D&D 5E The Printers Can't Handle WotC's One D&D Print Runs!

One of the reasons why the three new core rulebooks next year will not be released together is because D&D is such a juggernaut that the printers can't actually handle the size of the print runs!

Jeremy Crawford told Polygon "Our print runs are pretty darn big and printers are telling us you can’t give us these three books at the same time.” And Chris Perkins added that "The print runs we’re talking about are massive. That’s been not only true of the core books, but also Tasha’s Cauldron. It’s what we call a high-end problem."

 

[darjr]

I don't think that's the issue. I think it's that the way the statement is phrased is hard to parse its actual meaning. The most obvious interpretation (that one 5e book outsold all 4e books) is incorrect. Dyson may know it, and have misspoken with the quote, or he may have misunderstood what he was told.

I took his comment in context of his whole post. Seems more like a volley in an edition war than a thoughtful response to Dysons post.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I took his comment in context of his whole post. Seems more like a volley in an edition war than a thoughtful response to Dysons post.

Edition warring, you say? Something like... claiming a single book out-prints an entire edition?

I think we're finally getting somewhere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I appreciate the generosity behind this, but playtesting against what, exactly? After all, if the old and new editions are meant to be compatible, then that compatibility should flow backwards from the monsters, too. The new edition's monsters should be balanced/playable/whatever against PCs built using the old edition. Doesn't the D&D team want to playtest that?

Even if they aren't focused on that angle, doesn't the D&D design team want to know if new edition PCs are balanced with new edition monsters? That seems like the more useful metric. If the MM was furthest along and they had been updating MM monsters since MMoM, then they should be releasing the new monsters so that their playtest feedback can compare apples to apples.

We the general public do not playtest their game balance. We never have. We give them opinions on how we feel about ideas, but anything having to do with numbers they have almost never asked for our opinion or our feelings on the situation.

With good reason, really... with tens of thousands of people who are taking these surveys-- all of whom use game mechanics differently and are focused on different parts of the mechanics when they play-- WotC cannot take ANY of our opinions seriously on what is or isn't "balanced". That's why they use their own internal numbers and playtesters-- because they can more easily make sure those testers are checking for things in the same way so that all their number results can be compared more equitably.

Heh heh... I've seen on these boards how a lot of (general) you play your D&D mechanically, and would not in a million years want your methodology to be the foundation of how the game plays. So quite frankly I'm glad WotC doesn't listen to us for mechanical balance in the surveys.

 

[darjr]

Edition warring, you say? Something like... claiming a single book out-prints an entire edition?

I think we're finally getting somewhere.

He doesn’t care enough to do so.

You certainly seem too.

 

[Parmandur]

We the general public do not playtest their game balance. We never have. We give them opinions on how we feel about ideas, but anything having to do with numbers they have almost never asked for our opinion or our feelings on the situation.

With good reason, really... with tens of thousands of people who are taking these surveys-- all of whom use game mechanics differently and are focused on different parts of the mechanics when they play-- WotC cannot take ANY of our opinions seriously on what is or isn't "balanced". That's why they use their own internal numbers and playtesters-- because they can more easily make sure those testers are checking for things in the same way so that all their number results can be compared more equitably.

Heh heh... I've seen on these boards how a lot of (general) you play your D&D mechanically, and would not in a million years want your methodology to be the foundation of how the game plays. So quite frankly I'm glad WotC doesn't listen to us for mechanical balance in the surveys.

Indeed, in 9 years, only a handful of UA articles have included Monster stats, and all of those were part of a Subclass or a Spell.

They never did a drop of testing for a Monater book, since 2014.

 

[mamba]

Well then I guess you're just a stronger person than I am.

I don’t know, maybe I would just not get out of this whatever it is you are getting. To me it would simply be something I put a lot more into than I get back, and then letting go is easy (for me)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Indeed, in 9 years, only a handful of UA articles have included Monster stats, and all of those were part of a Subclass or a Spell.

They never did a drop of testing for a Monater book, since 2014.

Not from us in the general public, no. And with very good reason, LOL.

 

[darjr]

Indeed, in 9 years, only a handful of UA articles have included Monster stats, and all of those were part of a Subclass or a Spell.

They never did a drop of testing for a Monater book, since 2014.

Huh? Good point.

I now wonder why?

 

[ersatzphil]

Not from us in the general public, no. And with very good reason, LOL.

Whyso? I hadn't really thought about it before, but why not do a UA on monster design?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whyso? I hadn't really thought about it before, but why not do a UA on monster design?

Because, as was said, public playtests are not about numbers and balance. They only care if we think its cool enough to spend money on it.