D&D 5E Greg Leeds talks about D&D

[abirdcall]

Publishing a lot of crunch affects me and my game whether or not I buy it.

It is representative of the ethos of design. The crunch in SCAG is informed by the fluff. It is about enabling characters, not just character abilities. They don't have options for all classes and races because they only made the options that they felt they had the fluff for and would contribute.

I bet I would find more crunch useful in this version of SCAG than a hypothetical version filled with all sorts of options because these options have a purpose that I can get behind.

The other thing is that a ton of options makes it more difficult to sift through them and find the good ones. Not just for me but for my players. I can't just hand them a book and say, hey, take a look and see if there is anything you like. Instead I need to tell them the options I find appropriate for the game.

I like that I can just hand SCAG to a player and say go nuts.

 

[MechaPilot]

The other thing is that a ton of options makes it more difficult to sift through them and find the good ones. Not just for me but for my players. I can't just hand them a book and say, hey, take a look and see if there is anything you like. Instead I need to tell them the options I find appropriate for the game.

That's still substantially less work than having to create and playtest one's own options from scratch. Also, having to create your own options leaves out the scenario where you look through a book and find something new that, due to different perspectives and mindsets, you wouldn't have thought of creating on your own but actually works out to be pretty darn cool.


Ultimately, I think the best answer is for WotC to get their act together and come out with a freaking license already. Then, people who hold your opinion can simply say "only use WotC books," and people who hold my opinion can buy the kinds of books we want from third party publishers.

 

[darjr]

Actually it's probably less work. Your own options just have to deal with your game.

Anyway, My bet is the license is done, that it's release is contingent on a slackening of sales of the core books.

Also there are third parties testing the waters with options and such, not just bestiaries and adventures, without a 5e ogl. Support them and I'll bet they'll do more.

 

[SkidAce]

If you don't put out enough product then people will get bored and lose interest.

This is not necessarily a true statement.

I am interested in "playing" the game. With characters over long term development. I've already got enough to last years.

There are some things I would like to see and want to spend money on (psionics and kingdom running rules mainly), but get bored and lose interest if they don't come out?

Nah...

 

[fjw70]

This is not necessarily a true statement.

I am interested in "playing" the game. With characters over long term development. I've already got enough to last years.

There are some things I would like to see and want to spend money on (psionics and kingdom running rules mainly), but get bored and lose interest if they don't come out?

Nah...

Agreed. More than enough to run for a really long time.

 

[abirdcall]

Actually it's probably less work. Your own options just have to deal with your game.

Anyway, My bet is the license is done, that it's release is contingent on a slackening of sales of the core books.

Also there are third parties testing the waters with options and such, not just bestiaries and adventures, without a 5e ogl. Support them and I'll bet they'll do more.

Don't think I agree about the less work thing.

3rd party stuff is fine though. I own the 3.x line of Ravenloft books. The crunch in it is pretty bad but it is mostly fluff and that part is great so I am happy with them.

Other companies will have and are able to have their own vision of where to take the ruleset. That makes separating those books conceptually easy to do.

It is only a problem if it hurts the longevity of the game and/or WotC's profits. When done right, I think it will be a positive all around.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

"Given that the market for the RPG physical product is relatively small compared to decades ago, what’s the long-term potential of your D&D products?"

I'm wondering if it is actually true that the market for physical RPG products is smaller than it used to be? Or rather, is the market for TTRPG smaller (regardless of whether you use pdfs or software assistance)?

It might very well be, but part of me wonders if this is one of those things lots of people are assuming with little basis in fact.

Personally, for instance, I don't know anyone who used to habitually play TTRPGs but now just plays video games instead. Of course there might not be as many replacements coming in as there are veteran gamers passing on, but I'm just not ready to take that sort of claim as a given.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Publishing a lot of crunch affects me and my game whether or not I buy it.

Explain.

If you only buy and allow certain books in your games then what is the problem?

 

[77IM]

Explain.

If you only buy and allow certain books in your games then what is the problem?

This has been explained to death elsewhere, but I'll try to give you the TL;DR:

D&D is a collaborative game with a strong community aspect played in a consumer culture. So whenever a new official book is published a large number of players will want to buy it and use it. This puts the DM in the position of a) being a hard-ass and saying "no," b) allowing a few new options... introducing power creep (since many players will want the most powerful options allowed), or c) just allowing everything, tremendously increasing complexity. Many people prefer to avoid all that headache and conflict. There's also issues of "consumer decision paralysis" where a new D&D player doesn't know which of the 27 books they should buy; it can be a little intimidating. Empirical data from the past few editions reveals that these are real, actual problems and not abstract hypotheticals that you can hand-wave away with some intelligent-sounding comments on a message board.

Now, Wizards' current approach may cause a different set of problems for people who don't care about any of that and just want options options options. But please don't dismiss other people's problems as non-existent or trivial just because you don't experience them.

 

[MechaPilot]

Explain.

If you only buy and allow certain books in your games then what is the problem?

It depends on how one is handling things.



If a DM simply says, "we're only using WotC D&D books and content, no questions asked" that takes virtually no effort at all.

If a DM says , "we're only using WotC D&D books and content," but the DM will allow players to come to him with non-WotC material so he can then make a judgement call about allowing it or not (instead of just automatically dismissing it), that takes a modicum of effort.

If the DM instead allows all the WotC D&D books and content and then takes it upon himself to scour thrid-party material so he can compile a list of things allowed and not allowed, then he's doing more work than he really needs to.



Alternately, you could have a situation where the additional material is also created by WotC. In that situation, the various scenarios would be more like this:

If a DM simply says, "we're only using the options from the PHB (or PHB and DMG), no questions asked" that takes virtually no effort at all.

If a DM says , "we're only using the options from the PHB (or PHB and DMG)," but the DM will allow players to come to him with other material so he can then make a judgement call about allowing it or not (instead of just automatically dismissing it), that takes a modicum of effort.

If the DM instead allows all the options from the PHB (or PHB and DMG) and then takes it upon himself to scour other WotC material so he can compile a list of things allowed and not allowed, then he's doing more work than he really needs to.