D&D 5E A Board Game style Release Schedule

[Kramodlog]

Now see, THAT is irony.

Yes, I know. I am rather funny.

 

[Jester David]

So that seems like roughly a similar amount of content they were producing at roughly the same time in their history, doesn't it? I don't recall anyone ever claiming their release schedule was too slow, much less claim it was harming Pathfinder it was so slow.

It's certainly comparable if you define "support" as "new mechanics". Paizo also had a LOT more time between their Core Rulebook. Bestiary, and Gamemaster product. And they needed a lot more world products as their setting was undefined.

 

[delericho]

Paizo also had a LOT more time between their Core Rulebook. Bestiary, and Gamemaster product.

That's because Pathfinder's "GameMastery Guide" is not comparable to D&D's DMG. The equivalent of the latter book is already rolled into the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

 

[delericho]

In any event, surely the big difference in the amount of support is not in what has been released at "Core Rulebooks + 3 months", but rather in what the position looks like going forward?

If we look at Jan 2010, Pathfinder fans knew that several things were coming: a monthly Adventure Path volume, a bi-monthly standalone adventure, a bi-monthly Pathfinder Companion, and a quarterly Pathfinder Chronicle. They also may or may not have known about the next big hardback for the game. (Also relevant is that these products were all tied to subscriptions, which means that not only did they know they were coming, they also knew they would keep coming.)

By contrast, 5e fans have "Princes of the Apocalypse" to look forward to.

At this point, 5e might well have the same number of products as PF, or 3e, or (less likely, I think) 3.5e or 4e. But this is the edition with the least "coming soon" since 1st Edition.

 

[SkidAce]

It is like people are talking pass each other in this thread.

-WotC needs to release more stuff!
-WotC does. In away. There are all these 3pp releases!
-If they are 3pp, they aren't WotC. I want WotC stuff.
-I told you, it does. Look at all those 3pp products.
-They aren't even officially approved or sanctioned by WotC.
-So?
-It is not WotC stuff.
-Sure it is. Free your mind, man. Boundries are artificial, man. Tear down that wall, Mr. Gorbachev!

"It's a motherluving beauuutiful bridge baby, and it'll be there..."

 

[Mistwell]

It is you who doesn't read. I said that if they needed a conversion, the actual word you used, not adapt, they are not part of 5e. How easy it is to convert is non sequatur as to whether they need converting or not.

OK Goldomark, I don't know if you're being an intentional dick and misquoting me, or if this really is a mistake you keep making even after I corrected you. But here is the direct quote from the link to my post, "Four good playtest adventures which are incredibly easy to adapt to current rules (Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Murder in Baldur's Gate, Scourge of the Sword Coast). "

Do you see the word conversion? No, you do not. The reason you thought you saw the word conversion is because, at the END of that paragraph, concerning an entirely different topic, you read this, "And that's not counting the existing conversion notes WOTC published for numerous older adventures with the playtest that would be easily converted."

You think the later was what I was talking about, but it's not. It's the former. The PLAYTEST ADVENTURES don't need conversion and I never said they did. It's the 1e and 2e adventures, like the A1-A4 Slavers series from 1e AD&D, for which they provided conversion notes, which need conversion. Two DIFFERENT things. Now do you get it?

Of course it is. It is an arbitrary decisions, like counting from the moment the first box/book is release. Neither are good or bad. But both are arbitrary lines made up by people.

Like irony and conversion, you're not using the word arbitrary correctly either. For it to be arbitrary it would have to be based on whim and/or random choice. For it to not be arbitrary it would have to be based on reason or a system. My choice of the last Core book is based on reason and a system - it makes logical sense to count from the date the Core rules are completely published. It makes no sense, to me at least, to choose in the middle of the publishing run of the Core books, like say after the Monster Manual but before the DMG. You could choose the PHB date, but then you're lacking monsters and all the DMG rules including magic items. And the Starter Set doesn't make sense at all, as it was so woefully incomplete and ran only to level 4 that it's wholly not representative of the game as we know it. The only date that makes sense to me is when the last of the three Core books is released. Now maybe you disagree, but your disagreement doesn't make my choice of that date arbitrary - I based my choice on reason, therefore it's not arbitrary.

But now it is obvious you are not talking about conversion and what is or is not part of 5e. Seems this tangent is over.

I never was, you just stubbornly refused to read the very link to my prior post that you provided, even after I asked you to.

 

[Mistwell]

In any event, surely the big difference in the amount of support is not in what has been released at "Core Rulebooks + 3 months", but rather in what the position looks like going forward?

But that's the difficult thing here. WOTC has decided against the sort of long term announcements we're used to. Instead they are giving short notice, and even suddenly dropping stuff with no notice like they did today with the Elemental Player's Guide. We don't know how much or how little they have in the hopper for the future. So any conclusion we draw is based on pure speculation. I think some people are erroneously taking silence for "nothing planned", but I don't think that's wise.

If we look at Jan 2010, Pathfinder fans knew that several things were coming: a monthly Adventure Path volume, a bi-monthly standalone adventure, a bi-monthly Pathfinder Companion, and a quarterly Pathfinder Chronicle. They also may or may not have known about the next big hardback for the game. (Also relevant is that these products were all tied to subscriptions, which means that not only did they know they were coming, they also knew they would keep coming.)

I've always heard support described as actual stuff to play with, not promises of stuff to play with. I don't see why the promises are more relevant to support than the actual support itself. It sounds like you don't like not knowing. I get that - but not liking the unknown isn't the same as lack of support, it's just lack of certainty. Certainty isn't the support - the products themselves are the support. Certainty is just your psychological well being - and I strongly suspect almost nobody is going to drop a game because they don't know what's coming next.

 

[Kramodlog]

OK Goldomark, I don't know if you're being an intentional dick

Wow, that is just rude.

For it to be arbitrary it would have to be based on whim and/or random choice.

From merriam-webster: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something. Seems right on target.

I never was

Talking about conversions? I quoted you mentioning it.

 

[delericho]

But that's the difficult thing here. WOTC has decided against the sort of long term announcements we're used to. Instead they are giving short notice, and even suddenly dropping stuff with no notice like they did today with the Elemental Player's Guide.

Actually, we've known since January that that was coming in mid-March.

 

[Reynard]

It's certainly comparable if you define "support" as "new mechanics". Paizo also had a LOT more time between their Core Rulebook. Bestiary, and Gamemaster product. And they needed a lot more world products as their setting was undefined.

I think it is important to remember that PF was designed explicitly to allow you to continue to use your 3.5 material (including Paizo's own pre-Pathfinder APs). This is more similar to the 1E to 2E transition. 5E is not designed in that way. The better comparison would be to compare the rollout and schedule of 3E or 4E and 5E because none of those were designed to be backwards compatible with previous material.