Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6929948" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sure, and that's fair enough.  But, then again, as I understand it, you only play one character per season of AL right?  You don't mix and match a bunch of characters over the course of a season.  Well, I suppose you could, but, wouldn't you be at a significant disadvantage since your new character couldn't take the items that your last character was carting around?  Granted, I don't play AL, so, if I'm way off base here, I have zero problem being corrected.If that's true, isn't there like 2 AL seasons per year?  One per AP?  So, we've had 4 (6?) 5e Adventurer's League seasons so far.  How many of the existing options has an AL player actually played?  Particularly if we're talking about a lapsed player who is just picking up 5e.  Two, maybe three characters?  It's not like 5e characters have no options as it stands.  They do have quite a few.  I suppose there might be a group of lapsed, experienced players (at least experienced in other editions) who would like more options than what's on the table right now, but, again, what percentage are we talking about?  That seems a pretty specific group to cater to.  And, again, we don't want to make it harder to DM AL games either.  We WANT more DM's don't we?  Think about it this way.  How much experience playing either 3e or 4e or Pathfinder would you expect an organized play DM to have before they sit behind the screen?  4e had what?  40 supplements?  There's no way you'd have DM's who would actually know what you are bringing to the table.  Same with 3e or Pathfinder.  And, as the number of supplements grows, the barrier to running AL games grows higher as well.   I've never played Pathfinder, but, I have played lots of 3e.  I wouldn't dream of stepping up to run at a Pathfinder Society game.  That many splats?  Not a chance.  Heck, even a 3e organized play game would be pretty darn intimidating.  4e?  Again, not a chance.  There's just far, far too much to track.So, it comes down to tradeoffs.  Do we cater to long term players and give them more and more options at the cost of making it harder and harder to run AL games?  Where's the tipping point?  Say every supplement increases complexity by 5%.  This is a totally imaginary number that I'm just making up.  That means after 20 supplements, you've doubled the complexity of the game.  Doubling complexity seems like it would make it vastly more difficult to get people to run the game, considering it's not easy to get DM's right now.So, if you produce 5 supplements per year, you've pretty much written off getting new AL DM's in 4 years.  That doesn't seem like a viable business strategy.  Instead, why not give people time to actually digest what you've produced.  We've had a couple of smaller supplements - SCAG and a few web supplements - and apparently we're getting a fairly major release next year.  Now, why not sit on that for a year, maybe even two?  Let all the fallout shake out of the system first, THEN make a new release.1e managed to get by just fine with a new options release several years after initial release with Unearthed Arcana.  Basic/Expert managed to truck along very healthily for years on small updates.  2e started the splat churn with a ridiculous release schedule.  3e-4e continued that trend.  Why not step back?  It's apparently working fantastic with sales being extremely strong with what they are doing.  I just don't get the issue here.  What WotC is doing is WORKING.  By all accounts 5e is a phenomenal success.  Outstanding success.  When the hobby DOUBLES in size (more than doubles actually) after the release of 5e, why on earth would you possibly change the formula?</blockquote>

Verification