D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

King Babar said:

Tasha's itself felt padded out in some respects, with DM tools that came across as shallow in comparison to the one's presented in Xanathar's.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is a "thinness" to some of the player splats that have come out. And honestly, that is part of the "genius" of the current slow rollout, some players like me are thirsty for content, so we will fork over the money to have it, even if the book itself is only half "content we want". With Tasha's, I like some of the feats and subclasses. As a DM I really appreciate the puzzles (I hate doing puzzles as a DM but some of my players like them), but there's a fair amount in between I probably will never use. Now overall, I paid for Tashas....and I would pay money again for another equivalent. Would I do that if I had 3 times as many player splats available to me? Probably not.

That was the informed business gamble that WOTC took with this new model. A focus on a slow but highly efficient book schedule....whereas each book would generate such a high profitability that it counters the loss of revenue from missing multiple products. So far that model seems to have worked very well for them, which in turn allows them to "milk" the edition far longer than normal.

I am certain that WOTC has very smart business people that watch their surveys and sales and such like a mother hen....and if we ever do see a big dip in sales on a "major product", WOTC will take steps to decide if its time to switch gears. But as of now.....we just have not seen that. The player splats have all been strong successes, one after the next. Until we see that change, I don't see a reason to ring the doom clock.

Minigiant said:

My point is that they didn't do it in Tasha's. So I have no faith in them doing it at all. When confronted with major fan open desire, they'd attempt to force solutions in the current mold (Beastmaster beasts, Sorcerer feat, new race) rather than make revisions or whole new product.

I taint the treadmill. It's how every guy with a sword has to be a fighter subclass instead of a new class or an external module. There's only so much "jam it in the existing" before you start producing weak content.

Click to expand...

OK, let me try to get what you are saying. Is what you're concerned with about a lack of a new edition that it prevents WotC from upgrading the rules? That an evergreen edition locks them into an imperfect game? If so, couldn't they do at least some of this with revised core books? Unless, of course, you just don't like the sub-structure of 5E, and then you simply may be out of luck - at least for another decade or so.

Hatmatter said:

Yes, Mercurius. This is what I was attempting to communicate as well in the previous couple pages. The Wizards design team was quite forthcoming about their different design assumptions both as D&D Next was being developed and then as 5th edition was released.

To criticize an endeavor based on assumptions that the creator(s) have consciously eschewed is a bit problematic. Of course, that does not mean that some, like Minigiant, cannot disagree with the 5th edition design assumptions. I, however, love those assumptions and think they produced not only the best version of the game, but one that is poised to continue to go forward for years to come.

Click to expand...

Yes, well put. To be fair to Minigiant, though, I can understand that sort of frustration. Whether one is unhappy with specific things (e.g. the ranger) or the game as a whole, it would be exceedingly frustrating being told that this is the evergreen edition of the game, and no major changes will be forthcoming.

And I do think that an evergreen edition can only go so far, with a "living game" like D&D. At the least, they should be willing to create revisions and maybe, eventually, a new edition. Meaning, even though 5E is different than previous editions in terms of basic approach and sustainability, I do think that revisions and even new editions are baked into the tradition of D&D. But as I said above, I think a lot of things can and will be adjusted with a revision (again, like the ranger).

It may be that even the "young uns" (folks new to D&D with 5E) will eventually want a fresh take on the game. But we are years from that.

King Babar said:

What I wonder with 5th edition is at what point will we start seeing noticeable product fatigue, where the number of sourcebooks in publication becomes a real, or at least perceived, barrier of entry for new players. While WotC has had a slow release schedule, their current publication strategy of combining player and DM material into a single product does lead to an issue where some people are really only getting 50% out of the book they're buying.

Just look at the new Ravenloft guide, which contains a single player-facing chapter in what is overwhelmingly a DM-facing book. Will a player really feel like they got their 30-50 dollars worth for a handful of new lineages, backgrounds, and subclasses?

Tasha's itself felt padded out in some respects, with DM tools that came across as shallow in comparison to the one's presented in Xanathar's.

Sharing books at the table and digital resources alleviates some of this, but the more expensive the hobby appears, the less likely newer players will want to jump in.

(edited for typos. I should go to bed.)

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know how long this combined Player/DM books with many rereleases, few deep modules, and constrained fixes will keep up with past and current books.

I'm not saying WOTC will hit the toilet or 5e will die but I can't see the number sustaining themselves. Humans are known to get bored of the safe and slow approach.

Hatmatter said:

Fair enough, ph0rk, but a ten-year span of time does not take into consideration the predictions of imminent publication within three years that I was responding to on the previous page and in the early pages of this forum thread.

Ten years is a long time and, frankly, it's not much of a prediction to say that a new edition will appear within 17 years of a D&D edition's publication (5th edition debuting in 2014) when support for the 1st edition lasted 11 years, the 2nd edition 11 years, 3rd edition 8 years, and 4th edition much less.

Click to expand...

The point is, we know 5e will be deprecated at some point, and it is over five years old now.

Stalker0 said:

I agree that there is a "thinness" to some of the player splats that have come out. And honestly, that is part of the "genius" of the current slow rollout, some players like me are thirsty for content, so we will fork over the money to have it, even if the book itself is only half "content we want". With Tasha's, I like some of the feats and subclasses. As a DM I really appreciate the puzzles (I hate doing puzzles as a DM but some of my players like them), but there's a fair amount in between I probably will never use. Now overall, I paid for Tashas....and I would pay money again for another equivalent. Would I do that if I had 3 times as many player splats available to me? Probably not.

