D&D 5E Mearl's Book Design Philosophy

[Maxperson]

Nope. That's my whole point...we're not talking about just you.

Right. The popularity of splat books in 3e and 4e shows that there are a tremendous number of us who want such options. WotC is foolish to ignore us with the absence of general content. We aren't asking for a glut of releases, but more than one in two years would be awesome. 1-2 a year would be great.

 

[Maxperson]

Because The actual options are all super easy to use in any setting?

Nope. I'm not going to waste money on a bunch of stuff I will never use in order to get a few things that I will. I end up paying 3x more for the content than you do, because of all the pages of setting specific stuff that is not transferable.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I regret doing this thread now…


I thought the quote was interesting from a book planning perspective, in that they don't sound like they want to do the "standard" books, the Deities & Demigods or Manual of the Planes. The books most of us were expecting at one time or another. Which is an interesting move… It makes their future books more unpredictable, but also more open to experimentation.
And it's something Paizo also did, eschewing doing the psionic book and the planar book.


But, of course, the thread immediately became another "WotC needs to release two-six splatbooks a year!" thread.


Sigh...




Really, even a single dedicated splatbook might almost be too much.


Subclasses be small. You can fit three and a picture into a two page spread. With 11 classes, you could give each class 8 pages for 12 new subclasses each, doubling even the number available to the cleric and wizard (and 6x as many for the bard and druid). And that's still *only* 88 pages! What do you fill the remaining 72 pages of a 160-page book with? Another 100 subclasses? 12 new classes? 150 new spells?
And then what? With (only) a dozen new subclasses they'd have published enough class for years and years of campaigns. What do they release next? You won't need more subclasses ever. The edition's done at that point...


Even making those 88-pages of 132 subclasses would be tricky. A quarter will be excellent hybrids of lore and unique/distinct mechanics, a quarter will likely have solid lore but weak/generic mechanics, a quarter will have strong mechanics but a flimsy story, and a quarter will just be there to hit the page count.
And there's no way you can remotely playtest 132 subclasses, so that goes out the window.


How is this remotely a good idea?

It isn't. It also isn't the only way to do a general release splatbook with new player options.

For one thing, they just started playtesting new feats a while back.

For another, race and class feature variants can take up to half a page, easily, if they include story elements.

Subclasses can can easily take up a full page, especially if each one has its own art. Same deal with sub races.

And then, we get to discussion of different ways to use those options, DM material, new items, and optional rules modules like Organization rules, etc.

There is no reason a splat needs to have even a dozen new subclasses. Nor would a few dozen obviate the usefulness of more later. The edition isn't "done" just because a given person won't use everything published for it. I'll never use anything for the wizard, cleric, and probably fighter or sorcerer. I won't use much of what's out there for the Druid.

Most folks i know only use half the classes, at most, over a half dozen years of playing an edition, and don't use options for classes they like unless they like those options. Thus, new material is quite nice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. The popularity of splat books in 3e and 4e shows that there are a tremendous number of us who want such options. WotC is foolish to ignore us with the absence of general content. We aren't asking for a glut of releases, but more than one in two years would be awesome. 1-2 a year would be great.

Yes. I'd even cite 2nd Edition as having a ton of splat books that appealed to lots of folks. So it's even more than just 3E and 4E. You may be right that they are foolish to ignore your request for more material. That is possible.

And yet so far they have. Why?

My take on it, which is admittedly speculation, is that they've decided that growing the core audience is more important compared to appeasing established fans. Yes, it may cost them some long time players. But they have to balance that against obtaining new players. And the best way to do that is to keep the game as accessible a second possible.

Now, I don't think it's an either/or type of situation. More like a slider scale, which may lean more toward one direction than another at any given point. Right now, it makes the most sense to focus on the fundamentals...to build a solid foundation, so to speak. I think that given time, we will see some new content, of both the fluff and crunch varieties.

So...you may be right. WotC may be foolish to ignore the demand for more crunch, or for more settings. But, it may also be that they'd be foolish to listen to you. That doing that would shift gears back to focusing on the long time audience, and then sales of future products would dwindle down to the old numbers, and they'd be sitting there thinking "wait...how did we make this same mistake again?"

It's hard to know what is the "right" answer. I tend to think that the folks over there at WotC have more info and more drive to succeed, and that's what they're trying to do. And right now it seems to be working.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's simply not the case, though. Support for me is non-existent at this point. It's not as if it exists and I am not making use of it.

