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

[MechaPilot]

[MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] - why are you surprised by that attitude? A quick look at the Warlord forum shows that that attitude is not rare.

I am not currently surprised by that attitude. I was, at the time that I first encountered it. However, I have a tendency to both hope for the best from people while also expecting the worst from them. For example, when I meet a new person, I hope we can be friends, but I expect them to be a bullying/backstabbing jerk because that it what life has taught me to expect from people.

But again, I have to ask what you want? There are tons of 3rd party books out there. If you want options, they are already available. Dozens of optional books. Why do you need WotC to increase their pace?

What I want is probably best described as the following:

Each year I would like one conventional and one non-conventional setting until all the established settings are updated. Ravenloft is my favorite setting, and since you asked what I want, I would want the first year to be FR (which I don't care about at all but which seems to be the most popular conventional setting), and Ravenloft. The second year could then be Greyhawk (which I, again, don't personally care about) and either Spelljammer or Planescape (those are tied for my #2 spot).

Alternately, if they are not going to update my favorite settings, then a new setting would be good.

As far as the third party books, until very recently the only 3rd party 5e material that I knew about was the EnWorld magazine. Perhaps I am still stuck in an older way of doing things, but I had been expecting 3rd party material to actually show up on the shelves of game stores. At the moment, I haven't had time to check out the third party material that I have recently been informed of (I have finals in a couple of weeks, and each reply here is actually me taking the occasional minor but much-needed break from rereading textbook chapters and doing research for my final research project). Once this semester comes to a close, I will check out the third party material that a couple of posters here have been kind enough to direct me to.

But let's unpack the idea of pace. SCAG has six new class options. So in the first year of 5e, we got six new classes and about the same for new races (between SCAG and the Elemental Evil supplement). Fast forward five years. Assume the same pace throughout and we effectively double the PHB in five years. Seems fairly reasonable to me. How many more options are you expecting? How fast? Should we go the 3e route and release about double the options in the PHB every year? Two years? What would be a good release pace in your opinion?

Let's look at the idea of pace from a different perspective, the setting perspective. FR is the setting that will see material published for it for the next however many years WotC thinks they should. They have said that they plan to rotate through the settings after a non-disclosed (and likely not yet established) period of time. This means the rotation to the next setting (and which setting that is has also not been disclosed, if they even know what it will be yet) may be two, three, five, or ten years off, and that setting could easily be another one of the settings that I don't care for.

I also find it equally likely that if they do rotate to a new setting that I actually like, that it will only be a partial rotation and that part of the releases will still be FR material simply because it is the most popular published setting.

Also, just because they plan to do it doesn't mean it's going to happen: I've been planning to eat more healthy foods, but as I'm typing this a frozen pizza is cooking in my oven.

 

[Hussar]

Ahh. You don't really want splats then. Character stuff is largely secondary? Other than setting specific stuff of course. So a Ravenloft book would update the setting to 5e. Monsters and whatnot. That sort of thing?

 

[Parmandur]

[MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] - why are you surprised by that attitude? A quick look at the Warlord forum shows that that attitude is not rare.

But again, I have to ask what you want? There are tons of 3rd party books out there. If you want options, they are already available. Dozens of optional books. Why do you need WotC to increase their pace?

But let's unpack the idea of pace. SCAG has six new class options. So in the first year of 5e, we got six new classes and about the same for new races (between SCAG and the Elemental Evil supplement). Fast forward five years. Assume the same pace throughout and we effectively double the PHB in five years. Seems fairly reasonable to me. How many more options are you expecting? How fast? Should we go the 3e route and release about double the options in the PHB every year? Two years? What would be a good release pace in your opinion?

Minor quibble, but by my count SCAG has 11 or 12 subclasses (depending on how you look at the new Barbarian totems), which furthers your point a bit.

 

[MechaPilot]

Ahh. You don't really want splats then. Character stuff is largely secondary? Other than setting specific stuff of course. So a Ravenloft book would update the setting to 5e. Monsters and whatnot. That sort of thing?

