D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Rystefn]

Emphasis mine.

That's the rub, though, isn't it? People on this board still haven't decided whether this is just errata and collection, a "half edition" or a whole new edition. If they do a half edition refresh every 10 years, there is only one cycle of compatibility and all they have really done is extend the edition lifecycle. That isn't the "ever green, 5E is the final edition" aspect that is being touted. Of course if you have new editions every once ina while, you can repeat your book cycle. That isn't what I was asking.

People are quibbling over the semantics, but it's very clearly a new thing, and "evergreen, 5e is the final edition" is a hilarious lie. Based on what we've seen so far, the scale of changes are pretty fairly analogous to the 3/3.5 transition, and we can reasonably expect to see more or less the same sort of book cycle afterwards. I will go out on a limb here and say that the whole thing they did a while back about "these setting books aren't necessarily one and done" is because they were already planning to make new 5.5 (or whatever name you care to slap on it) versions of several of them.

 

[SteveC]

The pace is fine. it would be nice if they would actually innovate, though, or at least bring some classic D&D elements to 5E. they could easily fit a Domain Management section in instead of, say, a bunch of random name tables.

Is it, though? I was just looking at the list of WotC products and the last player/rules focused product that came out was Tasha's in 2020. There have been many adventures and boxed sets since then but no player content. Maybe that's not an issue for a lot of the very new players but I see people in my groups wondering when they'll see something new. I guess that will happen with the new PHB.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is it, though? I was just looking at the list of WotC products and the last player/rules focused product that came out was Tasha's in 2020. There have been many adventures and boxed sets since then but no player content. Maybe that's not an issue for a lot of the very new players but I see people in my groups wondering when they'll see something new. I guess that will happen with the new PHB.

Thats cause WOTC knows that keeping the DM empowered is key to 5E's success. And we all know how player options can disempower (some) DMs.

 

[Reynard]

Is it, though? I was just looking at the list of WotC products and the last player/rules focused product that came out was Tasha's in 2020. There have been many adventures and boxed sets since then but no player content. Maybe that's not an issue for a lot of the very new players but I see people in my groups wondering when they'll see something new. I guess that will happen with the new PHB.

Thats cause WOTC knows that keeping the DM empowered is key to 5E's success. And we all know how player options can disempower (some) DMs.

There has been player content, though. Fizban's and Bigby's, as well as the settings. It's just that it is boring.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Adding 3PP isn't that simple.

First, as a platform owner, your brand is on the line if something problematic comes up. So all 3pp material would need to be checked for anything that might be problematic for the D&D brand. Second is negotiating business deals - what percentage of sales goes to WotC, what goes to 3PP creator, what are conditions ( as in can one side unilaterally decide to remove content from the platform for example). In short, it's similar to adding apps to Apple store.

@Reynard

Adventures and settings with some new player options and monsters. Stuff that appeals to broadest possible audience. They have new half edition core books that will no doubt be good sellers. Then it's back to above mentioned.

The most deeply boring choice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would you advocate that Paizo or Kobold Press produce a niche product (such as, say, psionics for PF2 or TotV) even if the cost of design and publishing would NOT be recouped by sales?

I'm not asking anyone to lose money. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's no different if the company is privately owned. Goal is still the same, turning profit for owner. It's good old capitalism.


Choice isn't binary. It's sliding scale. But priority is always money first. Making best game possible is useless if it isn't profitable. But making best game possible that can make you most money possible generally goal of game companies.

You are looking at games from the perspective of player/ consumer. It's hobby for you (and me). But for people inside game industry, it's job. Publishing companies are in it to make money first and foremost. Maybe try looking at things from purely business side.

Never. They're a game company. They should be making the best games they can, and making a profit doing it. You can do both things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you privy to their internal financial statements? Do you know what their profit margins are on the type of material you demand? Do you have detailed records on sales history for previous editions and how well the 20th supplement sold?

I have no idea what the middle ground is. Neither do you. I do know that there are significant drawbacks to publishing too many books. I'd rather have a healthy and growing game community than a flooded market that leads to a crash like virtually all previous editions. So I'm okay with a more conservative approach, I already have more options than I need in many areas.[/I]

They don't make the kind of products I'm asking for, so we'll never know. What I do know is that your definition of "flooded" is quite a bit different from mine, and appears to consist of "anything more than we have now".

 

[Micah Sweet]

The pace is fine. it would be nice if they would actually innovate, though, or at least bring some classic D&D elements to 5E. they could easily fit a Domain Management section in instead of, say, a bunch of random name tables.

Names are easier.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There has been player content, though. Fizban's and Bigby's, as well as the settings. It's just that it is boring.

And rather sparse.