That was the informed business gamble that WOTC took with this new model. A focus on a slow but highly efficient book schedule....whereas each book would generate such a high profitability that it counters the loss of revenue from multiple products. So far that model seems to have worked very well for them, which in turn allows them to "milk" the edition far longer than normal.

I am certain that WOTC has very smart business people that watch their surveys and sales and such like a mother hen....and if we ever do see a big dip in sales on a "major product", WOTC will take steps to decide if its time to switch gears. But as of now.....we just have not seen that. The player splats have all been strong successes, one after the next. Until we see that change, I don't see a reason to ring the doom clock.

Click to expand...

To add to this, I'm a different kind of customer who isn't thirsty for content, or at least splat content (I'm very, ahh, content with the one splat every 2-3 years).

What I am thirsty for are settings. I just like reading them, getting ideas from them - food for the imagination.

So for me, the current schedule is great: I'll buy the two settings per year (and would happily buy a third or fourth, even if I don't expect them), and pick and choose from the rest.

Mercurius said:

OK, let me try to get what you are saying. Is what you're concerned with about a lack of a new edition that it prevents WotC from upgrading the rules?

Click to expand...

nope

Mercurius said:

That an evergreen edition locks them into an imperfect game?

Click to expand...

yes

Mercurius said:

If so, couldn't they do at least some of this with revised core books?

Click to expand...

They have should zero desire to revise anything or make any major modules that alter 5e.
They won't even give use an arcane half caster class.

Mercurius said:

Unless, of course, you just don't like the sub-structure of 5E, and then you simply may be out of luck - at least for another decade or so.

Click to expand...

I like the substructure. My point is it can't do everything people want without revisions and additions. WOTC's refusal to do so with cause people to buy 3rd party product and cut their sales.

Minigiant said:

Exactly. I don't know how long this combined Player/DM books with many rereleases, few deep modules, and constrained fixes will keep up with past and current books.

I'm not saying WOTC will hit the toilet or 5e will die but I can't see the number sustaining themselves. Humans are known to get bored of the safe and slow approach.

Click to expand...

Just like those Avenger movies were terrible blockbuster hits that raked in billions of dollars. So much sameness with no new concepts.

Will we see a new edition someday? I really don't know. I do know I just had my first in-person game in over a year and the rules of the game worked well enough for us to have more fun and laughter than I've had in a while. Mostly because the rules enabled free flow of play without getting bogged down in minutiae. There are some things I'd change, but I can pretty much guarantee they're completely different from what you would change. Which is the main issue: you can't please everyone. If you compromise to have broad based appeal it is likely that everyone will have some aspects they don't like, they will just be different aspects.

ph0rk said:

The point is, we know 5e will be deprecated at some point, and it is over five years old now.

Click to expand...

Do we know that? "At some point" could be 2 years from now (the absolute minimum I could see) or 20. Or never because the alien nanotech zombie apocalypse could hit and we won't care any more.

Stalker0 said:

I agree that there is a "thinness" to some of the player splats that have come out. And honestly, that is part of the "genius" of the current slow rollout, some players like me are thirsty for content, so we will fork over the money to have it, even if the book itself is only half "content we want". With Tasha's, I like some of the feats and subclasses. As a DM I really appreciate the puzzles (I hate doing puzzles as a DM but some of my players like them), but there's a fair amount in between I probably will never use. Now overall, I paid for Tashas....and I would pay money again for another equivalent. Would I do that if I had 3 times as many player splats available to me? Probably not.

That was the informed business gamble that WOTC took with this new model. A focus on a slow but highly efficient book schedule....whereas each book would generate such a high profitability that it counters the loss of revenue from multiple products. So far that model seems to have worked very well for them, which in turn allows them to "milk" the edition far longer than normal.

I am certain that WOTC has very smart business people that watch their surveys and sales and such like a mother hen....and if we ever do see a big dip in sales on a "major product", WOTC will take steps to decide if its time to switch gears. But as of now.....we just have not seen that. The player splats have all been strong successes, one after the next. Until we see that change, I don't see a reason to ring the doom clock.

Click to expand...

That "genius" only works so many times. Lucy got great mileage out of it

over & over again until...
The last couple surveys wotc put out asked product health questions like if d&d and 5e itself are going strong on the way out or whatever... those aren't the kind of questions that get asked when this strategy isn't seeing diminishing returns even if the returns are still great for now.

Oofta said:

Do we know that?

Click to expand...

None of the previous editions lasted forever.

Sooner or later, WOTC stands to make a lot more money by releasing a new edition. The faster they keep releasing power creep content, the sooner that will have to be.

Minigiant said:

nope


yes

They have should zero desire to revise anything or make any major modules that alter 5e.
They won't even give use an arcane half caster class.


I like the substructure. My point is it can't do everything people want without revisions and additions. WOTC's refusal to do so with cause people to buy 3rd party product and cut their sales.

Click to expand...

OK. Well, I think they are adding things, just not the things you want, which sound like more crunchy bits. I am curious, also, to see what they might do with the hypothetical (I think, likely) revised core rulebooks. That would be the opportune time for revisions, if not "major modules."

But you are right: it can't be what everyone wants. But that has been true of every edition. The brilliance of 5E is that they found a nice middle ground, between "traditional" D&D and "new bells and whistles" of 21st century D&D.

The people they seem to be serving the least are those wanting a lot of crunch. But I think they are, at least among the current fanbase, a minority. That may change, though, but we haven't seen any sign of it, as far as I can tell. And of course the reason they aren't serving up more crunch has been stated many times in this thread: it is intrinsically tied to what makes the edition so successful.