D&D General On gatekeeping and the 'live-streaming edition wars'

[Olrox17]

Wasn't really the point. I was responding to the claim that "the last two years, 2019 especially, have been slow even compared to Wotc's new slower standards" and "So far, the slowest years I've seen are 2019 and 2015". Whether they were setting books or not didn't come into it.

My point was illustrated by Prabe exactly. 2019 was a slow year, in my opinion, because all we got was a setting and cross-promotions. And the usual two adventures.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I've been going over the same points multiple times over different posts.

When you say, "non-setting content", are you speaking of mechanical content, or mechanical content that doesn't reference setting-specific IP? If we're talking mechanics as a whole, Eberron has a BOATLOAD of mechanical material included, probably 50 pages worth or more. However, if you're thinking of the Dragonmarked-related material (race variants, magic items, etc.) as not counting, it's still quite a bit, including an entire new class and three subclasses for it. I'd suggest that even the dragonmark-specific stuff is quite useful for homebrews, for reskinning if nothing else.

Even if we count the setting specific stuff like dragonmarks, those 50 pages do not qualify as a boatload in my opinion. Also, the artificer is a bit of odd class, it doesn't fit in every setting (especially low magic ones).

 

[Rikka66]

Then your argument is that they have slowed down in releasing content that is of interest to you, not that the actual release schedule has slowed down. Which, hey, more power to you on that opinion, but they aren't the same thing.

You're seeking more setting agnostic content, which is understandable. If something like the lore and monsters in Volo or Mordenkain are what you're looking for, that might actually make the Crit Role book more useful to you, seeing as the setting is much closer to the generic D&D baseline than Eberron or Ravinca.

 

[Reynard]

My point was illustrated by Prabe exactly. 2019 was a slow year, in my opinion, because all we got was a setting and cross-promotions. And the usual two adventures.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I've been going over the same points multiple times over different posts.


Even if we count the setting specific stuff like dragonmarks, those 50 pages do not qualify as a boatload in my opinion. Also, the artificer is a bit of odd class, it doesn't fit in every setting (especially low magic ones).

The more specific your tastes, the less likely they will be catered to. That much should be obvious.

What I feel like is people are lamenting the days of the 3.x release schedule. I don't think it's coming back.

 

[Umbran]

Watching a live stream is not playing.

Why does that matter?

We have noted - the act of watching a live stream is not playing, sure. But doing the dishes is not playing. Mowing the lawn is not playing. Having a day job is not playing. We each do tons of things that are not playing. Saying, "You do a thing that is not playing," is not meaningful. I mean, if it was....

You, reading this here and now, are not playing! OMG!!!1!

 

[Olrox17]

Then your argument is that they have slowed down in releasing content that is of interest to you, not that the actual release schedule has slowed down. Which, hey, more power to you on that opinion, but they aren't the same thing.

You're seeking more setting agnostic content, which is understandable. If something like the lore and monsters in Volo or Mordenkain are what you're looking for, that might actually make the Crit Role book more useful to you, seeing as the setting is much closer to the generic D&D baseline than Eberron or Ravinca.

Let's put it this way, 2019 saw a slight decline of crunch compared to previous years, a decline that goes from slight to substantial when considering setting agnostic content, specifically.
Volo and Mordenkainen are mostly DM books with a little bit of player content. I'm a DM, so I like them, but I could see someone who doesn't DM disliking them.

The more specific your tastes, the less likely they will be catered to. That much should be obvious.

What I feel like is people are lamenting the days of the 3.x release schedule. I don't think it's coming back.

Of course, although I have a feeling I'm not the only one thinking this. And no, I don't miss the third edition release schedule, it was waaaay too excessive. Fourth edition was also a bit much. Fifth edition MIGHT be too little.

 

[Undrave]

Let's put it this way, 2019 saw a slight decline of crunch compared to previous years, a decline that goes from slight to substantial when considering setting agnostic content, specifically.
Volo and Mordenkainen are mostly DM books with a little bit of player content. I'm a DM, so I like them, but I could see someone who doesn't DM disliking them.


Of course, although I have a feeling I'm not the only one thinking this. And no, I don't miss the third edition release schedule, it was waaaay too excessive. Fourth edition was also a bit much. Fifth edition MIGHT be too little.

All the DM stuff is useless to me so most books are basically 95% useless, with a few rare exception in there like Xanathar...and even there.

Ravnica could have been interesting to me but it had a PITIFUL amount of player content. Eberron is a bit more interesting.

 

[Rikka66]

Let's put it this way, 2019 saw a slight decline of crunch compared to previous years, a decline that goes from slight to substantial when considering setting agnostic content, specifically.
Volo and Mordenkainen are mostly DM books with a little bit of player content. I'm a DM, so I like them, but I could see someone who doesn't DM disliking them.

I'd be curious to learn what years had the most crunch, in your opinion, outside the obvious of 2014 and 2017. Are we specifically talking about player content crunch?

