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

[delericho]

You mean like:
http://www.wolflair.com/welcome/hero-lab-dd-5th-edition-srd/
with:
http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=55090

It's close, but not quite. The need for a "Community Pack" to fill in the bits missing from the SRD is the bit that means it's not a "licensed tool".

(Having said that, the combination of those two is closer to what I wanted than anything else I've seen, and I wouldn't bet on an actual licensed tool being any better. Which means at this point it's a philosophical rather than practical issue - IMO, WotC should be issuing a formal license, but the lack of one doesn't actually prevent people using a tool to generate characters.)

 

[Corpsetaker]

4th edition went way overboard with it's content but it did what was claimed when 5th edition was coming out. It gave us lots more outside of the game itself. Being out there in the mainstream really means nothing when you are a player and DM and you just want the right content for you to buy. There is currently no evidence what so ever that supports WoTc's current D&D release strategy with regards to the game's popularity and presence in the media. All of this was building up before 5th edition was ever announced.

 

[Jester David]

It's close, but not quite. The need for a "Community Pack" to fill in the bits missing from the SRD is the bit that means it's not a "licensed tool".

(Having said that, the combination of those two is closer to what I wanted than anything else I've seen, and I wouldn't bet on an actual licensed tool being any better. Which means at this point it's a philosophical rather than practical issue - IMO, WotC should be issuing a formal license, but the lack of one doesn't actually prevent people using a tool to generate characters.)

The difference is that if Lone Wolf did get the license, you'd be asked to pay an additional $50 for the PHB on top of the $30 for the software, and an additional $50 for the MM, just like for Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. That's the price WotC wants people to collect for their books.

 

[PMárk]

Since I'm currently reading SKT, i want to add to my former posts that it's far the best as setting content goes. It's really meaty about the North, and I'm applauding that. However, it needs a very sandbox-y adventure to do that, so I'm not expecting every adventure in the future will be like this. Still a large chunk of otherwise rich locations got very little detail, because they aren't playing any role in the adventure and that's another drawback of giving setting details in an adventure instead of a different format.

I think the best approach is what Paizo does with their APs and campaign setting books. APs got relevant sites, faiths, organizations, NPCs and other content very detailed (and separated from the adventure), while a 64 page companion fills out the rest of that area or giving more details to locations.
I think WotC should do something similar. Frankly, i think it is better than a classic CG, because it gives more information and tied to the current AP. Frankly, while the Inner sea Guide is a beautiful book, I found it a lot less usable than the gazetteers. So, WotC could do the big adventure books that look good on the shelves, while giving us the 64 page booklets in pdf on DMsG. Seriously, if you have that platform, use it!


Also, SKT is far the best illustration-wise. I feel 5e really came to it's own in this book, it's just beautiful. I never had much problem with 5e's art (aside from laughable weapons, when showing them individually in the PHB and DMG. Oh, and halflings... and gnomes, or really the absence of them.), generally it's quite good, but in the other adventures nearly all the illustrations are either maps, or galleries of static pictures about NPCs standing, or their busts/heads all without any context, or background, then wall of text. It's just boring,* and somewhat a shame, because otherwise I like the NPC/monster depictions, especially in CoS, it would have been good to see them in any kind of situation, or interaction. SKT however is really superb. It's just a joy to skim through the book, well done!

*Admittedly, PF in general isn't better, but I think their books still have more half-page illustrations at least and I generally like their visual style very much. I'd really like to believe big RPG companies will some day give up the busts/posing heroes art direction. SKT seems to be a good step toward that.

 

[flametitan]

Honestly, I'd rather they went the opposite direction as far as settings go. De-empahsize the setting, and instead go back to the idea of the implicit setting. That is, it makes reference to names and locations in the Forgotten Realms, and maybe the odd event, but it's not so heavily inundated with Realms lore that it can't be placed elsewhere. Sort of like what LMoP did (And Princes of the Apocalypse attempted to do).

 

[Valetudo]

Personally, I love that 5E isn't surrounded by a swarm of proprietary hangers-on. That junk puts me off. I don't want official magazines, character builders, or D&D-brand luggage. A company that slaps its seal on anything and everything is not a company I'm obliged to support.

What REALLY impressed me about 5E was that I could get the Basic Rules for free. That's when I knew that Wizards had finally entered the 21st century. It's also what enticed me to dip my toes in the water and give 5E a chance. The more I discovered, the more I liked. A sensible release schedule, high-quality art, high production values... The list goes on and on.

If Wizards had stuck with their 4E business practices, I would not be a D&D player today.

Wait, you do realize that they are trying to do exactly what you claim they are not doing right? Wizards is pushing DnD the brand, not the table top game. If they thought they coeld make money off luggage im sure they would sell it as the bag of holding suitcase. They have just minimized the design team so they are not forced to keep pushing products out at a rapid pace.

 

[delericho]

The difference is that if Lone Wolf did get the license, you'd be asked to pay an additional $50 for the PHB on top of the $30 for the software, and an additional $50 for the MM, just like for Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. That's the price WotC wants people to collect for their books.

