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

[MichaelSomething]

What's the difference between "support" and "endless splats?"

Also, does it count as "support" if it's made by a different company then the one that first made the edition/system?

 

[Lanefan]

Lots of things here...

1. I see ongoing "official" support - meaning keeping core books in print, occasionally releasing (or allowing others to release) new settings and-or adventures, and so on - as essential for every edition. WotC are slowly starting to realize this, judging by their reprinting of some core stuff from earlier editions; now they just need to put out some new material. If they can find a way to design adventures that can span over multiple editions that'd help; they seem to have started that process a bit as well with these new adventures that can work with 3e, 4e and 5e - my only complaint with how they're doing these is you have to go online to get the conversions: I want it all included on paper in the module. But if they can do adventures with built-in conversion from 1e-2e-5e I'll give 'em a long hard look.

2. To those complaining about adventures referencing non-core books, consider this - in 1e days in one respect the reverse was true as some non-core hardcovers referenced the adventures: many of the monsters in FF and MMII are lifted straight from the adventure modules where they first appeared.

3. Having converted numerous things (mostly adventures) to 1e from each of 2e, 3e, and 4e I can say without doubt that 4e is the hardest to convert.

Lan-"2 years of playtesting and the over-under on the first 5e errata update is still about 2 months after general release"-efan

 

[delericho]

It's weird. Every time I mention this subject, someone feels the need to remind everyone it's available for free online.

In my case it was because my first paragraph, the one you didn't quote, was agreeing with you that it's a problem. But, having said what I said there, I felt it was important, in the interest of fairness, to note (again) that the material is available online.

(Edit: I notice that the post I quoted was itself edited, and in the original version it did quote my first paragraph. So, in fairness, I thought I'd best note that here, too. )

 

[N'raac]

What's the difference between "support" and "endless splats?"

Also, does it count as "support" if it's made by a different company then the one that first made the edition/system?

This is a big part of the issue - not just how much support, but what kind of support. In the 1e days, it was pretty easy to restrict oneself to core rules. For any years, there were three core books. Not a hardcover every quarter with softcover splats in the months in between. Most support for the game was adventures to plug into your game, and even if they were linked to a specific setting, they generally were pretty loosely tied in, and easy to 'port.

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.

What happened?

The publishers figured out that splatbooks sell way better than adventures. And if the demand for the splats is out there, logically would it not also extend to wanting those extra options in the adventures? And if a few adventure buyers are persuaded to buy a couple of splatbooks to get the details referenced in the adventures, that's really a marketing plus, isn't it? For those that bought the splat, are they more likely to buy future ones if it sits on the shelf, or if it is referenced in our adventures?

The advent of the Internet allowed a compromise - even if we use these rules in another book, you can look them up for free. Pathfinder has certainly used that compromise* Still a time commitment, but not a cash commitment.

* My understanding is that a lot of their content could instead be closed - their xp chart is online, for example, while I think WotC called that closed content (like Beholders, Mind Flayers and Umber Hulks). Paizo, I believe, puts every Bestiary monster online as well. Still a compromise - they're not leaving it out of the AP's or other publications entirely - but that compromise is why I think many posters refer to "at least you don't have to pay for access". Does any other publisher put that much of their content online for free?

 

[Jester David]

I think you're right. Every time a new edition is announced -- even the relatively short WotC editions -- for every fan questioning "What's wrong with this edition? Wouldn't it be better if TSR/WotC committed to supporting one evergreen edition?", there's a fan saying "Thank Jeebus; the current edition is really starting to show its age! I'm tired of all the bloat!"

As each edition goes from fresh-off-the-press to 5+ years old, a growing portion of its fans become disillusioned as a result of their growing understanding of the rules. It's not something that I can personally relate to, but there is a population of fans who can be relied upon to buy a new edition because they've "Seen behind the curtain" of the current one, and are looking for the sense of wonder and magic that comes with a new edition.

Then there are the fans who will buy at least the core books of every new edition just to "support the hobby." This doesn't counter any arguments that long-term support is good for fans in general, but from WotC's perspective, it's a good argument in favor of frequent edition changes.

Then there's the fact that the more editions D&D has, the more variety it has; which I think is a wonderful thing. Whatever your favorite playstyle and ruleset is, there's a D&Der or a potential D&Der who wants something different. In fact, the only way that D&D is ever going to come close to dominating the ttrpg market isn't with One Edition to Rule Them All -- it'll be by having An Edition for Every Taste.

(Even then, there'll always be a market for other ttrpgs, but you get the idea. )

So as much as long-term support may sound like a great idea, and heck, a lot of fans might even agree, I think history has shown that it's unimportant -- and arguably undesirable.

On paper new editions sound like a good idea. People aren't guaranteed to buy accessories after a few years but people will buy the core rulebooks.

The problem with new editions is they take time to make. It generally appears to be three or so years. Three years were some or all of the salaried staff at WotC are not writing books and generating profit.
During the 3e-4e gap, WotC still released books but those were written by freelancers, who have to be paid as well. This time they released a series of reprints, which were lower cost, but likely sold far fewer copies.
So when a new edition does release it need to pay off any development costs in addition to the costs needed to pay off the book.

