D&D 5E Does this seem to be the edition that was made for splatbooks?

[Li Shenron]

I don't know about you, but 5th edition seems to have been made for splatbooks and yet I here we are supposed to get a low book rate.

What sold me in the beginning was all this talk of modularity. There is supposed to be all these supplements that support all sorts of various play options in order for people to tailor the game to their needs. I even look at the rules in the PHB and I see them as usuable to play but feeling incomplete. I see the potential for tons and tons of options. Why create a game that is supposed to be chock full of options, but keep the book count low?

My general feeling is that 5e is more or less equally (potentially) splatbook-friendly as the previous 2-3 editions.

I don't think we'll actually see that many rules modules, not major ones at least. In theory the design space is unlimited, but rules modules require both a lot of creativity and serious technicaly design effort (including playtesting), and I am afraid they sell less than character material. Personally I expect the DMG to be the only book with rules modules until maybe 3 years (not counting a possible psionics handbook).

I do agree of the "feeling incomplete" about the PHB, but not because of the rules but rather because of character material. Half of the classes have only 2 subclasses, domains are miserably few, and rogue and fighter also are especially lacking subclasses (also compared to what we've seen in the playtest). Feats are also not that many. Several traditional spells are missing, although they might be just missing for good and may not have a place in 5e at all. I do expect additional character material to be published next year, but it might be either in the form of supplements or even in an updated PHB enlarged to 350 pages (like the MM).

I think 5E was made for customization, one approach of which would be through splat books.

Yeah I agree, we're used to ready-made customization but it wouldn't be bad at all to go back to a culture of do-it-yourself material

 

[Nivenus]

Like a lot of other people in the thread I'd much rather we get supplements that expand several classes at once, rather than just one (like a lot of 2e/3e splatbooks) or a few (like 4e's). Whether these be setting-specific (such as an FR or DL sourcebook) or just built around a common theme (like planewalking, the Underdark, etc.) doesn't really matter too much to me. But an endless sea of The Complete "X" I do not want.

 

[aramis erak]

I almost get the sense that Hasbro/WotC has said to the D&D team something to the effect, "OK, we're not cutting you off - but you've got to prove yourselves, and we're going to cut you down to a bare minimum. If what you create is popular and makes money, we can expand from there."

4E made money; if your theory were the case, we'd be seeing 4.2e...

And if you think splatbook isn't derogatory, it shows you're either new to the industry, or young, perhaps both. The term was used EXTREMELY negatively for the 2e complete ___ series... and the WWG oWoD clan/tribe/tradition books.

Partly as an onomatopoeia. Partly for the increased splatter factor they introduced into the games.

As for using the term "splat" for an asterisk - that's a new one on me. NEVER have heard that use before today.

 

[Henrix]

I have a strong feeling that the current position for D&D is to keep the brand going.

It isn't the RPG itself that makes the real money.
The money is in novels and licensing. Presumably mostly to CRPGs, but perhaps movies - if they ever clear that up.

4e wasn't good for the brand - it changed too many things and diluted it.

That's why I don't think we'll see loads of releases every year. The money isn't in trying to push out book after book fast to sell. The money is in keeping the brand alive and happy.

The *books are short term sales, and cost a lot to do right. Rules need a lot of checking and balancing - that's a lot of work and a high cost.

So I think they'll concentrate on making the essential stuff.
And have others, GF9, Wizkids, (Kobold press?), make the rest and let them pay license fees for the support material, miniatures, miniature games (Attack Wing), board games, etc.

As for using the term "splat" for an asterisk - that's a new one on me. NEVER have heard that use before today.

A splat is an asterisk is a wildcard. *book is short for 'tradition book', 'clan book', 'whatever book'.

And it started out neutral, but has often been used derogatively, but sometimes affectionately.

Nothing to do with splatter, like in movies.