Well, I do want some splat material; for example, a good psionics splat would be nice, and I would really love a good book of monstrous races more than any other splat, but I have no specific desired schedule for splats (whereas I think the previously mentioned schedule would be good for settings).

Aside from those two items that I just mentioned, the bulk of the rules material that I'd like to see would consist of more optional modules that enable different aspects/styles of play. For example, a ship-to-ship combat module would be good, so would options for enabling different themes or feels like horror/humor/romance/intrigue/etc.

That said, I don't particularly care if those additional options are published by WotC or someone else. By comparison, the setting updates, to the best of my knowledge, pretty much have to come from WotC for copyright reasons.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I do want some splat material; for example, a good psionics splat would be nice, and I would really love a good book of monstrous races more than any other splat, but I have no specific desired schedule for splats (whereas I think the previously mentioned schedule would be good for settings).

Aside from those two items that I just mentioned, the bulk of the rules material that I'd like to see would consist of more optional modules that enable different aspects/styles of play. For example, a ship-to-ship combat module would be good, so would options for enabling different themes or feels like horror/humor/romance/intrigue/etc.

That said, I don't particularly care if those additional options are published by WotC or someone else. By comparison, the setting updates, to the best of my knowledge, pretty much have to come from WotC for copyright reasons.

But isn't that what the UA articles are for? We've already got a mass combat system out of the UA, I imagine they'll do a naval combat module some time down the road. We got a few new races already as well. I'm not sure that we need books for what you want. I could certainly get behind a somewhat faster and meatier release schedule for UA though. Or... maybe... i dunno... if only WotC had a quarterly magazine that they put out that used to contain all these sorts of things.... Grrr.

As far as settings, I totally understand, but, I also think I know why you aren't going to get it. WotC has very much tied their wagon to AL. Every print release is going to be focused on what AL players can use. A second setting won't be used in AL and does nothing for them. And, it means that when they do want to do some new setting for AL, there already might be a book out that went in a different direction than what they want to go because the mechanics aren't really good for AL play. For example, a Ravenloft book would need rules for horror. Fair enough. There is a module for that in the DMG, but, I imagine it would be somewhat expanded in a Ravenloft book.

But, how do you deal with insanity across multiple AL sessions? What if the Ravenloft madness rules, which work fine in a home game, have too much of an impact across sessions for an AL game? So, they put out a second Ravenloft book, with mechanics and classes and whatnot for AL play. Those two books now compete with each other and, which one should a new player buy? It waters down the market.

I'm not sure I agree with what I just wrote, but, I imagine that's the conversation going on at WotC right now.

 

[Mistwell]

FIRST - Stop breaking up posts into three running different posts. It's spamming and annoying to other people who don't want to read our spat. It makes it more difficult for them to skip our stuff when you do that - and don't think I miss the irony of you splitting up something into more work for people unnecessarily given the context of this debate

The frequency with which additional content comes out is irrelevant to the need to establish a policy about content adoption because we all know that new content is going to come out (even if in limited doses) and that the group will have to decide to allow it or not. Having a group policy regarding adoption of new content is just a good idea, even if it only gets applied to very sparsely released material and the Unearthed Arcana articles.

That's a strawman. I was not talking about a policy concerning new content, I was talking about the figuring out the impact of the new content itself. Screw policy - you need to figure out that new content, and how it interacts with the world, the existing rules, the existing house rules, the plans for the campaign, etc.. You're asking them to do more, every time new content comes out. That's a burden.

That's not quite accurate.

The only things that you HAVE TO assess are things that people ask about playing at your table. Until someone brings to your attention that she wants to play it, you don't even have to know that the option exists.

OK then re-word what I said to be, ''The problem becomes worse with each new option a player presents that comes out. The amount they have to assess increases, the number of potential interactions increases, and the amount of time they need to spend to assess it won't likely be there like it was for the core books prior to campaigns starting. Bottom line, the more options come out that players like and want, the more this issue gets aggravated." That doesn't change my point really at all, and it remains the same. New options results in more work for these guys. You're not disputing that.

