D&D 5E Is long-term support of the game important?

[Nagol]

I don't recall too much change when UA came out, but I recall modules with Cavaliers in them. I'm pretty sure Fiend Folio and MM 2 creatures started appearing in modules soon after those books were released. But "new rules", even just books of new monsters, were few and far between in those Glory Days.

My favourite was Field Folio monsters appearing before the Fiend Folio was published! Nycandaemons and Mezzodaemons are referenced by the City encounter random charts in the DMG and didn't appear in print for a couple of years.

 

[Incenjucar]

The support needed largely comes down to how complete and broad the original offering is.

D&D tends to be a very narrow games rules-wise, so support has historically been much more important, but if they start putting in more information on how to make your own stuff (Spells, items, feats of heroism, etc), then support becomes much less important.

 

[N'raac]

My favourite was Field Folio monsters appearing before the Fiend Folio was published! Nycandaemons and Mezzodaemons are referenced by the City encounter random charts in the DMG and didn't appear in print for a couple of years.

I think they were in one of the Drow modules. I wonder if they were intended for the MM, got cut and no one noticed they were still in the DMG.

 

[Remathilis]

I think they were in one of the Drow modules. I wonder if they were intended for the MM, got cut and no one noticed they were still in the DMG.

Not to douse your idea, but the 1e Monster Manual came out two years before the DMG...

 

[ShadoWWW]

From my point of view...
Till there is DDI, the online tool for 4E, there is still support for 4E.
Till there is DnDClassics, there is still support for old editions.

 

[Jester David]

And yet TSR/WotC keeps making new editions. And somehow I doubt they do it just to throw a few more game designers a job for three or so years.

There’s a balance.

You need release product to justify your existing staff and keep the product in the public eye (and sell more core books). If you’re just selling four books, you don’t need any staff to make new books. But eventually sales of accessories and expansions dip and your run out of new books to release. At that point, a new edition is useful for sustaining the game.
But making new editions too often results in diminishing returns as fewer people upgrade each time, and if you release too fast you’re losing players faster than you’re earning new ones. And each successive edition has to be better than the last to encourage upgrading. If an edition is not an undeniable improvement in almost every way people won’t switch.

Game makers could also make this easier on themselves with smaller new editions, ones that can be handled in a year of downtime rather than three, reducing the development cost by 2/3rds.
D&D is really an anomaly with its massive sweeping changes between the last three editions. Many other game systems release new editions that have much smaller revisions, closer to the changes between 1e and 2e or 3.0 and 3.5.

Really, this is not unique to RPGs. You can see a similar thing in a market as different as computer Operating Systems. Microsoft needs to keep releasing new versions of Windows to justify its existence, when it could just as easily just patch an existing OS indefinitely. But if they release OS too often few people want to willingly upgrade.
MS releases new OS twice as often as they should, as every other OS seems to be ignored.

But hey, like I said, the value of long-term support is debatable. I certainly wouldn't complain if WotC were to announce "We've recently realized that 5e just isn't worth it, so we've decided to continue supporting 4e for the foreseeable future." But I don't see that happening, or anything similar happening after 5ish years of 5e.

And I wouldn’t mind them deciding to go back to 3e or make a Revised 3e that was 3e with fixed math and better balance. But they’re unlikely to do that either.
Really, they didn’t decide to end 4e early for gits and shiggles. If they could have continued to release the edition and make money, they would have. You don’t decide to tank profits for 2 years and gamble your jobs and the future of the game if not absolutely necessary.


Honestly, I like their approach of “back to basics” with 5e, looking at the simplicity of earlier editions such as OD&D and BECMI. I think they’re taking the right approach with simplicity that you can layer complexity atop. I just wish they’d actually show us the modularity.

 

[amerigoV]

While one can debate what that support should be, I think there does need to be ongoing materials in some form if you want that brand to last. Note that this is separate from the idea that support is wanted/needed by/for every GM and player - its more of a brand thing and for those of us that like to spend ca$h on the hobby. Stealing a poorly used term from the markets, support creates an ecosystem. People get the core, then the supplements, then the modules, then the settings. They go out and play them with their groups, at Cons, at game stores. Then they talk about them on the messages boards, etc.

While this board is by far tilted to d20, you do see other games pop up here - Savage Worlds, Fate, etc. Those games are putting out product - either directly or through license/open content. Savage Worlds could be the greatest game ever (it is, BTW ) but if they had stopped in 2003 with only a core book print run and never came out with anything else I doubt I would be playing it now (I started in 2008). I am playing Savage Worlds today because the game was popular enough at a couple of Cons my friends went to and happened to play a couple of times.

Besides, I cannot spend money on a new shiny if my game of choice does not produce said shiny. Must have shiny.

 

[pemerton]

My favourite was Field Folio monsters appearing before the Fiend Folio was published! Nycandaemons and Mezzodaemons are referenced by the City encounter random charts in the DMG and didn't appear in print for a couple of years.

I think they were in one of the Drow modules. I wonder if they were intended for the MM, got cut and no one noticed they were still in the DMG.

Not to douse your idea, but the 1e Monster Manual came out two years before the DMG...

The DMG states that they can be found in D3.

 

[diaglo]

What do you think?

i don't care as long as someone is producing product which i can use to harvest ideas for my campaign.
i referee OD&D(1974). i have been converting material from other editions for decades.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

There’s a balance.

Yes, and I agree with much of what you say. However, there is one thing that I just can't reconcile...

If an edition is not an undeniable improvement in almost every way people won’t switch.

Er...have you not been reading the many and sundry "Will you buy 5e?" threads? Many people, for various reasons, buy new editions just because they're new. It's not something I can personally relate to as an experienced gamer, and it might not be representative of a majority of gamers, but improvement clearly isn't necessary for everyone to switch.

Heck, I bought 3e because the artwork was edgy and fresh! It wasn't until later that I appreciated how much 3e had improved on the 2e that I cut my role playing teeth on. But don't tell the OSR crowd; I'm sure they'd say that 3e was an undeniable mistake! 'Improvement,' is after all subjective.

And then there's the kids and parents of kids who buy the new edition because it's what's on the bookshelves, and because they have no reference to compare it to.

And I wouldn’t mind them deciding to go back to 3e or make a Revised 3e that was 3e with fixed math and better balance. But they’re unlikely to do that either.
Really, they didn’t decide to end 4e early for gits and shiggles. If they could have continued to release the edition and make money, they would have. You don’t decide to tank profits for 2 years and gamble your jobs and the future of the game if not absolutely necessary.

Let's not go down the 'Why 4e got canned' rabbit hole of edition warfare, 'kay? It's been gone over and over and over, and there's no definitive evidence that it didn't happen just because of corporate bureaucracy and/or some equally hair-brained reason.

Honestly, I like their approach of “back to basics” with 5e, looking at the simplicity of earlier editions such as OD&D and BECMI. I think they’re taking the right approach with simplicity that you can layer complexity atop. I just wish they’d actually show us the modularity.

Honestly, that's a big red flag for me.