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

[Mistwell]

Well I guess it depends. Forex if a module said that an NPC was a tenth level Favored Soul and gave no stats other than that then that's not really optional.

Thing is, Core 3 is a 3e thing. Previous editions certainly didn't make that distinction.

I agree that "core 3 is a 3e thing". It always bugs me when people claim 4e trying to make more things core was somehow a scam. EVERY edition did this EXCEPT 3e. Only 3e made that distinction (and it was for licensing reasons), but somehow 4e going back to the way it was done prior to 3e was viewed as some sort of scam on people...even though even Pathfinder is no longer following that 3e conceit by publishing adventure paths that reference more than the core books.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree that "core 3 is a 3e thing". It always bugs me when people claim 4e trying to make more things core was somehow a scam. EVERY edition did this EXCEPT 3e. Only 3e made that distinction (and it was for licensing reasons), but somehow 4e going back to the way it was done prior to 3e was viewed as some sort of scam on people...even though even Pathfinder is no longer following that 3e conceit by publishing adventure paths that reference more than the core books.

To be fair, it was a reaction to late 2e products like Faiths & Avatars which often referenced many other books (the Spell Compendiums most commonly) and made the material interdependent on multiple other books. At least 3e got in the habit of reprinting parts and later using online tools.

 

[Argyle King]

Is that the standard for "not optional"? Because the recent Pathfinder modules all reference directly quite a number of supplements (as in up to a dozen in one adventure path). Is all that material now considered "not optional"?

Well, why not? Can you run those modules without the supplements? I'd say that if you cannot run the module without them, then they are no longer optional.

Isn't that a pretty standard definition of "not optional"? If something is required, then it isn't really an option is it?

I agree with Hussar here. If I'm required to have an "optional" product then it is by definition not optional.

That being said, when it comes to something like an adventure path, the definition gets a little trickier because an adventure path is itself something which is optional. With that in mind, I do not believe that something which is already optional requiring something else which is also optional makes either of those items 'not optional' for the purpose of the baseline game. Still, if it becomes a regular occurrence for a specific book to be referenced, I think that particular book (whatever it may be) does start to become something of a requirement.

I'd dare say that if one adventure path references a dozen "optional" books that I'd have some question about the quality of design of the adventure path. I don't mind an adventure path referencing things; adventures for a game should use material created for the game, but I do think there is a limit to what is an acceptable amount of referencing. At the very least, the AP should include a line which says something like "if you do not have supplement X, you can instead substitute monster Y from the core monster manual." Sure, an experienced GM will likely know that anyway or choose to just make something up, but not everyone has the experience or the confidence to do that.

 

[fjw70]

IMO you shouldn't need any monster books to run official adventures or adventure paths. Those books should have all needed stats. Monster books are for doing your own thing.

i would consider the AD&D Battlesystem to be an optional part of that system but quote a few adventures used it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

*sigh*

Based on history ... no, it's not that important.

 

[N'raac]

IMO you shouldn't need any monster books to run official adventures or adventure paths. Those books should have all needed stats. Monster books are for doing your own thing.

i would consider the AD&D Battlesystem to be an optional part of that system but quote a few adventures used it.

This is, to me, a no win situation for game publishers. Gamers want the game to be supported with new releases, so there will be material outside the "core rules". If they use it in other releases, then they're "forcing me to buy this optional material". If they don't, then they "don't consider how these rules interact". If they don't put the information in other books where it's relevant than "what a rip-off - these books should have all needed stats", but if they reprint the material in those books, then "what a rip-off - they're making me pay again for something I already bought".

So, what can they do that is fair to those who bought the other material AND those who did not? Mark supplements "will never be used or referred to in any other product"? Mark supplements "requires these books for full use"? Or just switch over to a new edition every few years so we don't build up as much supplemental material to fight over in the first place?