If you want to go beyond that, you could limit yourself to assessing only what is relevant for your game. For example, if you are playing in FR, you don't have to assess Warforged, Thri-Kreen, and Vistani options that are released; unless you are playing in Eberron, you don't have to assess the Artificer; and so on.

Most DMs play in homebrew worlds (that's what the survey said) and assess new content as it comes up (which is also what the survey said). They borrow stuff from different settings (again from the survey results). So again the point remains. You're placing an additional burden on people with new options.

Additionally, you are never going to stop the increase in available options.

But you can slow the rate in official options, which WOTC has done, which is the topic we're discussing. Let's not find something else to talk about, it's distracting.

I'm probably going to disappoint you here a bit, but hopefully not too much.

The only time I see more options as being potentially a problem is with AL DMs (at all other times it really is only a matter of saying "no" and having to assess only those things that someone asks about bringing to your table).

Again, it's not just AL DMs. You didn't ever really challenge the other arguments, you just brought up side issues with them that were mostly distractions and minor diminished scope issues. It's still more of a burden for round-robin DMs (you never made any argument that it's not). It's still more of a burden on non-designer-expert DMs to assess how options that players request interact with all existing rules and campaigns and house rules (if there are 500 rules, and the new option might interact with 20% of them, that's 100 rules interactions you have to examine based on your campaign, for example). It's still a problem of WOTC likely coming out with future books which reinforce and expand on previously presented options (like Paizo has) which you may not have used in your games. You didn't refute any of those issues, all you did was try and nibble away at the scope of those problems and then declared they went away entirely when they did not.

However, DMs who choose to DM for the AL are already agreeing to restrictions on what they can do, allow, and disallow

I already addressed this point above, and now you're acting like it was not addressed and simply repeating your point. It's not an off/on switch. It's not an issue of "either you accept all restrictions or you accept no restrictions" type situation. It's a continuum with those two things on each extreme, and every DMs personal threshold somewhere on that line between those two extremes. The more options added, the more DMs who hit their threshold along that line. Adding more options adds more burden, which harms more DMs, which causes fewer people to want to DM AL. That's the nature of this issue - a slow aggravation of a trend, not a switch being thrown. That's the issue you would need to address if you care to address the issue at all. Simply repeating your already-disputed claim isn't conversation. [I cut the rest of your conversation about a guy on the WOTC board and licenses because it's a different topic and I am trying to drill down on this one topic].

Can you agree now that the more options they come out with, the more burden on some DMs, without it being a "you have a hard time saying no" or "you're just selfish" type issue? Can you agree there really are legitimate issues for some people and, while those issues shouldn't necessarily override your preferences, they shouldn't simply be dismissed out of hand? Again I am not asking you to concede you're wrong in your preferences, just that I've explained why others might logically, reasonably have their own preferences that conflict with your preferences.

 

[MechaPilot]

That's a strawman. I was not talking about a policy concerning new content, I was talking about the figuring out the impact of the new content itself. Screw policy - you need to figure out that new content, and how it interacts with the world, the existing rules, the existing house rules, the plans for the campaign, etc.. You're asking them to do more, every time new content comes out. That's a burden.

Here is where you initially brought up private tables who round-robin-DM:

And then there are groups that are private but do round-table DMing (not that uncommon) such that one DM might be fine with an option but a later DM might not be fine with it and they can't really tell a player that the PC they've been playing in that same game can no longer be that PC.

Your initial objection related to round-robin-DM'ing specifically discusses content being objectionable to one of the round-robin-DMs and not objectionable to at least one of the other round-robin-DMs. That has nothing to do with any burden of assessing new material and has everything to do with how the round-robin-DMs handle decision-making. The need for a policy to make sure all the round-robin-DMs are on the same page directly addresses your objection and therefore cannot be a strawman.

