D&D 5E I think the era of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons had it right. (not talking about the rules).

[hawkeyefan]

That is actually a really great point. I was going to respond to the idea that as all players gain experience they necessarily will want more mechanical options, which is clearly false. Aside from 5e, Basic is the D&D that I have the most love for, your post makes me think about the similarities.

If this thread hadn't told me that it was inevitable for an experienced player to crave more options I wouldn't think I lack the necessary level of experience for much of anything in D&D. I started with Basic decades ago and have played (and GMed) at least a bit of every system since. I have played many other systems in the mean time, and read or watched even more. So, just how much more experience is required for me to hit upon this need for more?

I think that I went through the phase where I wanted more options, and thought that more was always better. I think I've come through the other side, though. I realized sometime during the Pathfinder phase that complex doesn't mean interesting when it comes to the game mechanics, it tends to just mean slow. And when talking about game mastery, the difference in skill level it takes to play a simply constructed character compared to a complex one is usually pretty negligible.

 

[happyhermit]

I think that I went through the phase where I wanted more options, and thought that more was always better. I think I've come through the other side, though. I realized sometime during the Pathfinder phase that complex doesn't mean interesting when it comes to the game mechanics, it tends to just mean slow. And when talking about game mastery, the difference in skill level it takes to play a simply constructed character compared to a complex one is usually pretty negligible.

Hah, I actually wrote a long winded paragraph on that in my post then deleted it. Rather than writing it again, suffice it to say we did too, due to curiousity and the general culture of the game through the years. After all, why wouldn't you play the "Advanced" version of a game you loved. We had fun with AD&D too of course, over the years, but we didn't have MORE fun than with Basic. At the same time the culture of the game (driven both by the companies involved and the community) shifted more and more away from "making the game your own" into buying more options. The 5e system, it's presentation and the PHB and DMG specifically has brought back that feeling I got from Basic in terms of a type of versatility that is hard for me to describe without going on and on.

 

[pemerton]

if a specific group wants a Shaman, I see it as better for that group to create a Shaman Class than I do for them to buy a book with the Shaman and 9 other classes in it.

Their need will have been met without excess material. Because my view is that all that extra material, often viewed automatically as "official", can prove negative to some games.

On this particular point I am closer to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]: I would rather pay $50 (or whatever) for a book of options, than do the design work myself. I've got no real evidence that I'm a very good RPG designer!

And if the other 9 classes in the book are not interesting to me or the group, that's fine - we won't use them.

Of course, that's not to say that publishing that book with the Shaman and 9 other classes is the best commercial option from WotC's point of view. It might be better for them to hold back. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily better for me.

Now when it comes to, say, [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION]'s sorcerer, I think group houseruling/modification is probably good enough. I don't think there's a bright line between that sort of tweaking and designing whole new classes, but I think there is a difference.

 

[jasper]

to sum up what Corpsetaker said. ALl Advance and experience what more options, more power, more more more. (insert tim allen "more power " quote" and are will to pay for it.

.hahahhahha Yea really wanted to drop $15 of the dungeon survival guide and $15 on the wilderness survival guide within the same quarter. When some of padding could been dropped and made into one book. In fact I was so taken with the new material put by the owner that when Manual of Planes came out, my heart leaped for joy when I opened it. My heart, mind and pocket book thank me when I closed it and placed back on the shelf and walked out of the store without it.
I and a lot of players have been over the 'got to collected them all" mind thought.
I and lot of dms are over "must use all official content" mind thought.
I and lot of people are happy with 'core or door' mind thought.
HEAR ME I AM JASPER, I SPEAK FOR YOU ALL. not!

 

[jasper]

There's another aspect of this discussion that I don't get. The whole "it's not legal in AL play" thing.

....Expecting every AL DM to have encyclopedic knowledge of ten different sourcebooks is ridiculous.

ALL HAIL SAINT HUSSAR ! Hallow be his name. May his pc's dice roll nat 20. May his dm's die roll nat 1s against us.
All Hail Saint Hussar. Hallow be his name. May he never be egged on, but his car always be egged.
All Hail Saint Hussar. Who's logic is clean but his room is not.

As AL DM with only 7 sessions under my belt, and maybe 8 other sessions as PC. I agree with you. I hope the AL sticks with Players Hand Book and +1 other book. I have dropped $40 on the Volos book coming out and had a hard time doing it. But if I going to a DM job I going have be able to look up the material. But I do make enough money to budget $50 a mth for game purposes. (that include snackage at the game store and props). But I can see low income DM have a major problem with having multiple source books to review um excuse me master.

 

[Sadras]

I don't understand how DDI appeared like a "necessary tool". It was not needed to build PCs, nor to build creatures.

