D&D 5E A viable game and the vicious edition cycle

[Tony Vargas]

Except that Mearls is saying that the sales figures for the past few years for D&D do not bear that out anymore

The past few years have had very few to no releases, though.

- even back to the 3.5 era

WotC + 3pps certainly put out a book a month or more, not just through the WotC 3.5 era but to this day. Are Paizo & the other 3pps churning out d20 books in spite of losing money? I doubt it.

It isn't the 1990s anymore.

Nor is it the 80s anymore, when a (relatively) slow pace of releases worked for TSR (though, really, that was because they used the proceeds from one book to pay to print the next in the early days).

The future is always in doubt.

It's just that the idea that quote was trying to put forth - that it was juts /absurd/ to think a game could prosper with a rapid pace of publication, is contradicted by past performance of both boardgames and RPGs.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

We're talking a lot about a way to make us roleplayers happy first and foremost - but is this necessary? How about a model where D&D is developed as a brand in as many business areas as you can think of - and then some? Let Hasbro earn tons of money with (bad ) D&D movies, plush toys, computer games and whatever. Makes the shareholders happy and the brand viable. Maybe we become the nerd branch of the D&D fans, but I wouldn't care.

I'm not sure whether the TTRPG is the core of the brand anymore in, say, ten years. But would it really be bad if we let other media do the work and attract some new fans to our hobby - the real D&D?

 

[doctorhook]

The past few years have had very few to no releases, though.

WotC + 3pps certainly put out a book a month or more, not just through the WotC 3.5 era but to this day. Are Paizo & the other 3pps churning out d20 books in spite of losing money? I doubt it.

Nor is it the 80s anymore, when a (relatively) slow pace of releases worked for TSR (though, really, that was because they used the proceeds from one book to pay to print the next in the early days).

The future is always in doubt.

It's just that the idea that quote was trying to put forth - that it was juts /absurd/ to think a game could prosper with a rapid pace of publication, is contradicted by past performance of both boardgames and RPGs.

All industries are a little bit weird to predict, and the TTRPG business might be a little bit weirder than usual. The market for these kinds of games is likely bigger than ever, but also more fractured than ever. Publishing is undoubtedly an industry in decline, but it's not likely to disappear, nor is print publishing the only vector for TTRPGs to exist in anymore.

All said and done, the market has changed in complex ways since the '80s and '90s, and it would be a mistake oversimplify the market differences between then and now.

 

[Hussar]

What exactly does bloat mean though? Is it simply too many options? Is that the issue?

I always thought bloat was related strongly to power creep. The issue isn't too many options, but rather, that more options push the ceiling ever higher, which makes this year's options just that little bit better than last year's. So on and so forth. Having a boat load of options isn't the problem, IMO, it's power creep.

Which, if WOTC can avoid the ever upward spiral of new options, they should be fine with producing as many supplements as they like. To be fair, 4e managed to do this quite well. There's a LOT of options in 4e, but, not too much game breaking (yes, I know there are a few, but, not too bad, and nothing at 1st level). They did show rather well that transparency means that new options have to fit within parameters. You never got anything close to the game breaking levels of the original Oriental Adventures or 2e's Faith's and Avatars in 3e or 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What exactly does bloat mean though? Is it simply too many options? Is that the issue?

I always thought bloat was related strongly to power creep. The issue isn't too many options, but rather, that more options push the ceiling ever higher, which makes this year's options just that little bit better than last year's. So on and so forth. Having a boat load of options isn't the problem, IMO, it's power creep.

There's also synergy. It's not just that you have more powerful options being added over time. It's that each new option might synergize with an old option to form a new broken combo, as well.

Which, if WOTC can avoid the ever upward spiral of new options, they should be fine with producing as many supplements as they like. To be fair, 4e managed to do this quite well. There's a LOT of options in 4e, but, not too much game breaking. They did show rather well that transparency means that new options have to fit within parameters.