OK then re-word what I said to be, ''The problem becomes worse with each new option a player presents that comes out. The amount they have to assess increases, the number of potential interactions increases, and the amount of time they need to spend to assess it won't likely be there like it was for the core books prior to campaigns starting. Bottom line, the more options come out that players like and want, the more this issue gets aggravated." That doesn't change my point really at all, and it remains the same. New options results in more work for these guys. You're not disputing that.

New options that players ask to use do require the DM to either flatly say "no," or "yes," or to assess the material first (the latter is probably the most responsible course of action, but some people do opt to go with "only PHB options" or "everything goes" models). But that's true with the infinite well of fan options that exist and will only continue to grow. Also, the number of new options that players will bring to their DMs is substantially lower than the number of options that exist. 3e had a wealth of splats, and all the players at my table combined only ever asked to use material from three or four books beyond the PHB.

Most DMs play in homebrew worlds (that's what the survey said) and assess new content as it comes up (which is also what the survey said). They borrow stuff from different settings (again from the survey results). So again the point remains. You're placing an additional burden on people with new options.

If most DMs play homebrew worlds, then the risk of having to allow things they don't want to allow is irrelevant. It also provides them with an easy means of exclusion when material doesn't fit the feel or theme of the homebrewed world; for example, a DM whose homebrew world has a traditional fantasy feel doesn't ever have to worry about needing to assess a Thri-Kreen race. A homebrew DM who is looking for material that may be worth adding to her homebrew setting also has the luxury of time in that she is not having to give a player an answer to the question "may I use this." This lets the homebrew DM schedule her assessments of new material. It's also worth pointing out that homebrew DMs do not limit themselves to official material, they take what they think is good and appropriate wherever they find it. This means that homebrew DMs already have the unstoppable and limitless well of fan created options to deal with, and they are therefore already dealing with nigh infinite options that will only continue to grow the longer the edition persists.

But you can slow the rate in official options, which WOTC has done, which is the topic we're discussing. Let's not find something else to talk about, it's distracting.

No, that's not what WE'RE discussing. It's clear to me now that you have been and are simply arguing past me; that's a common problem with online discussions. I am and have been discussing a desire for more options; I do not need them to come from WotC. What WotC could do for me is 1) release updated versions of the settings, and 2) put out a good license for 5e. The existence of a license would remove the legal uncertainty that could be keeping some smaller or more conservative publishers from making 5e material.

Can you agree now that the more options they come out with, the more burden on some DMs, without it being a "you have a hard time saying no" or "you're just selfish" type issue? Can you agree there really are legitimate issues for some people and, while those issues shouldn't necessarily override your preferences, they shouldn't simply be dismissed out of hand? Again I am not asking you to concede you're wrong in your preferences, just that I've explained why others might logically, reasonably have their own preferences that conflict with your preferences.

I have stated my position on additional options many times, and I will restate it here for clarity:

Options are, by their very nature, optional, and adding more options does harm to precisely no one. The only time options are not optional is when one agrees to be bound by restrictions such as those of the AL.

That is my position on options, ALL OPTIONS, REGARDLESS OF SOURCE.

FIRST - Stop breaking up posts into three running different posts. It's spamming and annoying to other people who don't want to read our spat. It makes it more difficult for them to skip our stuff when you do that - and don't think I miss the irony of you splitting up something into more work for people unnecessarily given the context of this debate

Opening your post by trying to tell the other poster what to do and accusing them of things (i.e. spamming in this case) is not conducive to getting them to read your post, and it's counterproductive to persuading them. I looked at your post four different times before finally convincing myself to read past your first paragraph and to see if anything of a civil discussion could be salvaged from it.

 

[darjr]

I have stated my position on additional options many times, and I will restate it here for clarity:

Options are, by their very nature, optional, and adding more options does harm to precisely no one. The only time options are not optional is when one agrees to be bound by restrictions such as those of the AL.

That is my position on options, ALL OPTIONS, REGARDLESS OF SOURCE.