4e Powers resembled spells IMO. Whereas before you usually had the spell-casters referring to the PHB whenever they wanted to cast something, now you had all the players needing to refer to it. To assist players WoTC came out with Power Cards as it was evident that the full description of the power was sometimes necessary for clarity purposes at the table and it was handy to have it right there in front of you as a player.
DDI certainly made it much easier to edit/update one's character sheet and saved time having to refer to the PHB's or other books.

And my group was also able to start a 4e game using only the PHB.

As I said your experiences do not resemble most. I remember there was an online outcry when the Gnome, Half-Orc, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer did not appear in 4e's first PHB. Perhaps your players did not fancy those options. I'm currently playing at my 5e table where 4 of those options are picked.

We didn't have to purchase 2 PHBs to utilise the combination of races and classes we preferred.

Again, that is your table, I already mentioned in my previous post that your table's experience is not an indication of across the board.

I'm not sure what the threshold is for "predatory" selling of content - but if we suppose that M:tG is something that crosses the threshold, I don't see how 4e is meant to be an instance of it.

We are just going to have to disagree on this issue.

 

[Sadras]

On this particular point I am closer to @Tony Vargas: I would rather pay $50 (or whatever) for a book of options, than do the design work myself. I've got no real evidence that I'm a very good RPG designer!

Says the guy who didn't purchase the 4e PHB2?

I think WotC with 5e has got it perfectly correct with the slow release of additional content. Let the tinkerers amongst us enjoy the time "tinkering" away before releasing more information to "tinker" with. If you have people who prefer books with options, but then find no real reason to purchase them, it stands to reason that releasing splat books more frequently than what they have done now would be financially unsound.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You'd think the vast majority of them would be. Well, or the parents of would-be new players. I'd think Basic D&D -> AD&D would have been the more common path, but, either way, you didn't go back and re-buy the basic set did you? (Except for more dice, perhaps? The old ones did wear out.)

Personally, I think the majority were bought by players wanting to make sure they had copies of all the versions at the time. And as a matter of fact, I did go back and buy them. I started with Moldvay's Basic set, which then quickly progressed into a mashup of AD&D with basic (since they were interchangeable). When Mentzer came out out, I bought those too, despite being an "advanced" player, and continued to play basic only version of D&D. Sometimes I wanted the tables and charts of 1e, and sometimes I wanted the simplicity of Basic. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

It's funny how some people seem to pretend they don't know what something means when clearly they do.

Oh, I know what "advanced" means. But you didn't use it in any way that makes sense. I think you were looking for "experienced". Those are two totally different things, and the version a person plays doesn't make them any more advanced than anyone else playing a different version. This isn't like school; you're not graded on your D&D performance. Just because 1e had "Advanced" on the title doesn't mean the players were any more advanced than anyone else. Then again, I don't know. Maybe you were one of those types who went around thinking you were superior to the people who preferred to play B/X just because you had the AD&D books... After all, you did recently try to claim you won an internet argument...

 

[hawkeyefan]

On this particular point I am closer to @Tony Vargas: I would rather pay $50 (or whatever) for a book of options, than do the design work myself. I've got no real evidence that I'm a very good RPG designer!

And if the other 9 classes in the book are not interesting to me or the group, that's fine - we won't use them.

Of course, that's not to say that publishing that book with the Shaman and 9 other classes is the best commercial option from WotC's point of view. It might be better for them to hold back. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily better for me.

Now when it comes to, say, @MoonSong's sorcerer, I think group houseruling/modification is probably good enough. I don't think there's a bright line between that sort of tweaking and designing whole new classes, but I think there is a difference.

Sure, I don't disagree with [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] as far as preference. I don't blame anyone for wanting the kinds of material we've all come to expect...player options, setting books, and so on. I'm sure we'll get those kinds of options before too long, and I'll likely buy some of them. For example, I'll be getting Volo's Guide when it comes out.

I was just stating my preference given that I want to see this edition succeed and last. And I think the shift they've shown in slowing the release schedule from prior editions is the key to their early success. I want a slow release schedule, not a non-existent one.

Given that, I'd prefer if players and DMs embraced homebrew ing and third party material. I don't think it's generally as difficult as many make it out to be, or as time consuming as folks think. I'd prefer that because I'd rather see a thread where someone says "hey look at this thing I made to fit a need in my game" than I would see a thread that's more "this edition sucks because it doesn't have the Exampler Class (tm)".

Because even if WotC does produce something that many seem to want...let's say they put out a Warlord class...first, it's not going to satisfy everyone, and second it's not going to stop people from then complaining about not having a Psion or what have you.

5E seems eminently customizable, so I'd prefer players creating their own solutions to the problem, or finding those solutions from other players, rather than expect WotC to provide everything.

 

[pemerton]

Says the guy who didn't purchase the 4e PHB2?

I don't understand - I own the 4e PHB2.