D&D 5E (2014) Is 5E "big enough" for a Basic/Advanced split?

[darjr]

Yea! The Lulu page!

 

[billd91]

A bit of a wild round table, but IIRC Mearls went into the history of how they planned to try "Basic/Advanced" for 5E before discovering it was a terrible idea after agreeing with Matt Coleville that B/X could have been an Evergreen forever product if TSR didn't drop the ball:

Any chance of you picking out a time mark where that discussion occurs? I really don't want to have to dredge through a couple hours of roundtable discussion.

 

[Yora]

D&D was successful in spite of the Basic/Advanced silliness, not because of it.

Isn't the Beginner's Box for 5th edition considered to be a huge success?

 

[Parmandur]

Isn't the Beginner's Box for 5th edition considered to be a huge success?

Tremendously, but that's not a seperate game line like BD&D.

 

[Yora]

From what I recall, the BECMI product line was mostly adventure modules, plus the Mystara setting.
WotC isn't in the business of either type of product, so there's really not much room for any products beyond a compact package of the basic game rules.

Also, even with all the complaints about the DMG's organization, the 5th edition rulebooks are not nearly as esoteric and confusing as those of 1st edition. There is not really that much need for an alternative rules set that is less taxing on prospective players' sanity.

 

[Reynard]

From what I recall, the BECMI product line was mostly adventure modules, plus the Mystara setting.

I'm not sure i understand this line of argument. The AD&D line was mostly adventures and a couple setting boxed sets.

 

[Yora]

Yes, but that was a whole lot of content, that was still a big constant output for both product lines. 5th edition has much less content to begin with, and splitting it would reduce it even further for each line.

Also, AD&D did have its fair share of splatbooks, though I think they never were anywhere near as popular as in 3rd edition.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure i understand this line of argument. The AD&D line was mostly adventures and a couple setting boxed sets.

Market confusion.

 

[Reynard]

I think if they were to try such a split, the best bet would be to do it along setting lines. Dungeons and Dragons: Eberron* Adventures (just as an example), for example, could be its own (self contained) rule book running a streamlined version of the rules focused on the core principles of that setting while being compatible with the main line. Note that I am NOT saying they would or should, just that if they did settings might be a way to avoid the market confusion aspect.

In the end, i think the folks that suggest even 5E isn't big enough to support 2 true game lines are probably right. There just probably isn't a benefit to doing so and a number of downsides. I am curious, however, if we will see any actual; new RPGs during the WotC era (a new Gamma World or whatever). I believe there was some rumor that they were working on a tabletop version of whatever sci-fi video game they are developing, but that could have been a fever dream.

 

[darjr]

Huh, I just discovered this.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com