Even if I agree with you that new DMs don't need to be hand-held and are more creative than are sometimes given credit for, not to mention something I don't think you mentioned, which is that a lot of the reason people play D&D instead of computer games is the creative aspect. So I'll give you all that.
Computer games were on my mind when I posted. Not just because kids will want to tell their own stories or own takes on a video game. But, as Minecraft has shown, kids today are nothing if not creative and inventive.
Because everyone here tends to be so experienced and knows so much it's easy to think of the game as this big daunting beast. Which it can be. But it's not necessarily so, as you can play while muddling through the rules or only half-knowing the game. In the likely event of a brand new person learning the game there won't be much rules lawyering going on as everyone is learning together. It will be one person who kinda sorta knows the rules and a bunch of people looking to them as the expert.
Very often new players will be introduced by someone who already knows: a family member or older relative. Which helps the initial learning curve.
I think we should be wary of things that make the game
harder for new players to get into, but I'm less concerned about going out of the way to make things
easier for new players. If that makes sense.
But what about those folks, such as myself, who don't have as much time as we did back in the day, that want easily insertible one-shot adventures and pieces to work with, to fit together? I love the creative element of creating a world, putting together a campaign, but struggle with the time to create site locations and adventures.
The difference between a number of small adventures and single big adventures is largely one of presentation. Princes of the Apocalypse is just as simple to pull apart as four 64-page products (but a fraction of the price). I'm super critical of PotA (as can be seen in my review) but one of its strengths is the ability to effortlessly break it into its component dungeons. I'd seriously recommend it as a source of easy inspiration and dungeon maps.
Plus, there's like a bajillion adventures already available for prior editions. Many of which (the 1e and 2e ones) are pretty convertible on the fly, and you can sometimes use low-level 3e ones pretty much as written (the numbers are close enough). And if you're just looking for a site or settlement, no conversion is needed.
Why should WotC work at making dozens of small adventures that are unlikely to sell well when there's already an adventure just right for any situation on D&D Classics? Especially since they still make money for D&D Classics. Each sale of that likely generates as much profit as a new adventure with a fraction of the production costs (since they only need to scan it and not write it). And there are so many gems of adventures - either modules or in old issues of Dungeon - that have been forgotten or seldom played.
And, of course, there's Goodman Games, which has their adventures. I think [MENTION=51747]dmccoy1693[/MENTION] has some adventures in the works. Plus En5sider. It's not like WotC has a monopoly on creativity and their seal of approval magically makes an adventure better.
Looking beyond adventures, I have never run a game in a published setting because I love world building. But I love buying setting books and find them of value to the game as a whole for new reasons beyond the actual use of them in a game. One, they are great resources for ideas and reading enjoyment for folks such as myself. Two, and this is the important one, a living setting brings the game alive in a way that, in my mind, was really lacking from 4E but we can see in Pathfinder, and both 2E and 3E.
If they did it in 2e and 3e but didn't do it in 4e there's very likely a reason. WotC is a business not a charity
Again, WotC likely wants to do a Realms book. But they need more than three months to write it.
If you're just looking for ideas then there are dozens of setting products available on PDFs (or physical copies on eBay), many selling for dirt cheap prices. The ideas and inspiration within are just as valid.
Or go with 3rd Party campaign settings. I have a fondness for Fantasy Flight Games Midnight setting for 3e. Check that out. But there's lots of others. Green Ronin just released an update of their Freeport book that looks fantastic. Ptolus is available as print-on-demand. And there are others in the works by 3PP that aren't out yet because it takes a long time to write a campaign setting.
See, this is where I think WotC just doesn't "get it," and Paizo has gotten it. Not every product needs to meet a certain profit margin. Sometimes you need loss leaders to support the overall brand. A setting is a perfect example. Another good example is a print magazine. Sure, magazines are an old technology and I realize that the chances that we'll ever see an actual print version of Dragon are virtually zero, but in my mind when Dragon stopped being printed there was a hole in the D&D community that was never really filled. I do think the app is a nice move, although we'll see how things go with that.
Paizo is still a business. They don't make products just to make products, and need to prove to themselves that a product will sell before they make it. It took years for them to decide to do the Iron Gods adventure path specifically because they were worried about sales.
For example, their old Flip-Mats have been out of print for years. But many were iconic locations like ships, forests, inns, and the like. There was a continual demand for these to be reprinted (since before there was even a Pathfinder RPG) but Paizo was always reluctant because they needed to sell a minimum amount of copies. Only now, when the brand is HUGE and they have a much larger audience are they risking reprinting these maps. But it took 6-7 years.
Even then, Paizo is a unique case. They're technically a smaller company, so they can manage with lesser profits from products. And they can funnel the profits right back into the business, not having to answer to shareholders. The owner of Paizo is also independently wealthy: Lisa Stevens got paid well for the sale of WotC to Hasbro and started Paizo because she got bored with an early retirement. It's effectively a hobby or even vanity business - albeit one run by someone with a business degree and experience who knows what they're doing. It's great for us fans, but it's not really something other companies can emulate as easily.
As for the magazines, well, there's Gygax Magazine and En5sider.
So all that said, here's a question for you: Why are you so dead-set on defending WotC's current minimalist approach? What harm is there in an increased output of product? Please don't say "edition treadmill" and "glut," as I'm not advocating for the excesses of the past. I'm talking about a fuller schedule of products, one that is diversified and serves more than only those two extremes of the spectrum that want to either play the story arcs, one after the other, or do everything themselves. Imagine a half a dozen other products a year, two or three modules, a splat or two, and a setting book or two? What harm is there in that?
I've answered this multiple times in the past dozen threads on the topic. All arguments on this topic have been made and further discussion is needless. I don't feel the need to stay on "I want more books!!" merry-go-round, and only posted to this thread because I thought it was a slightly different discussion that warranted a response.