However, after some time, you pay off the development costs of the edition and the book. After that, for every print run of a book you're just paying for the publication. Which means more profit. So the more copies of a core book sold the better, the longer it is in print and people are buying it the more money you make.
Similarly, a revised edition like 3.5 took far less time to make. Months instead of years. So it'd be possible to release a Revised PHB with errata and minor corrections (less than 3.5e) and make even more money.

 

[Mistwell]

We're playing Numenera in one game group. As far as I know, Numenera is not what most people would call "well supported" in terms of D&D levels of support. But, it sells well, and I don't think anyone cares that it isn't particularly well supported.

Similarly, we played Ptolus, knowing not much would come out for it later. And Arcana Uneartherd/Evolved.

Heck, I own Mouse Guard, and I know it's not going to ever enjoy anything even vaguely like the support you see from a D&D edition.

But all these products cost roughly what the pricing looks like on a per-page and quality-level basis than the D&D books look like they might cost (more or less).

I guess my point is, people expect a lot more support for a D&D game than they do for other types of RPGs that they seem happy to buy.

 

[delericho]

We're playing Numenera in one game group. As far as I now, Numenera is not what most people would call "well supported" in terms of D&D levels of support. But, it sells well, and I don't think anyone cares that it isn't particularly well supported.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Numenera in the next few years. My gut feeling is that it's unlikely that it will see much (first-party) ongoing support beyond this year, if any. I'll be surprised if it is even still in-print in five years time.

(That's not a criticism of Numenera at all; I just suspect it's the nature of the business model, that it's more or less "one and done". Indeed, Kickstarter would seem to be ideal for this, where the Core Rulebook is your main goal and then the rest of the line become your stretch goals.)

I guess my point is, people expect a lot more support for a D&D game than they do for other types of RPGs that they seem happy to buy.

Agreed. I think D&D, Pathfinder, and Shadowrun are basically the last of the 'classic' model of RPG support - the core rulebook followed by the endless sequence of support books, and a new edition every few years. (Star Wars, and perhaps Warhammer 40k, are much the same, except that the time-bound nature of the licenses here potentially mean a whole new game every few years.)

For the rest, I'd expect an increased reliance on Kickstarter to fund the game, and probably the whole line at the same time. And then, barring a runaway hit, you're not going to see much support beyond those initial plans - you'll get much better returns from a Kickstarter for "the next game from Monte Cook Games" than for "the next bunch of supplements for the last game from Monte Cook Games."

And, honestly, I'm not sure that's a bad thing at all - other than D&D, there are very very few games my group plays enough to justify an outlay of hundreds of dollars on a large product line (and most of those are long out of print anyway).

 

[am181d]

* My understanding is that a lot of their content could instead be closed - their xp chart is online, for example, while I think WotC called that closed content (like Beholders, Mind Flayers and Umber Hulks). Paizo, I believe, puts every Bestiary monster online as well. Still a compromise - they're not leaving it out of the AP's or other publications entirely - but that compromise is why I think many posters refer to "at least you don't have to pay for access". Does any other publisher put that much of their content online for free?

1: You're making a false comparison. Wizards didn't declare their XP Chart or Beholders or Mind Flayers "closed content." That content was never released as part of their OGL system reference document. As the originators of the license and the SRD, they had the option to include (or exclude) whatever they wanted. But third parties that used the license were obligated to follow the rules it laid out, which means everything based on the existing rules is open content.

2: Again, Paizo didn't put all of their content up for free out of the kindess of their hearts. Other websites, including d20pfsrd.com were already doing it. They just made the calculation that it was better to get some of that traffic for themselves.

 

[delericho]

1: You're making a false comparison. Wizards didn't declare their XP Chart or Beholders or Mind Flayers "closed content." That content was never released as part of their OGL system reference document. As the originators of the license and the SRD, they had the option to include (or exclude) whatever they wanted. But third parties that used the license were obligated to follow the rules it laid out, which means everything based on the existing rules is open content.

True, but Paizo didn't need to put their XP chart up, nor stats for all the monsters. There's plenty they could have kept closed but have not.

2: Again, Paizo didn't put all of their content up for free out of the kindess of their hearts.

This is true, but not for the reason you suggest. After all, if Paizo had really been bothered by it, they could quite easily have stopped other websites from using closed content under standard copyright law. (Of course, they would then have been hit by shades-of-T$R complaints, but they could have done it.)

But the reason they decided it was better to keep the material open is that their rules material is not their core business, but is rather a vehicle to push sales of their core business: the Adventure Path product (or, more specifically, subscriptions to APs).

Which, not incidentally, was the same justification that Ryan Dancey laid out for the d20 license itself back in the day - that the most profitable bit was sales of PHBs, and d20-based support products would push sales of PHBs. (Of course, the proliferation of OGL-based core rulebooks exposed something of a weakness in that strategy...)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The problem with new editions is they take time to make. It generally appears to be three or so years. Three years were some or all of the salaried staff at WotC are not writing books and generating profit.
During the 3e-4e gap, WotC still released books but those were written by freelancers, who have to be paid as well. This time they released a series of reprints, which were lower cost, but likely sold far fewer copies.
So when a new edition does release it need to pay off any development costs in addition to the costs needed to pay off the book.

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.

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.