It's not the case that what others want out of the game is important and relevant, too? I think WotC would probably disagree with that. Their target market isn't one person.

 

[Jester David]

It isn't. It also isn't the only way to do a general release splatbook with new player options.

I think there are ideas and formats. I just don't think "the big book of splat" is a desirable theme or format.

For one thing, they just started playtesting new feats a while back.

There's maybe four pages of feats in UA. I have no doubt they're testing some feats, but it need not be a long section.
There is only 6 pages of feats in the PHB. We don't need to double feat options.

For another, race and class feature variants can take up to half a page, easily, if they include story elements.


Subclasses can can easily take up a full page, especially if each one has its own art. Same deal with sub races.

I can't think of many sub races that would take up a full page. In many cases, the entire mechanics of a race - both race and subclass - fit on a single page. Half a page and art could be doable, but art is expensive. Possibly the most expensive part of the game. Art every page would be almost cost restrictive.


All the subclasses in the PHB fit into 30-odd pages. You could double the number of subclasses in the PHB with a similar number of pages, let alone 40 or 50.

And then, we get to discussion of different ways to use those options, DM material, new items, and optional rules modules like Organization rules, etc.


There is no reason a splat needs to have even a dozen new subclasses. Nor would a few dozen obviate the usefulness of more later. The edition isn't "done" just because a given person won't use everything published for it. I'll never use anything for the wizard, cleric, and probably fighter or sorcerer. I won't use much of what's out there for the Druid.


Most folks i know only use half the classes, at most, over a half dozen years of playing an edition, and don't use options for classes they like unless they like those options. Thus, new material is quite nice.

I'm not saying "no new subclasses ever!" I just don't want the pure mechanical, no fluff book that seems to be so desired on these boards.
All in all, SCAG has a 60-page section for new rules (with a lot of fluff) which seems to be a good size.


I've pitched the idea of a Hacker's Guide a few times: optional rules, more advice on optional rules, monster customization rules, more advice on making subclasses, races, and subraces.
Plus it could draw examples drawing from campaign settings from the past as a sneaky way of updating that content. Use it as an excuse for a warforged and kender, for defiling and moon magic, for the artificer and knight of Solamnia, and other campaign customizations. It can use the ranger as a prolonged example, which is a good way to not only include a revised version of the class (without just being "here's a new ranger") but also include a non-magic variant as well. And it can even sell the DMsGuild, possibly reprinting some content from that as examples of fan design. Encouraging people to check out the website.


In short, crunch, optional rules for DMs, and advice. The big book of beginner design.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet so far they have. Why?

Over reaction.

My take on it, which is admittedly speculation, is that they've decided that growing the core audience is more important compared to appeasing established fans. Yes, it may cost them some long time players. But they have to balance that against obtaining new players. And the best way to do that is to keep the game as accessible a second possible.

I don't think a bit of splat would upset new players. The opposite I would think.

Now, I don't think it's an either/or type of situation. More like a slider scale, which may lean more toward one direction than another at any given point. Right now, it makes the most sense to focus on the fundamentals...to build a solid foundation, so to speak. I think that given time, we will see some new content, of both the fluff and crunch varieties.

2+ years is more than enough time to focus on the fundamentals.

So...you may be right. WotC may be foolish to ignore the demand for more crunch, or for more settings. But, it may also be that they'd be foolish to listen to you. That doing that would shift gears back to focusing on the long time audience, and then sales of future products would dwindle down to the old numbers, and they'd be sitting there thinking "wait...how did we make this same mistake again?"

It's hard to know what is the "right" answer. I tend to think that the folks over there at WotC have more info and more drive to succeed, and that's what they're trying to do. And right now it seems to be working.

Many corporations blunder. New Coke was a disaster.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not the case that what others want out of the game is important and relevant, too? I think WotC would probably disagree with that. Their target market isn't one person.

My position is hardly one person. It's many. The success of splat books from 2e-4e proves that beyond any shadow of doubt.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Over reaction.

I don't think a bit of splat would upset new players. The opposite I would think.

2+ years is more than enough time to focus on the fundamentals.

Many corporations blunder. New Coke was a disaster.

Sure. But all of that is your opinion, not fact. Well, except the bit about New Coke, anyway.

And I cannot blame you for your opinion. Just understand that others disagree, and that the current approach seems to be more in line with those folks.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The success of splat books from 2e-4e proves that beyond any shadow of doubt.

But the success to which you refer is viewed as a non-success by the company, so there is plenty of shadow there, and definitely room for doubt.