2015 was SCAG and the EE Player's Companion, and you've already cited that as a weak year.
2016 was a few races from Volo and a background from CoS.
2018 was a few subraces and racial feats from ToF, and two subclasses from GGR.
2019 was new background and boat rules from GoS, a new race, new backgrounds and a very campaign-style specific new system with the company job stuff from Acquisition's Inc, and new races, a new class, and new campaigns specific subraces from Eberron.

(I didn't try counting what years gave us the most monsters, though I would guess 2016 and 2018)

Now I totally agree with you, the 5e release schedule has been incredibly light on player crunch. Where I disagree is the idea that 2019 was somehow a worse year in that regard. It's seems more to me that 2017 was an outlier because of Xanathar's. And I only foresee the release schedule featuring more items less generic in nature.

 

[Olrox17]

I'd be curious to learn what years had the most crunch, in your opinion, outside the obvious of 2014 and 2017. Are we specifically talking about player content crunch?

2015 was SCAG and the EE Player's Companion, and you've already cited that as a weak year.
2016 was a few races from Volo and a background from CoS.
2018 was a few subraces and racial feats from ToF, and two subclasses from GGR.
2019 was new background and boat rules from GoS, a new race, new backgrounds and a very campaign-style specific new system with the company job stuff from Acquisition's Inc, and new races, a new class, and new campaigns specific subraces from Eberron.

(I didn't try counting what years gave us the most monsters, though I would guess 2016 and 2018)

Now I totally agree with you, the 5e release schedule has been incredibly light on player crunch. Where I disagree is the idea that 2019 was somehow a worse year in that regard. It's seems more to me that 2017 was an outlier because of Xanathar's. And I only foresee the release schedule featuring more items less generic in nature.

I tend to rate them based on universally useful crunch, not just for players but also for DMs. A monster manual, for instance, is good crunch to me, even if it has no player options. YMMV.

2014 obvious winner
2015 yeah, weak year, but understandably so after 2014
2016 a good year because of Volo, but again, this is from the perspective of a DM
2017 biggest year since 2014
2018 similar to 2016, I'd consider it a decent year from a DM's point of view
2019 weak year IMO. Acquisition Inc is unfortunately of very little value to me, and Eberron is about on par with SCAG.

Now that I'm analyzing the release schedule in more detail, I think that setting books, so far, have been the weakest part of the 5e books line-up, and every year that has a setting book as its "big release" (2015 and 1019), could have used another smaller, crunchier release on the side.
EDIT: actually, 2015 had a smaller, crunchier release! The EE player companion. So again, 2019 it's the weakest one to me.

 

[Umbran]

Of course, although I have a feeling I'm not the only one thinking this. And no, I don't miss the third edition release schedule, it was waaaay too excessive. Fourth edition was also a bit much. Fifth edition MIGHT be too little.

Whenever we talk about this, we would do well to complete our sentences.

"Fifth edition might be too little."

Too little FOR WHAT? What is the result that more would fulfill? Because the answer to that is kind of important? Too little to meet my personal desires? Too little for me to continue playing the game? Too little to support the business of D&D?

Once you honestly complete the sentence, then we can discuss in earnest. Because you see, every one of you who says it is "too little" is saying that in the face of what appears to be five years of the best sales of the PHB since the 1980s. You are arguing with apparent business success.

Are folks saying, "This is too little," when they mean, "I would personally pay for more if they made it."? Because those aren't the same thing at all.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think we're getting away from the point: it isn't about whether people are players, but whether people qualify as fans of D&D if they only read the books or watch the streams or whatever. The whole argument about the definition of "playing" is both entirely tangential to Morrus' edict and a way to circumvent the rule.

If people love D&D, even if all they have ever seen are D&D memes, they are fans of D&D and are welcome in D&D spaces. Full stop.

Back in the day, I had friends who read all (or most) of the D&D novels set in the Realms and other worlds. They were D&D fans. We would talk and geek out over D&D, even though they had not (yet) played the game itself. It never occurred to me to make a distinction between "D&D novel fans" and "D&D players". What would have been the point?

I have friends today, that when they found out I was a D&D geek, they started to gush about the 80s cartoon they loved as kids. They are D&D fans, if not players . . . but again, why make the distinction? What's the point?

I also have friends who have PLAYED some (or all) of the various D&D video games such as Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Torment, and Neverwinter Nights? Are they NOT D&D players? Certainly some of them haven't played the tabletop game? Again, why should I care to make a distinction?

I'm a teacher, and now I have students who are "Critters" or fans of other RPG streaming shows. Should I sneer at them for not being true D&D players? Many of them want to, but haven't yet jumped into the tabletop hobby.

The only distinction I feel the need to make is, "Are you in a D&D game RIGHT NOW? If not, would you like to be?" If they do actually tell me "no", they'd rather stick with their novels, cartoons, video games, or streaming shows . . . . that's fine. We can still geek out over D&D without the need to keep the gates strong.