D&D 5E I believe a slow and light product release can cause more harm in the long run.

[Celtavian]

I want lot's of Forgotten Realms campaign material. I don't want to have to go digging through AP's and an MMO to get the information I am looking for. We are getting this stuff piecemeal and it's looking very sloppy.

I'd like a return to high quality FR's products as well. They were some of the best during the 2E and 3E era. What they did to the Realms in 4E was a punch in the face to FR fans. I hope they correct the cruel and lame changes that occurred in the Realms. I want specialty priests and regional backgrounds and traits back. Get the Realms material back in order.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

Citation please?

Also I would like some data you have that places me in the minority.

Thanks.

It doesn't actually matter a rat's ass who is in the minority on this point or not.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

I'm not interested in the game being playable with just the core three. While my group and I like the 5th edition ruleset, we mainly play it because it's the edition that is currently supported.

Using fifth edition as your base, may I suggest that you and your playgroup create an edition "5.5"? It may be difficult but in the experience you gain from modifying an edition into a ruleset completely tailored to your groups tastes, you should gain enough know-how to modify existing D&D products or even create your own. If you do that, you'll be supporting your own edition for as long as your group and yourselves like.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Personally, the DMs I know, myself included, are the ones that determine what does and does not enter the games we run and have no issue telling players, "No" if something is inappropriate or will otherwise interfere with the game being run. As such, new material cannot destabilize our games. Therefore, I don't see the issue being with the release schedule, but , potentially, with you as a DM being unable to say, "No" and set the boundaries for the game you are running.

I'm probably among the most restrictive DM around. Ask my group.
Saying no is easy.
But saying no every dang week? It's easier said than done. You want your players to be happy, so a "just this once" is uttered by you.

And that opens the floodgates. Everyone wants this one feat, or this cool magic item. Soon the "just this once" is forgotten.
I'm a restrictive DM, not a jerk DM.

And of course there's the guy whose motto seems to be "Give an inch, take a mile."
I'm talking a guy who would pester you with e-mails and texts all the flipping time because his PC wasn't living up to his expectation and he wasn't having fun.
Well "not having fun" are some magic words to me.
Your options are to allow him to make the "minor changes" he wants, or to boot him.
This was after the "shiny newness" of 4E was wearing off, and continuous new books were being released, so getting new players was easier said than done.

(Note: Just a few months later he moved away. And I was pretty close to telling him he was out. Because he would change or redesign PCs every two to three weeks. And it wasn't always my game being run.)

If a new player's option book is released every one to three months, you're just adding fuel to this guy's insanity.
If you tell him no, he just gets more upset and antsy at the game.

It's too disruptive.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm probably among the most restrictive DM around. Ask my group.
Saying no is easy.
But saying no every dang week? It's easier said than done. You want your players to be happy, so a "just this once" is uttered by you.

And that opens the floodgates. Everyone wants this one feat, or this cool magic item. Soon the "just this once" is forgotten.
I'm a restrictive DM, not a jerk DM.

And of course there's the guy whose motto seems to be "Give an inch, take a mile."
I'm talking a guy who would pester you with e-mails and texts all the flipping time because his PC wasn't living up to his expectation and he wasn't having fun.
Well "not having fun" are some magic words to me.
Your options are to allow him to make the "minor changes" he wants, or to boot him.
This was after the "shiny newness" of 4E was wearing off, and continuous new books were being released, so getting new players was easier said than done.

(Note: Just a few months later he moved away. And I was pretty close to telling him he was out. Because he would change or redesign PCs every two to three weeks. And it wasn't always my game being run.)

If a new player's option book is released every one to three months, you're just adding fuel to this guy's insanity.
If you tell him no, he just gets more upset and antsy at the game.

It's too disruptive.

Why are you saying no every week?

Not sure about you but when I start a campaign, I lay all restrictions, if any, before the game is started.

I running X campaign and I am only allowing material froms books 1, 2, and 3.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Why are you saying no every week?