For the first couple years, yes, but it was only by following some fairly strict design discipline: new classes that more-or-less followed AEDU resource patterns, powers that followed the same design principles, not adding new named bonus types, and so forth - /and/, critically, by issuing frequent errata (disingenuously called 'updates') to stay on top of and hammer down issues that did arise.

With Essentials, they 'opened up design space' and became less aggressive about fixing issues.

Nothing about 5e insulates it from bloat, power creep, or unintended synergies.

 

[Dausuul]

What exactly does bloat mean though? Is it simply too many options? Is that the issue?

I always thought bloat was related strongly to power creep. The issue isn't too many options, but rather, that more options push the ceiling ever higher, which makes this year's options just that little bit better than last year's. So on and so forth. Having a boat load of options isn't the problem, IMO, it's power creep.

In my view, both can be problems. 4E was successful at controlling the power creep, but when you have to dig through hundreds of fiddly options to find the ones you want, that also is a problem; it's well documented that past a certain number of options, more options lead to paralysis and frustration. And once you signed up for DDI, as I said, you were drinking from the fire hose--all the options getting thrown at your head at once.

There is also the issue that each splatbook added to the game increases the amount of reading the DM has to do in order to understand what the PCs are capable of; and DMs have plenty of prep work to do already. It helps a lot if you can rely on your pre-existing knowledge of the rules to tell you that once the wizard hits 5th level, you will start seeing large high-damage AoE spells, and once the cleric hits 9th level you will start seeing the dead being raised.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is also the issue that each splatbook added to the game increases the amount of reading the DM has to do in order to understand what the PCs are capable of; and DMs have plenty of prep work to do already. It helps a lot if you can rely on your pre-existing knowledge of the rules to tell you that once the wizard hits 5th level, you will start seeing large high-damage AoE spells, and once the cleric hits 9th level you will start seeing the dead being raised.

That's another one where 5e missed the opportunity to lift something good from 4e. 4e powers were, however numerous, pretty clear. As a DM, you didn't have to study spell lists in advance and keep up on new ones so I could ban the worst offenders or have rulings ready to nerf abuses - if something seemed off you could just read the 'card' and it'd be obvious how it was really supposed to work.

One of the reasons 4e was so easy to DM.

5e, you'll be hearing cases and making rulings.

 

[transtemporal]

Basically it comes down to: NEW HOTNESS. OLD AND BROKEN.

A publisher only has a certain window of time to ride the hype wave of a new product before the public gets bored and moves onto NEW SHINY THING. Hence why they always have to be releasing new product.

I'm being a bit tongue in cheek but I think theres a reason why they released it in time for xmas...

 

[billd91]

The concept of Pathfinder suffering from bloat in the first place seems to be an anathema on the Paizo boards.

Whether there is excessive bloat or not is an eye of the beholder sort of thing.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I didn't read the *entire* thread, so if someone's mentioned this...I agree with him/her.

IMHO, and IME, a company that makes RPG's for a "living" should NOT have the mantra:

"Give what the most people want so we can make the most money for our shareholders."

An RPG company should have the mantra:

"We're not here to get rich. We're here to make a living doing stuff we love."

In other words...the mentality behind the 'suits in charge' of the RPG's have to stop thinking RPG's are like video games, novels, movie or TV series, etc. If I buy an RPG core book from you, I *NEVER* have to buy -anything- from you again. Ever. Never ever EVER. Period. Realizing that simple fact about RPG's would go a LONG way to having reasonable expectations of R.O.I.'s. So you spent $1 million dollars over the last year in advertising, development, wages, printing costs, etc? And you made $1.001 million dollars? Good! Have a party! Celebrate the fact that everyone there is doing a job they LOVE and actually getting paid for it. That should count as a win for you. If the 'suits' complain that they aren't making enough money...tell them go get into a business that actually *makes* money...because, brother, you ain't in the right business if you think it's RPG's.

^_^

Paul L. Ming