Perhaps. But as I said, it's a principle thing - in 2016, D&D really should have an officially licensed character builder. (Or, more correctly, they should have an officially licensed suite of tools - character builder, monster builder, encounter builder, VTT, all in one convenient package. In which case, $50 to use the PHB with the package is a reasonable thing to ask; where $50 for each tool individually really is not.)

 

[Blue]

5e is refusing to release what I feel are essential books like FRCG. They at minium should release a campaign setting guide per year.
...
I honestly believe the market is big enough to sustain a moderate increase in books, especially setting books like FRCG, which people made clear that they wanted.
...
Then a tiny trinkle of releases, a some of which were questionable, the refusal to release a FRCG, and the last straw ending the novel line.
...
Its been a huge let down, my PHB is collecting dust as I await a 5e FRCG.
...
I have no interest in the adventures until I get a FRCG.
...
And with the novels line ended and with no FRCG in site, I see no purpose in doing further business with WotC after Volo's Guide to Monsters.

Please no FRCG. I've bought books and boxed sets for FR in AD&D 2ed. I've eight hardcover FR books for 3ed sitting on my shelf. I have 4e FR. I've got resources online like Candlekeep. PLEASE don't send time retreading the same thing over and over and over again.

There is an opportunity cost to put resources into a project, and that will take away from something new, or at least something that hasn't been touched in a while. The DMG teases with a lot of D&D, so of which we haven't heard anything new about for a decade. The D&D setting search that ended up being Eberron generated a huge amount of interest, doing something like that with the resources would be amazing.

Don't bump something new to revisit FR yet again. I'm burnt out buying those books for decades, WotC won't make money from me on it. And I have more then enough FR material from them for anything I would ever want to run in that setting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps. But as I said, it's a principle thing - in 2016, D&D really should have an officially licensed character builder. (Or, more correctly, they should have an officially licensed suite of tools - character builder, monster builder, encounter builder, VTT, all in one convenient package. In which case, $50 to use the PHB with the package is a reasonable thing to ask; where $50 for each tool individually really is not.)

See, this is kind of what I don't get. Why the need for official licensing?

As a user of HeroLab, I can say that it works quite well, and the limit to the SRD material has been addressed through the community packs. I was all in for $40, for the program, and then for the 5E access. HeroLab is a character builder, monster builder, and encounter tracker all in one. It doesn't do encounter building in the sense of CR and experience point budgets and the like, but it allows you to load all the monsters you want into one encounter, then add your party, and boom your encounter is ready to go. You can roll initiative and then proceed in order, entering hits and such as you go, and it will track everything you want for you.

I can also get Roll 20 for free if I need a VTT, which is free. Or if I really wanted to splurge, I could go without Fantasy Grounds, and buy the adventures that I wanted to run.

These tools already exist, so to me it's smarter for WotC to let the third parties create them and to support them rather than to try and compete with them. These are quality programs...trying to make an in house version that would compare would be a huge investment of time and resources. And judging by the fact that they never got it quite right the last time they tried, it seems smarter to avoid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

See, this is kind of what I don't get. Why the need for official licensing?

As a user of HeroLab, I can say that it works quite well, and the limit to the SRD material has been addressed through the community packs. I was all in for $40, for the program, and then for the 5E access. HeroLab is a character builder, monster builder, and encounter tracker all in one. It doesn't do encounter building in the sense of CR and experience point budgets and the like, but it allows you to load all the monsters you want into one encounter, then add your party, and boom your encounter is ready to go. You can roll initiative and then proceed in order, entering hits and such as you go, and it will track everything you want for you.

I can also get Roll 20 for free if I need a VTT, which is free. Or if I really wanted to splurge, I could go without Fantasy Grounds, and buy the adventures that I wanted to run.

These tools already exist, so to me it's smarter for WotC to let the third parties create them and to support them rather than to try and compete with them. These are quality programs...trying to make an in house version that would compare would be a huge investment of time and resources. And judging by the fact that they never got it quite right the last time they tried, it seems smarter to avoid.

I'd much, much rather subscribe to a complete suite of tools/services, with advance UA material and such. I don't care who makes it. They could easily just pay herolab and roll20, and tell them to fill out the rest of the suite of tools. The 4e tools worked really well, and would have been excellent had the original company stayed existent long enough to finish them. Even unfinished, they were great, especially in that you could plug characters and monsters from the other tools into the vtt, which IMO was easier to learn to use than the ones you mention.
Combined with even a tenth of the crunch content of the online magazines, and it would be worth it both for the user and for wotc. DDi is probably what kept DnD afloat during 4e. As I posted earlier, bare minimum revenue at the end of 4e's "life" was about 8 mil a year. Almost certainly higher than that, as it is extremely unlikely that even most subs were paying yearly, which means most were paying more per year than that figure assumes.

As it is, I'm not dropping that cash on a product I have to futz around with community packs, or do the work myself. The money would only be worth it if it is actually making things easier and more convenient, and multiple tools are working together as a whole system (suite).