D&D 5E D&D Team Productivity?

[ccs]

They are not. From 1977 to 1983 TSR put out the PHB, DMG, MM, Deities and Demigods, Fiend Folio and MMII. 6 hardcover rulebooks. From 2014 to 2020, WotC put out the PHB, DMG, MM, Volo's, Tasha's, Mordenkainen's and Xanathar's. One additional book. And Starting in 1984 TSR started producing much more content.

Settings and adventures are NOT rulebooks. At least not the way 5e makes them.

Doesn't matter. Content per year is content per year.

 

[Mercurius]

I think WotC views all hardcovers as "rulebooks," but each focusing on one of the three pillars of product: World (setting), Story (adventures), and Game (supplements).

Each edition has emphasized one or two of the three pillars above the rest. 1E produced tons of modules and thus emphasized Story; 2E was known for its settings (World); 3E was known for its supplements (Game), as did 4E. 5E seems to have found a more balanced approach. This has led those who prefer the the rules-heavy style of 3E and 4E to feel disenfranchised, and calling for more rules.

That said, every setting book has lots of rules, as do most adventure books.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't matter. Content per year is content per year.

It does matter. Blowing out a bunch of fluff that doesn't move the game forward and is highly specialized isn't same as universal rulebooks that apply to any setting.

 

[Maxperson]

I think WotC views all hardcovers as "rulebooks," but each focusing on one of the three pillars of product: World (setting), Story (adventures), and Game (supplements).

Each edition has emphasized one or two of the three pillars above the rest. 1E produced tons of modules and thus emphasized Story; 2E was known for its settings (World); 3E was known for its supplements (Game), as did 4E. 5E seems to have found a more balanced approach. This has led those who prefer the the rules-heavy style of 3E and 4E to feel disenfranchised, and calling for more rules.

That said, every setting book has lots of rules, as do most adventure books.

It's not even that we want rules heavy. We just don't want rules deficient. 5e is going into its 7th year and they've given us 4 rulebooks. Tasha's, Volo's, Mordenkainen's and Xanathar's. Two of those are essentially monster books, so really we've only gained two rulebooks, and those contained re-prints from other content in them. Two books of rules content in 7 years is deficient.

 

[Parmandur]

They are not. From 1977 to 1983 TSR put out the PHB, DMG, MM, Deities and Demigods, Fiend Folio and MMII. 6 hardcover rulebooks. From 2014 to 2020, WotC put out the PHB, DMG, MM, Volo's, Tasha's, Mordenkainen's and Xanathar's. One additional book. And Starting in 1984 TSR started producing much more content.

Settings and adventures are NOT rulebooks. At least not the way 5e makes them.

False distinction: books with rules are rulesbooks.

If we discount Settings, then there were only two books beyond the acorefrom TSR for AD&D in the designated comparison period (Deities & Demigods is just as much a Setting book as Ravnica), and only produced 9 books for 1E across the entire Edition (7 if we also decide to arbitrarily designate the Survival Guides as Settings, because, well, they basically are just generic environment Settings).

But as books with rules are rulebooks, then we see 13 5E books as opposed to 7 1E books (I forgot to include the Greyhawk material and it's reissue, and fair is fair), mostly much larger books at that.

The relevant point is that 5E has a faster rate of product output than 1E at the same period, and as such is a mathematical medium between a slower release schedule such as 1E, and a rapid release schedule as with 3E/4E.

 

[Maxperson]

False distinction: books with rules are rulesbooks.

How about instead of picking nits, you try to understand what I'm saying(you already do)?

 

[Parmandur]

How about instead of picking nits, you try to understand what I'm saying(you already do)?

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your arbitrary categorization. The question at hand is productivity and release schedules, not your personal product preferences. "Moving the game forward" is an arbitrary, ambiguous standard. Books with rules being rule books, and products being products, are more grounded terms to make real comparisons. This is in fact the opposite of nitpicking, such as discounting one category of rulebook because reasons.

I understand that you do not like Setting books, but books like Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica or Rising from the Last War have tons of rules material, hence being books with rules, or in one word, rulebooks.

 

[tetrasodium]

False distinction: books with rules are rulesbooks.

If we discount Settings, then there were only two books beyond the acorefrom TSR for AD&D in the designated comparison period (Deities & Demigods is just as much a Setting book as Ravnica), and only produced 9 books for 1E across the entire Edition (7 if we also decide to arbitrarily designate the Survival Guides as Settings, because, well, they basically are just generic environment Settings).

But as books with rules are rulebooks, then we see 13 5E books as opposed to 7 1E books (I forgot to include the Greyhawk material and it's reissue, and fair is fair), mostly much larger books at that.

The relevant point is that 5E has a faster rate of product output than 1E at the same period, and as such is a mathematical medium between a slower release schedule such as 1E, and a rapid release schedule as with 3E/4E.

more 2e stuff... Player option combat & tactics, player option skills & powers, player option spells & magic, not to mention player's pack priest/thief/wizard/etc, priest spell compendium 1/2/3, wizard spell compendium 1/2/3/4, complete book of elves/gnomes/dwarves/etc, complete fighter/druid/paladin/ranger/etc... so on and so forth. The fact that @Maxperson didn't list books rulesy enough doesn't change2e having a whole heck of a lot more books with rules than 5e

 

[Parmandur]

more 2e stuff... Player option combat & tactics, player option skills & powers, player option spells & magic, not to mention player's pack priest/thief/wizard/etc, priest spell compendium 1/2/3, wizard spell compendium 1/2/3/4, complete book of elves/gnomes/dwarves/etc, complete fighter/druid/paladin/ranger/etc... so on and so forth.

Well, sure, 2E was bloated: that's why TSR doesn't exist anymore. We're talking 1E compared to 5E here.

 

[Maxperson]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your arbitrary categorization.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Anything based in reason is by definition, not arbitrary. Your disagreement cannot change that.

The question at hand is productivity and release schedules, not your personal product preferences. "Moving the game forward" is an arbitrary, ambiguous standard. Books with rules being rule books, and products being products, are more grounded terms to make real comparisons. This is in fact the opposite of nitpicking, such as discounting one category of rulebook because reasons.

You know very well that I'm talking about general books of rules, not settings with mostly fluff and a little bit of setting specific rules, and not adventures with even fewer rules. It's a very clear line. Only four books released so far are general rule books, and two of those are pretty much just monster books, so not really much in the way of new rules there, either. That leaves two books in coming up on 7 years. That's woefully deficient.

I understand that you do not like Setting books, but books like Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica or Rising from the Last War have tons of rules material, hence being books with rules, or in one word, rulebooks.

So are you arguing that a 1000 page book with a single one sentence rule in it is a rulebook?