D&D 5E I think WotC has it backwards (re: story arcs)

[Parmandur]

I think a really big potential is being lost by not offering compendiums of the OP adventures. I'd love nothing more than a big hardbacked binding of all the AL adventures at the end of the season, with some extra info thrown in, like some epilogue stuff about how it turns out in those town in likely scenarios, some interlinking of the adventures, etc. Heck, want to be my best friend for life, send out paperback folios of those adventures to OP locations, then sell the hardback at the end of the season, giving the DMs a little something neat.

I agree, they willpribabyly eventually.

 

[Mercurius]

I've got some 1E and Basic stuff from used bookstores; thing is, during 3E, I wanted so much that I froze and bought nothing. Overwhelming product release. Now, they are releasing at a relaxed pace, and it is easier to buy.

I love what they are doing; I want them to continue on course. If you get what you want, I'll stop buying new books because I can't keep up. They seem to think more people are like that, so their return on investment is best served with a slow steady schedule. Mearls has gone into this in detail on Twitter.

I think [MENTION=70]Nellisir[/MENTION] said it well: "You've decided that since you're full, we shouldn't eat."

But I understand what you are saying above, that too much choice has a kind of paralyzing effect. But there is a middle ground, I think, between the current minimalism and the paralyzing glut of previous editions. That is what I'm advocating (and hoping) for. I can understand being paralyzed by the 2E, 3E, and 4E output, but I don't it has to be that extreme and some reasonable choices could be made with a bit more product.

 

[Umbran]

Why are you here in this thread? Why is it so important to you that I not get what I want? All the people who want a minimal release schedule from WotC...just don't buy anything else. Is that so complicated? What do you care about the life cycle of 5e?

Wanting a minimal release schedule probably means that the individual does want some product, slowly, for a very long time, for the same game. This person has a vested interest in the life cycle of the game - if it burns out in just a few years, they don't get what they want.

 

[delericho]

They would be getting money from a product we do not know exist?

No, I don't particularly believe that either. I just said it was possible.

What I believe is that when the guys at WotC say they've had their best edition launch ever, it's because they've had their best edition launch ever. I believe that when Hasbro's CEO says it's "on a tear", it means it's doing spectacularly well - and not just in comparison to two years of near-silence.

 

[Parmandur]

I think [MENTION=70]Nellisir[/MENTION] said it well: "You've decided that since you're full, we shouldn't eat."



But I understand what you are saying above, that too much choice has a kind of paralyzing effect. But there is a middle ground, I think, between the current minimalism and the paralyzing glut of previous editions. That is what I'm advocating (and hoping) for. I can understand being paralyzed by the 2E, 3E, and 4E output, but I don't it has to be that extreme and some reasonable choices could be made with a bit more product.

Thing is, WOTC may have found the middle ground.

 

[Parmandur]

Wanting a minimal release schedule probably means that the individual does want some product, slowly, for a very long time, for the same game. This person has a vested interest in the life cycle of the game - if it burns out in just a few years, they don't get what they want.

Yes, do not want 5.5 :-o

 

[Parmandur]

For what it's worth, I'd like, say, a FR setting box set with Dalelands adventure by Ed Greenwood, maybe a Fiend Folio or something. But overall happy.

 

[Nellisir]

Wanting a minimal release schedule probably means that the individual does want some product, slowly, for a very long time, for the same game. This person has a vested interest in the life cycle of the game - if it burns out in just a few years, they don't get what they want.

That doesn't make any sense, particularly in light of the arguments used against a more accelerated product release schedule. There's no time limit on buying any particular product. In fact, later printings might even be more accurate. If they want to purchase product at a slower rate, they can do so. If Pathfinder ceased production tomorrow, I could still stretch the life cycle out for a decade or more by buying one product a month. Whether WotC releases 10 products in 1 year or 10 years, it's still 10 products. The argument that other people have to conform to your reduced rate of product release because of a personal inability to budget and make responsible buying choices is inane.

 

[Nellisir]

Points to you for an informative response.

If you get what you want, I'll stop buying new books because I can't keep up.

Two big things here. First, you haven't actually asked me what I want. Suffice to say it's significantly less than Paizo's release schedule, and I currently think it's still well within WotC's stated goals. That's one of the things I'm waiting to see.

Second, keeping up with what? Are you in a race? You can buy books any time. Seriously, it sounds like you're advocating a slower release schedule so you can impulse buy. That's...novel. (Also, I'm getting whiplash between the arguments that I should be satisfied with a slow release because I can buy old books, and a slow release because you don't want to buy old books. Different posters, I know.)

 

[Mercurius]

Wanting a minimal release schedule probably means that the individual does want some product, slowly, for a very long time, for the same game. This person has a vested interest in the life cycle of the game - if it burns out in just a few years, they don't get what they want.

This, to me, falls into the either/or fallacy. Either WotC follows a minimal release schedule and the game lasts a long time, or they bust out a glut of product and the game burns out quickly. Two things: 1) there is a wide range of possibility between. 2) Just because a lot of product has lead to quick burnout in the past doesn't mean it has to in the future.

Adding the two together and it is at least theoretically possible that WotC could produce more product than they are now, but less than in the more gluttonous past and in a way that is sustainable.

Thing is, WOTC may have found the middle ground.

Between what? No product and glut?

Let's put it this way. Let's posit a hypothetical code for amount of product a game could have:
0 = no product
1 = core rulebook, maybe one or two supplements, than done (e.g. many Indie games)
2 = minimal product (e.g. 5E)
3 = moderate product (e.g. 1E, Ars Magica, etc)
4 = heavy product (e.g. not sure, maybe GURPS?)
5 = glut (e.g. 2E to 4E, Pathfinder)

Let's say WotC has decided to followed 2, presumably because, in the past, 5 didn't work. But why not 3 or 4? And if they took the approach of even just 3, why do those who want only 2 have a problem with the idea? In what way does 3 negatively impact 2?