Not sure about you but when I start a campaign, I lay all restrictions, if any, before the game is started.

I running X campaign and I am only allowing material froms books 1, 2, and 3.

Everything was laid out; restrictions, special rules, DM expectations, the kind of campaign, etc.

Two weeks later, "I'm not happy with my rogue. I feel he could do more. I'd like to make change XYZ to work better."
Me: "Sorry but no. This is how I wanted the campaign to be. That was how it was set up."
Repeat every single day for three weeks. It really irritated me.
Rather than boot him (and I was close to it), I relented and allowed everyone to make some similar level of changes, so long as it wasn't drastic.

Two weeks later...
"So Complete X came out and I saw this. I'm pretty sick of my character and all his problems. He's just not fun anymore. But I was hoping I could change his class to XX from this book. What do you think?"
"No. We've had this discussion already."
"But..."

Repeat until I all but implied suck it up or leave.

But that's ok because we had two campaigns going, alternating every three weeks and this guy would do brow beat the other DM almost every week.

Literally, every time the other DM's campaign started on the three week mark, he had a new PC, usually the latest flavor.
And if you let one player change, you have to allow all.
When that starts, say goodbye to any semblance of story cohesion.

Had he not left town shortly after, he'd have been booted.
Good guy else-wise, he just had issues when it came to D&D.

 

[Shiroiken]

I can understand the slow release schedule. Sorta.
I don't get doubling down on hardback campaign adventures to the exclusion of other stuff.

It's based on the Pathfinder model, which has proven successful for them. Personally, I'm not a fan of them, but others are.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why am I seeing a lot of "I don't need this" or "I don't need that"?

Because we don't.

Tell your players "no" often enough and they look for new DM/GM.

Or simply invite the player to run a game and include whatever strikes his/her fancy. That usually shuts their trap right quick. The most options demanding players are usually (IMHO) the ones least likely to ever run a game.

I'm probably among the most restrictive DM around. Ask my group.
Saying no is easy.
But saying no every dang week? It's easier said than done. You want your players to be happy, so a "just this once" is uttered by you.

And that opens the floodgates. Everyone wants this one feat, or this cool magic item. Soon the "just this once" is forgotten.
I'm a restrictive DM, not a jerk DM.

And of course there's the guy whose motto seems to be "Give an inch, take a mile."
I'm talking a guy who would pester you with e-mails and texts all the flipping time because his PC wasn't living up to his expectation and he wasn't having fun.
Well "not having fun" are some magic words to me.
Your options are to allow him to make the "minor changes" he wants, or to boot him.
This was after the "shiny newness" of 4E was wearing off, and continuous new books were being released, so getting new players was easier said than done.

(Note: Just a few months later he moved away. And I was pretty close to telling him he was out. Because he would change or redesign PCs every two to three weeks. And it wasn't always my game being run.)

If a new player's option book is released every one to three months, you're just adding fuel to this guy's insanity.
If you tell him no, he just gets more upset and antsy at the game.

It's too disruptive.

A player that is only happy endlessly fiddling with mechanical tidbits isn't interested in the campaign or actually playing a character. These types are best left to game with only each other. You will have a happier and saner game for it. If ALL of players are like that then a new group is in order. No gaming is better than terrible gaming.

 

[Jester David]

And that is exactly what Wizards has done and what a lot of you use as your excuse as to why the schedule is the way it is.

When I say I don't want bloat, how do you know I mean down to a trickle? Then you come back with "well you said you didn't want bloat".

That's still not an answer? How many books per year would make you happy and what types?

 

[Jester David]

So basically the problem is you just can't say no and your money basically has your pockets on fire so much that the devil would be jealous of the heat.

You don't want me to have what I want because you can't control your urge to buy. Looks to me like you are a gaming company's dream.

This is not untrue. And there are people worse than me. There are people who would buy two gaming books a month.
But just because someone will buy the books doesn't mean they should release books at that rate.