D&D 5E D&D Team Productivity?

[Maxperson]

I mean, I clearly see that you want more books like Tasha's/Xanathar's (and you're not alone there, they are probably the best-selling books after the core rules), but that doesn't mean they're the ONLY rules that exist, and that rules that are in books that contain other things like adventures/fluff are entirely irrelevant.

I saw your criticism of the Eberron book earlier, in that you'll never run your game there. I mean, so what? The book has a ton of rules (and I consider monsters an extension of the rules) and you can use them in your own homebrew game.

Or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, which is part adventure but also provides rules for ships, maps, tables and other content to support a seafaring game. You don't have to use the adventure, that's all useful stuff for a homebrew game.

Hey. If the book store is only going to charge me for the bits that I'm going to use and not all the huge amounts of fluff and adventure that I'm not going to use, I'll be more than happy to buy it. That's not generally how it works, though, and I'm not going to waste my money like that.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Hey. If the book store is only going to charge me for the bits that I'm going to use and not all the huge amounts of fluff and adventure that I'm not going to use, I'll be more than happy to buy it. That's not generally how it works, though, and I'm not going to waste my money like that.

Fair. But the thread is about D&D's productivity, and just because you don't want to spend any $ on a book with things you don't want, doesn't make the book less valuable for other people, or the D&D team less productive.

 

[Maxperson]

Fair. But the thread is about D&D's productivity, and just because you don't want to spend any $ on a book with things you don't want, doesn't make the book less valuable for other people, or the D&D team less productive.

I'm not close to being alone in this, though. I doubt that very many people are going to drop $40-50 for a few pieces of crunch. That means that setting and adventure crunch are not general rules, but are instead narrowly aimed at those specific settings.

As far as moving the game as a whole forward, they are not very productive at all. I don't view monsters as rules, because they use rules, they aren't rules. I don't use a Bugbear to determine how much damage my sword does. I do use combat rules, weapon rules, treasure rules, etc. when playing a Bugbear. That leaves Tasha's and Xanathar's as the only real general rulebooks.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not close to being alone in this, though. I doubt that very many people are going to drop $40-50 for a few pieces of crunch. That means that setting and adventure crunch are not general rules, but are instead narrowly aimed at those specific settings.

As far as moving the game as a whole forward, they are not very productive at all. I don't view monsters as rules, because they use rules, they aren't rules. I don't use a Bugbear to determine how much damage my sword does. I do use combat rules, weapon rules, treasure rules, etc. when playing a Bugbear. That leaves Tasha's and Xanathar's as the only real general rulebooks.

So, if core books aren't rulebooks, and monster books aren't rulebooks, the at this point in it's life, 1E had zero books at all, and 5E has 2. That's approximately infinity percent more.

 

[Maxperson]

So, if core books aren't rulebooks, and monster books aren't rulebooks, the at this point in it's life, 1E had zero books at all, and 5E has 2. That's approximately infinity percent more.

Never said core books aren't rulebooks. But hey, why not add Strawman to the list of responses to me.

Core books are the base game, not things put out to add to the base game. Every edition has all 3, so there's no point in including them.

 

[Parmandur]

Never said core books aren't rulebooks. But hey, why not add Strawman to the list of responses to me.

Core books are the base game, not things put out to add to the base game. Every edition has all 3, so there's no point in including them.

You said that "The PHB, DMG and MM don't count. Those are core for every edition." And that monster books don't count. The only books 1E had at this point in it's life cycle were the core books and two monster expansion books. Ergo, based on your stated criteria, no books that "count."

It's much easier to just look at books with rules (core, no core, setting, monster, whatever), and compare directly.

 

[Maxperson]

You said that "The PHB, DMG and MM don't count. Those are core for every edition." And that monster books don't count. The only books 1E had at this point in it's life cycle were the core books and two monster expansion books. Ergo, based on your stated criteria, no books that "count."

It's much easier to just look at books with rules (core, no core, setting, monster, whatever), and compare directly.

Correct. When discussing general rules additions, those do not count.

Edit: and 1e had the Deities and Demigods, which had rules for adding gods to any campaign the DM wanted.

 

[BigZebra]

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.

View attachment 131212

That's bonkers. How is that even possible? They surely must be happy about their success at WotC. Nice job.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I'm not close to being alone in this, though. I doubt that very many people are going to drop $40-50 for a few pieces of crunch. That means that setting and adventure crunch are not general rules, but are instead narrowly aimed at those specific settings.

As far as moving the game as a whole forward, they are not very productive at all. I don't view monsters as rules, because they use rules, they aren't rules. I don't use a Bugbear to determine how much damage my sword does. I do use combat rules, weapon rules, treasure rules, etc. when playing a Bugbear. That leaves Tasha's and Xanathar's as the only real general rulebooks.

So I won't deny you're not alone (like I said before, Tasha's/Xanathar's are likely the best selling non-core books) but this is also the best selling edition of D&D, of all time, by a lot. Maybe that's a case of correlation and not causation, but it stands to reason that part of the reason the crunch books sell so well, is because they are so rare? And if we got a new entirely-crunch book every year, would they outperform the adventure books in sales, or the setting books?

IMO, I doubt it. Looking at previous editions, the more books that are released in a fast pace, the less sales each book will get (which makes sense, as the more books there are the less likely people are going to try and buy every book). I find it doubtful that pumping out a new Tasha's/Xan every year will mean they all are as successful as those two books, especially as the quality of those rules will likely decline as they are forced to include sub-par options in order to fill the annual crunch book (which in turn will lead to the game's rules becoming more cluttered, janky, and unsuccessful).

And I can't take your "moving the game forward" critique too seriously, mostly because I know you aren't using the numerous rules included in setting books and adventures. If you're only going to use Tasha's/Xanathar's, which are mostly player's options, then yeah you're not getting a lot of content. But that's your choice, so I would blame WotC release strategy of having balanced books instead of seperating them into "crunch only" or "fluff only." Productivity seems largely irrelevant here; it's your preferences not aligning with the book's format.

 

[R_J_K75]

Now surely that is a pretty low productivity rate?? I mention this now because it seems like a very very long time that this Candlekeep book has been in production.

Secretly this whole slow product output is a sham. WotC has been developing 6E since 8/20/2014 in all the downtime they now have on their hands. This way when the new edition drops in 2024-2025 they can say what a great success 5E was because it lasted 10+ years.

Please don't anyone take this seriously I'm obviously joking.