D&D 5E Am I no longer WoTC's target audience?

[jayoungr]

The overwhelming amount of content on the DM's guild is amateur, and it looks and reads amateur. One of the values WotC (and a handful of other RPG publishers) brings to the table is professional layout, editing, and document design.

Okay, but WotC is not the only professional company putting out 5E supplements. Kobold Press, Frog God Games, Troll Lord Games, and Nord Games are examples of professional publishers who are making 5E material. Even Monte Cook Games is due to put out a science fantasy supplement in a few months. It's definitely possible to restrict yourself to professional-quality hardback books and still multiply your number of options many times over from WotC books alone.

 

[Carmen Sbordone]

Adding to this, I think we all know that WotC is fully capable of releasing a greater number of books per year. Their current strategy starves consumers for just long enough that everyone buys the next book, for fear of missing out on what might be the only release they enjoy that year. This has certainly been the case for me, as I purchased Xanathar's, Volo's, Mordenkainen's, TFtYP, and GoS not because they were products which I examined deeply before purchase, but because, aside from adventures, they might be the only source of 5E crunch I am able to acquire for quite a while.

Does it though? Starve the consumer long enough to buy the next book?

Or does it also force/let people to look elsewhere for products to fill their needs? Go to 3rd parties for items or spend money on entirely different systems?

Or a bit of both?

 

[ad_hoc]

I think this is all much simpler than people are making it out to be.

Quality over quantity

Both with what is actually added to 5e and the staff. The more staff they hire and products they put out the less time the lead designers of the game have to be involved in those products. And that will in turn cause the game to become less focused and the designer's creative visions are diluted.

They want a game that lasts. Putting out lower quality products does not align with that goal.

 

[3catcircus]

I think this is all much simpler than people are making it out to be.

Quality over quantity

Both with what is actually added to 5e and the staff. The more staff they hire and products they put out the less time the lead designers of the game have to be involved in those products. And that will in turn cause the game to become less focused and the designer's creative visions are diluted.

They want a game that lasts. Putting out lower quality products does not align with that goal.

Quality how? Quality content? Quality workmanship in the physical production? Quality workmanship is easy to define. Quality content is subjective. Well-written words for rotten content doesn't make the content any better. Well written words for rotten content doesn't sell more product. Great content that is poorly-written still sells product.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Public companies, yes. Privately-held companies do what they want.

My point is more that there’s still a boss calling the shots. The designers at a private company can still be told they’re cutting back on their publication schedule and the ones who kept their jobs would say “okay boss”.

 

[Azzy]

More ad hominems instead of rational responses.

Your position wasn't rational to begin with and was laced with ad hominem against fans of streaming shows. So, you are reaping what you sowed.

 

[Parmandur]

Quality how? Quality content? Quality workmanship in the physical production? Quality workmanship is easy to define. Quality content is subjective. Well-written words for rotten content doesn't make the content any better. Well when word for rotten content doesn't sell more product. Great content that is poorly-written still sells product.

Each 5E book has about as much playtesting as the entire 2E catalog, for one objective measure.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Quality how? Quality content? Quality workmanship in the physical production? Quality workmanship is easy to define. Quality content is subjective. Well-written words for rotten content doesn't make the content any better. Well when word for rotten content doesn't sell more product. Great content that is poorly-written still sells product.

Are you actually aware Wizards extensively playtests their content? Cutting content that is not well received or not of sufficient quality.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Your position wasn't rational to begin with and was laced with ad hominems against fans of streaming shows. So, you are reaping what you sowed.

It really looks as if it was typed by a three cat circus. No disparagement towards cats.

 

[Azzy]

It really looks as if it was typed by a three cat circus. No disparagement towards cats.

I don't follow.