[And, for the record, I'm neither new nor young. ]

 

[Mercurius]

Yeah I agree, we're used to ready-made customization but it wouldn't be bad at all to go back to a culture of do-it-yourself material

No doubt! I was encouraged by what Charles Akin said on the front page article: "with the advent of Dungeons and Dragons' latest edition it seems that we're seeing a nearly unprecedented level of creativity and activity coming across the board."

Not sure if this is true (yet), but it is promising.

4E made money; if your theory were the case, we'd be seeing 4.2e...

No, not necessarily. 4E made money at first, but I'm not sure how well it did come 2010-11. Of course there's also that whole thing about not being well received and all.

And if you think splatbook isn't derogatory, it shows you're either new to the industry, or young, perhaps both. The term was used EXTREMELY negatively for the 2e complete ___ series... and the WWG oWoD clan/tribe/tradition books.

Partly as an onomatopoeia. Partly for the increased splatter factor they introduced into the games.

As for using the term "splat" for an asterisk - that's a new one on me. NEVER have heard that use before today.

Is this directed at me? I'm confused. I didn't say splatbook was or was not derogatory....?

 

[The_Gneech]

5E definitely has room for expansion and customization– campaign-specific backgrounds, domains, and feats seem to be expected, if not all but required for some settings. I have a hard time believing WotC could resist the lure of splatbooks, but if they release worldbooks, there will almost certainly be player options in there.

-The Gneech

 

[Iosue]

And if you think splatbook isn't derogatory, it shows you're either new to the industry, or young, perhaps both. The term was used EXTREMELY negatively for the 2e complete ___ series... and the WWG oWoD clan/tribe/tradition books.

Partly as an onomatopoeia. Partly for the increased splatter factor they introduced into the games.

As for using the term "splat" for an asterisk - that's a new one on me. NEVER have heard that use before today.

Here's a Usenet post from 1999 explaining "splat" as an asterisk.

I don't recall it ever really being used contemporaneously with regard to 2e. During my search of Google Groups, all the earliest uses were in alt.games.whitewolf. Here's the earliest use I could find, although there must be others, since the usage here is quoted. Nor is its usage in these early posts particularly derogatory.

 

[Laznabog]

I find it interesting some people want to make up their own crunch and have WotC provide the story. I would choose it the exact opposite way. A DM can weave a story that makes me have a real dynamic role that a book can't predict. Edge goes to DM. Homebrewing crunch seems like letting opening up a can of worms to me for many reasons. Perhaps someone mis-gauges a power level, or someone else feels slighted, or people feel very differently about what is appropriate.

This is not to say no crunch should be home-brewed. When I DM, I make a list of all my house rules up front, but I think the more you depend on it to be the norm, the more you open the door to problems. Also, if you are depending on it to be the norm, you will likely have it come up mid-campaign. I don't like altering rules mid campaign no matter what side of the table I am on.

 

[Mistwell]

4E made money; if your theory were the case, we'd be seeing 4.2e...

And if you think splatbook isn't derogatory, it shows you're either new to the industry, or young, perhaps both. The term was used EXTREMELY negatively for the 2e complete ___ series... and the WWG oWoD clan/tribe/tradition books.

I've been playing since 1977, been discussing D&D on BBSes since 1983 or so, and been on this board since it's start in 2000 (or really the year before that). So I am not young, I am not new to the industry, and it was not always derogatory when it was used for 3e. Which is 15 years now...hardly new or young.

Partly as an onomatopoeia. Partly for the increased splatter factor they introduced into the games.

Wait...splat did not mean splatter. I've never once heard that claim.

As for using the term "splat" for an asterisk - that's a new one on me. NEVER have heard that use before today.

That's how it's been used on this board for over a decade. I can probably find you a dozen references to that. Would that help the discussion? It's also the definition used in the Wikipedia entry. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatbook

Edit - and I see others tracked it back at least 15 years to the asterisk definition as well.

 

[aramis erak]

No, not necessarily. 4E made money at first, but I'm not sure how well it did come 2010-11. Of course there's also that whole thing about not being well received and all.

Mearls has said that 4E made money the whole run. I have no reason to disbelieve him. I've seen the same thing said by other WotC staffers, too.