4e Extravaganza Seminar (with Cover Pics)

[Aus_Snow]

Just because it's the "standard" doesn't make it the best idea. There is always room for improvement.

GnomeWorks, what does it matter? Or, more succinctly perhaps, why does it matter to you? According to your sig, D&D doesn't appeal to you - fair enough! But what then is the point of your speculating about the number of D&D books currently put out per month, or per year, and whether it's 'the best idea' or whatever. . . when it'll clearly (right?) have little or no impact on you anyway?

And as for its impact on other people, well, each person will either buy a given book, or they won't. And that's it.

If it proves to be a successful product strategy, WotC will most likely continue with it. Otherwise, they will probably look into ways to revise that strategy.

Er. Or yeah, there's something I'm missing here. . .

 

[Echohawk]

How many non-setting-specific books did WotC publish in the course of 3e and 3.5?

I count 95.

I have a feeling that 4e is already creeping up on that number, and 4e has been out, what... about a year?

I count 25, so you'd be completely wrong about that.

 

[MichaelSomething]

For those of you who don't want to pay for their RPGs, check out this free RPG Compendium I found after a quick internet search. Good luck trying to find players!

 

[ggroy]

I count 95.


I count 25, so you'd be completely wrong about that.

During the 3.5E years, there was around 20+ WotC splatbooks and modules released per year. (The 3E years had slightly less than 20 per year).

For 4E so far, it's still around 20 WotC splatbooks and modules released per year.

No change in the status quo for the most part.

 

[MadMaxim]

I must say that's a very nice line-up Most of the covers look great and the topics seem to be what the majority will be looking for. Now, if only I had the money... And a group to play with...

 

[N0Man]

You'd think that people would be used to the unfounded criticisms often lobbed at 4E and WotC by now.

I haven't found the pace of books to be any different than it has been before 4E, however I've been happier with the products.

During 3.0, I bought maybe 3 books. During 3.5, I got around 3 or 4. I've also had very limited satisfaction with many of those books, for example one of the few books I bought was the Tome and Blood book, just because I thought the True Namer class seemed very interesting, only to find the class was a poorly designed class that just wasn't very functional.

In 4E, I have 14 books already, and I don't regret buying any of them.

For me, the problem isn't that 4E is cranking out more books than previous editions, but they are cranking out more books that are desirable to have. If you ask me, that's a good problem to have.

 

[AllisterH]

It strikes me that the cost to get into D&D "cold" is the same as it was through all editions since 1e: the cost of three books. This assumes you are not going with the intro product. But who gets into RPGs cold? Some do, but that is not the general path.

.

Actually, if you have a computer, to get into 4e is pretty cheap (AND LEGAL).

DnD Testdrive

Seems to me that if a person is actually interested in just dipping their toes into D&D, you can't beat the price of "FREE".

Personally, I think this release shedule is certainly HEALTHIER over the long term that the previous model which was "split the base and publish niche products for every camapgin setting"

Especially the 2e years where TSR was putting out 2-4 splatbooks per month for their campaign settings.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Uh, what?

...huh. That does not match at all my understanding of how they were doing things.

According to your sig, D&D doesn't appeal to you - fair enough! But what then is the point of your speculating about the number of D&D books currently put out per month, or per year, and whether it's 'the best idea' or whatever. . . when it'll clearly (right?) have little or no impact on you anyway?

No, see, it really does. WotC is a leader in the gaming industry. D&D is the most recognizable RPG.

I may not like the 800 lb. gorilla, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to keep an eye on it, or speculate on how it could do what it does better.

I count 95. ... I count 25, so you'd be completely wrong about that.

Let's review the maths.

How many years was 3e/3.5 being supported? Eight, give or take a couple months. That's about eleven books a year. A little less than one a month.

4e has been out for a year and two months. Twenty-five books over that time comes out to 21.4 (or so) books a year. 1.78 books/month.

At that rate - which clearly has no signs of stopping - 4e will hit the same number of books as 3.5 after about four and a half years. About half the lifespan, same number of books.

This doesn't seem a little fast to anyone?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The only issue I think 4e is going to have is their EVERYTHING IS CORE philosophy. If they pump out too many classes and races, they're going to be spread thin.

 

[Mouseferatu]

This doesn't seem a little fast to anyone?

No, because your entire premise is flawed. As soon as you removed setting-specific books from the equation, you guaranteed that your numbers would be off.

Like it or not, setting products are a part of the production line. They're a part of the D&D library, they take up spots on the schedule, and they cost the same to produce.

If you compare the entire release schedule for 3.5 to that of 4E, I think you'll find that they're comparable. And if you compare the entire release schedule of late 2E, with its huge mass of setting material, I think you'll find that some of TSR's years were more productive, in terms of sheer quantity, than any of WotC's.