Your statement is pointless. Options without play testing and support and consideration of what came before and what could come after are worse than useless in most circumstances. All those things, all that work, are the weight of options, and they weigh on an edition until the foundation cracks.

History has borne this out. It is the VERY reason Paizo went with a slow and steady release. It is WHY goodman games has vowed to release only a single core book for DCC. Both of those are very successful RPG companies with very wise and adept leadership with long histories in the business. Finally the most successful RPG company of ALL TIME is trying to avoid it as well.

Are they all fools? I don't think so. I tend to think they are on to something, and my own experience has borne this out.

But it's not only the RPG industry, the wargame industry has this problem in a very bad way, it's almost expected that wargame editions will churn to deflate bloat and chop down power creep.

Even Magic:The Gathering, one of the most successful games ever does things to deal with this.

Sorry man, but you are flat out wrong. It's your burden to show otherwise.

 

[MechaPilot]

Your statement is pointless.

The point of my statement is to declare what my position is to someone who inquired about what my position is. It literally cannot be pointless in that context because it has a point, to clarify exactly what the position I hold is.

Now you can certainly disagree with my position (rational people can disagree with each other about a great number of things), but that's separate from whether my statement had a point or not.

Options without play testing and support and consideration of what came before and what could come after are worse than useless in most circumstances.

Who is talking about releasing options without testing them, and without considering what has come before? Designers of content should do those things, and DMs should assess material that is brought to their table for consideration before blindly allowing it (because it really is easier to get a player to go along with "no, and here are my reasons" than it is to get them on board with "This is why you have to remake your character").

All those things, all that work, are the weight of options, and they weigh on an edition until the foundation cracks.

"So, quality control kills editions? Good to know. Hear that WotC?! No more proof-reading your books or playtesting your adventures! It's killing 5e!"

That's my gut response to that sentence. Analytically speaking, all that work is the actual work of design. It is literally the thing that WotC is supposed to be employing experts to do, and it is literally the main thing that D&D fans actually need WotC for.

Also, and I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out over and over again (it's like people don't actually read what I'm writing), I don't need WotC to create the options that I want. I need them for any setting updates because, so far as I know, they are rights-holders to the published settings that I like.

History has borne this out. It is the VERY reason Paizo went with a slow and steady release. It is WHY goodman games has vowed to release only a single core book for DCC. Both of those are very successful RPG companies with very wise and adept leadership with long histories in the business. Finally the most successful RPG company of ALL TIME is trying to avoid it as well.
Are they all fools? I don't think so. I tend to think they are on to something, and my own experience has borne this out.

But it's not only the RPG industry, the wargame industry has this problem in a very bad way, it's almost expected that wargame editions will churn to deflate bloat and chop down power creep.

Even Magic:The Gathering, one of the most successful games ever does things to deal with this.

A previous poster said that Paizo's problem was that they felt the need to shove new options in people's faces, integrating it into adventures and other materials when they didn't have to do that.

Also, I never said that I wasn't on-board with a slower release schedule. However, people are acting as if the only choices are to ride the break pedal or to red-line the engine. Previous editions were definitely exceeding the speed-limit, but you don't stomp on the break and start doing 5 mph in a 50 mph zone just because someone said the 120 mph you were doing was too fast.

Sorry man, but you are flat out wrong. It's your burden to show otherwise.

Sorry, but I'm definitely not a man.

As far as whether I'm right or wrong, I disagree with your assessment.

 

[Gundark]

D&D sold out this past Christmas at my LGS (they had lots of stock). I've NEVER seen D&D sell out a year after release. This is not a store that promotes RPGs at all either, people are playing and buying books.

WotC strategy is quite smart, you support the reasons people get together and play (adventures), you make the perceived cost of entry rather low (just need a PHB), You support places where people can come and play (AL), and you have a great product.

WotC's past strategy of releasing tons of books is not unlike TSR supporting tons of settings, both are not sustainable long term plans