long term health of the hobby.

Maybe the tipping point is not supplements, it is sales of core books. People like Ryan Dancy have always said that most money comes from the core books.

 

[PMárk]

If meaningless anecdotes offend your sensibilities, please be advised to skip this post.

My group has switched back to Pathfinder.
I led that change, but the votes were two in favor, two don't care either way, and zero for stay with 5E.
We played 5E for right at two years. We had a lot of fun. It is a great game.
I'd been playing 3E/PF for going on 15 years and 5E was the good new shiny. It worked great.
Now that we've played 5E for two years, it isn't new. And we feel that the depth of the game (or lack thereof) is starting to show. Which isn't remotely to say that it is inadequate. Again, we had two great years with it. I'm sure we could continue playing it for some time and have a lot of fun. But the level of texture offered by PF is simply greater. It took 15 years to "burn out" the first time and that has been nicely recharged. Whereas 5E burnout is already starting. Not so bad I need to quit, but bad enough that the levels of preference clearly crossed over and PF is back in the lead.

I think the thinness of content has played into this.
But honestly I think it is largely the nature of the bounded system. I've been very vocal in praising it and I'm not retracting that. But two years later it is kinda done. And when they do put out a new class or spell they feel very mechanically shallow. I'm not going to try to defend my opinion here. It is my opinion and is shared by my group, so that is good enough. But for examples sake, a new class is still going to be the same prof bonus plus their prime attribute to hit one simple AC. I'm eager to get back touch ACs and frequent ability damage, and size modifiers, etc etc etc.
Things feel more distinct and customized.

I make no claim that this applies to any other group.
I make even less claim that this applies to the TTRPG marketplace.
And I make way far and away less claim that if this *did* apply to the TTRPG marketplace that it must matter at all to WotC's big picture brand value strategy for D&D.

Great post, mirrors perfectly my feelings in the PF/5e contest. 5e is fun, it is easy, a good game and a good beginner game. 3e/PF just offers more options, customization and more simulationism. I like classes like the magus, the alchemist, cavalier, gunslinger, oracle, even most of the classes from the ACG. I love the interesting monsters and the myriad templates. I love i can read updated, relevant, fresh and compatible-with-the-current system material from the setting. I like different kinds of AC too, because it makes sense, just as different critical ranges for weapons. I like viable crafting rules. I love they have a great fiction line, my rpg-tied fiction consumption these days are 90% PF, the 10% was Evans and Salvatore and the recent WoD novels and anthologies.

Yes, 3e/PF is "harder" to learn, no doubt, but IMO it's more rewarding on the long run, if you like the above things. 5e is a great game, but I feel there's a trade-off, as making it more "friendly" it ended up more shallow too, but I think it's somewhat inevitable and I don't blame them for it, but it'd be great to have more.

 

[Maxperson]

Elemental Evil.

The Elemental Evil pdf is general content, officially released with 4 races and spells. Sure, it didn't come in a book, but it was general release content.

It's not a book I can get in a store.

And for that matter, how should we define the Unearthed Arcana material? I'm using quite a bit of the Eberron Unearthed Arcana in my current game (3 people in my party are playing "shifters" and a 4th is playing a changeling) and when I played a game last year I played the Storm Sorcerer from the Waterborne Unearthed Arcana.

I understand Unearthed Arcana is billed as playtest material, needing work, but that doesn't mean it isn't gneral content, usable for free by the players from the offices of WoTC. Looking through my folder of them... I'd say about 6-7 of them have content I'd be more than happy to use in game, some depends on whether I want to use it as a DM or as a player, but do those count?

I'm looking for a book. Stuff I have to print out looks crappy and gets ruined very easily, and a tablet is not a easy to use, so PDFs do me no good during a game.

So, even if we don't count Unearthed Arcana, with Elemental Evil, Volo and another book on the horizon aren't we looking at 1 general content release a year, barring the 1st year of the game when they came out with the Core Books.... which is about as general content release as you can get?

Volo is Forgotten Realms specific. Elemental Evil is not a book as far as I've seen on the shelves.

 

[Parmandur]

Heh.

My 5E game was certainly highly house-ruled as-is. And one might argue that it was not a fair shake because of that. But I made it *more* complex, so I'm certain without that I would have burned out more quickly.



As to mastery, my sincere but unsolicited advice is: first play what you like; but second, don't let lack of confidence shake you. If your driving motivation as DM is to make the players beg you to DM again next time, then you will do fine even when you don't get the rules right. And then, the more you play and push yourself the broader your range of comfort will become.

3.x was, in my experience, fixed by the changes in 5E. I would sooner pick up some used 1E books than try the retrograde rules of Pathfinder. Now, what we have here is two anecdotes; what the market is interested in is another thing entirely.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If your group wants that and has fun, you don't need to defend that position. That's the only reason you need. For me, it's the opposite. I was really turned off by 3e for the same reasons you like it (funny how that often works that way with subjective preferences lol). For me, all those things slow the gameplay down way too much for my tastes. For my group, we prefer the game focus on the flow of the adventure, rather than have it a glorified constant mathematical process with swords thrown in

I'm not THAT much of a math nerd....

I think 4e falls into this camp for me, too. Too many options, too much stacking, too many moving fiddly bits....

Ain't wrong to love that stuff (and if Paizo can meet that niche, great!) but I think you hit a broader audience when your game isn't all that concerned with it.