D&D 5E D&D Team Productivity?

[JiffyPopTart]

If we include Dungeon, then we would have to include DMsGuild material (which is about as vetted as the old magazines were, from what I have seen), which becomes absurd.

Just including B/X alongside the first half of 1E, though, 5E still comes out ahead in both rules content and adventure page count (because then we have to include all of the 5E boxed sets, for own thing).

DMs guild isn't a publication by a team, its a collection of self produced content in an online webstore. If I created and published a supplement there I wouldn't expect it to be counted towards the pile of what the 5e team is producing. Yes, there are some items on DMs Guild that are produced by WotC, and I would add that to the piles of content we are weighing, but there are other excellent items like the Baldur's Gate book that are not.

The title of the thread is "D&D Team Productivity" not "Official Book Release Rate" The D&D team in the 80s was being productive by producing content for the game in the form of Dungon/Dragon. Now Dungeon is gone and Dragon is ... whatever it is, but its not game content. You can choose to discount it but that is choosing to discount what a lot of people spent time on during the production schedule that directly added to the game.

 

[Maxperson]

GGtR has three major sections: an add-on to the PHB tules, an expansion of DMG rules, and a truly gargantuan Monster Manual expansion. It is a book full of rules filtered through a particular flavor. A rulebook.

A SETTING SPECIFIC rulebook, which is not what I am talking about. I don't run that setting and never will. Setting specific rules are fine if there are also general rulebooks being released at a decent rate, which there are not. 2 in coming up on 7 years is a dearth of general rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, if we wanted to just limit it to Dragon+, every issue actively promotes a variety of DMsGuild products, giving them marketing assistance. It's a hard comparison to make, given the wild socio-economic changes from the 80's to the Teens, but reasonably speaking they should either both be included or ignored in this comparison.

dmsguild is the modern equivalent of third party published stuff not that. It was common to see it in a plastic sleeve & either stapled in the corner or a fancy "book" printed & staple bound in a plastic sleeve. Now you just get it in pdf form

 

[Maxperson]

Candlekeep Mysteries is in the top 50 out of all books on Amazon. All. Of. Them.
I think their productivity is doing just fine and I’d bet WotC and Hasbro are ecstatic.

Sure. When you starve people, they lap up scraps. You don't need to starve people, though. You can give them more than just scraps and still leave them hungry for more.

 

[Parmandur]

DMs guild isn't a publication by a team, its a collection of self produced content in an online webstore. If I created and published a supplement there I wouldn't expect it to be counted towards the pile of what the 5e team is producing. Yes, there are some items on DMs Guild that are produced by WotC, and I would add that to the piles of content we are weighing, but there are other excellent items like the Baldur's Gate book that are not.

The title of the thread is "D&D Team Productivity" not "Official Book Release Rate" The D&D team in the 80s was being productive by producing content for the game in the form of Dungon/Dragon. Now Dungeon is gone and Dragon is ... whatever it is, but its not game content. You can choose to discount it but that is choosing to discount what a lot of people spent time on during the production schedule that directly added to the game.

Who do you think made the magazine content? It wasn't in-house writers by and large, it was submissions. Admittedly, they are very different situations, so it is best to consider neither. But if we count the magazine material, we would have to compare it with DMsGuils.

 

[Parmandur]

A SETTING SPECIFIC rulebook, which is not what I am talking about. I don't run that setting and never will. Setting specific rules are fine if there are also general rulebooks being released at a decent rate, which there are not. 2 in coming up on 7 years is a dearth of general rules.

Ravnica has plenty of material that can be used with little to no change: rulebooks are books with rules, "Setting specific" is arbitrary. By that logic, Deities & Demigods or Oriental Adventures ncould be discounted as being "Setting specific." It's off topic from productivity.

 

[Parmandur]

dmsguild is the modern equivalent of third party published stuff not that. It was common to see it in a plastic sleeve & either stapled in the corner or a fancy "book" printed & staple bound in a plastic sleeve. Now you just get it in pdf form

Dungeon/Dragon magazine, third party, DMsGuild: same pool of content producers, different mediums in different times.

The magazines had some light editorial oversight, but not much by my understanding, and by that measure WotC selects and promotes the DMsGuild material their editors find noteworthy in the same manner.

 

[darjr]

Sure. When you starve people, they lap up scraps. You don't need to starve people, though. You can give them more than just scraps and still leave them hungry for more.

Baloney. It it were that bad the product would sink. Do you not know how this industry works?

 

[Maxperson]

Baloney. It it were that bad the product would sink. Do you not know how this industry works?

I didn't say it was bad. Even scraps can taste good. I've been talking about quantity, not quality.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The Golden Mean Fallacy is a thing.

I don't think that would apply if there isn't an objective truth. This is just personal preference on how much content people want to see.