 

[fjw70]

This is, to me, a no win situation for game publishers. Gamers want the game to be supported with new releases, so there will be material outside the "core rules". If they use it in other releases, then they're "forcing me to buy this optional material". If they don't, then they "don't consider how these rules interact". If they don't put the information in other books where it's relevant than "what a rip-off - these books should have all needed stats", but if they reprint the material in those books, then "what a rip-off - they're making me pay again for something I already bought".

So, what can they do that is fair to those who bought the other material AND those who did not? Mark supplements "will never be used or referred to in any other product"? Mark supplements "requires these books for full use"? Or just switch over to a new edition every few years so we don't build up as much supplemental material to fight over in the first place?

I don't think it is that big of a deal. AD&D would label modules that used the Battlesystem so you could avoid them if you wanted. WotC could do the same thing with optional modules for 5e. Those that complained would be in a very small minority IMO.


Having monster stats in the adventure is just practical to me. I don't mind buying the monsters books but it is just easier to run the module if the stats are right in front of you.

 

[Jester David]

I agree that "core 3 is a 3e thing". It always bugs me when people claim 4e trying to make more things core was somehow a scam. EVERY edition did this EXCEPT 3e. Only 3e made that distinction (and it was for licensing reasons), but somehow 4e going back to the way it was done prior to 3e was viewed as some sort of scam on people...even though even Pathfinder is no longer following that 3e conceit by publishing adventure paths that reference more than the core books.

Actually, early on TSR always assumed people only have the Core 3 books.
This was actually one of the reasons for 2nd Edition. They liked some of the new rules they came up with for Oriental Adventures and other books but could not expand on them because the books were not assumed. But by making a new version of the game they could slip proficiencies into the game.
2nd Edition assumed a few more books. Legends & Lore and Tome of Magic were occasionally assumed. But other than that, the game assumed little. 2e also had fewer big setting neutral hardcovers.

The "everything is core" idea had some benefits, but also had some problems. Assuming campaign settings and side accessories were core was questionable. And treating the magazines as an equally valid source was iffy, especially since the content was not getting the same development passes (they claimed that they were going to increase the time that went into developing Dragon content on two separate occasions). It was great that new classes and options did get support in later books

Personally, I like Pathfinder's approach. The big hardcover books are assumed, but everything else is not. And even then Ultimate Campaign and Mythic Adventures are pretty close to optional. But when publishing APs or Pathfinder Society adventures they tend to assume the big published hardcovers are available to reference. And even then, not every monster is assumed to be part of the world (especially the new humanoid races).

 

[tomBitonti]

Here's the thing: How hard is it nowadays to provide ongoing print and online reference support for game editions? I'd expect a gaming company to have this going on already as an internal mission.

Having 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E still in print and with decent collations of rules, seems easily possible. Heck, given some latitude, I bet WotC could get players to do the collations for free.

Then, I'm thinking the focus on edition is rather misplaced. The heart of the game is consistently delivering quality content and getting people to play it. That doesn't require a single edition.

Certainly, demanding that folks move to a new edition solely on the basis of owning the copyright, doesn't work.

I would think, maintaining multiple editions would be a big draw: The gaming community is a lot of smaller communities. Providing a place and resources to bring those players together would be a big win.

Thx!

TomB

 

[pemerton]

Conversion from AD&D to 3e was completely doable. It involved much more work than 1e to 2e, but things primarily worked the same enough to allow it. A 5th level wizard looked remarkably similar in 3e as he did in 2e, controlling for feats and magic items. They had access to the same spells, fireball worked pretty much the same, etc. That is not do-able with 4e due to the nature of the powers structure and the development over 30 levels.

I don't think converting a 5th level wizard to 4e is particularly hard at all: stat up a 5th level artillery creature, label its at-will power "Magical bolt" and label its encounter powers "Fireball" and/or "Lightning bolt" as appropriate. (And add in one utility effect if desired: eg as a minor action give it Blindsight until E its NT 1x/enc", to replicate Detect Invis and/or ESP.)