D&D 5E MUSING: An Evergreen, static Fifth Edition...

[Lancelot]

I'd be okay with it.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see a few additional books: MM2 (...because they're aren't enough monster options, especially at higher levels), a Magic Item / Spell Compendium with more options for both, a psionics treatments, and a Manual of the Planes that focuses on mechanics rather than fluff (because, frankly, 2e Planescape has all the fluff I'll ever need).

However, I would be happy to never see another campaign setting again. There are tens of thousands of mechanics-agnostic pages already written out there for dozens of campaign settings. And, if I have to get my new monsters / spells / magic items through the appendices of super-modules, that's okay by me.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, that's fine by me if that's the case. If they release like themed box sets, I'd buy 'em, but God please no Complete Whatever.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd probably get bored after a 2-3 years. New skins is something I allow at my tables anyway so that's not enough to keep me in the long haul and I don't typically play spellcasters so more spells isn't going to keep me around either. "new games" with the same underlying material really isn't going to do it for me.

Evergreen is such a misnomer, even evergreen trees still grow. They just simply don't go dormant periodically. Honestly 5E is more comparable to a deciduous at this time with the huge gaps in releases. Blossom, grow, fall dormant.

Maybe evergreen is just as bad as constant growth?

 

[Jester David]

I'd like to see one major book NOT tied to the current storyline per year. A campaign guide, a rule book (psionics, Monster Manual, etc) something. I'm afraid we're not even getting that.

I'd be incredibly, incredibly surprised if we didn't eventually get a Forgotten Realms book. Because the world has changed since the Sundering and isn't the same, and gamers and fans of the world need to know both the new status quo and details of the events that happened in world.
The catch is writing that book is a year-long process. They're likely doing some work on it now and tasking some freelancers to help, but I imagine its slow going and they really, really want to make sure they get things right.

Other campaign settings... not so much. Most of them have been pretty well covered and detailed and haven't changed since their last setting material was published. And fans of those settings likely already have all the materials they really need to run a campaign. A 5-page UA article is all that's really needed.
Dragonlance could use something, as it has change over the years. But that setting is so fractured a single book can't cover the world and the fanbase would be divided over which period to cover.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The psionics and Mearls' tweets thread made me think...

What if what D&D is now is all we're ever getting?

Three core books, two modules per year, and that's it. No supplements, no rules expansions, no campaign settings. New monsters, spells, races, etc come in the appendixes of those storyline modules. Some additional (use at your own risk) support via Unearthed Arcana.

Would you be happy with that?

No. Not that I'm happy with what 5e is right now anyway, but even if I were, I'd be sorely disappointed by a game that never "grew" the way I expect games to grow, and only barely "grew" in any sense at all.

Would you continue to play knowing there would be no Forgotten Realms Campaign book, no Monster Manual 2, no Psionics Handbook, no Eberron, Dark Sun, or Dragonlance setting guides? Just two mega modules per year? That is 2017, the same general options would exist as in 2015 (save your choice of storyline to play)?

No. But that's for a slightly different reason. In my eyes, each of the new expansions to 4e (and even many of them for 3e) actually opened new horizons. Dark Sun brought us themes, though they went through a few variations. Eberron had dragonmarks. PHB3 pushed the boundaries of the "powers" system, and introduced hybrids (which, while generally underpowered, were a good experiment to run). Even--and this is not easy to admit--Essentials brought some neat changes, albeit ones that were sharply limited in application (I've never quite forgiven WotC for making Call Celestial Steed Cavalier-only).

A game that only "grows" by making mega-modules, and the bare minimum of extra content necessary to support them, plus the *shoddily* playtested UA material, will never do that sort of thing. It will never challenge itself, and that's not a game I'm going to have much interest in *continuing* to play.

Can D&D exist on a "Boardgame" support system: One main game, two scenario packs per year, and nothing else?

Ah, here you are asking an entirely different question than your previous, IMO. And it's a question I cannot possibly answer, because I know too little about the subjects involved.

 

[painted_klown]

Being that 5E is my introduction to D&D, I have zero problems with the current release schedule. Maybe it's being a n00b, but I can't see ever running out of things to play.

We have the starter box + adventure paths to keep us busy. Plus reading the MM alone gives me a boatload of inspiration for a long term home brew campaign. Couple that with the DMG, and I see the current possibilities as near endless.

The only things I would really care about is a new MM every once in a blue moon (even every 5 years would be ok with me), and eventually a hard back book that compiles all of the UA articles, as I like physical copies. Perhaps a UA compilation once every 5 years as well. Just making wild guesses about the 5 year time frames though, as I am not sure what would be appropriate time frames for these books.

If WotC are serious about making 5E the "evergreen edition" (assuming they want this to be the final edition of D&D), I sincerely feel the current way is an excellent way to go about it.

IMO, YMMV, Etc.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

I would continue playing 5E, but I would be disappointed that we wouldn't get more worlds: Darksun, Planescape, Greyhawk, etc. Not necessarily rules, but source books filled with wonderful art of strange worlds that inspires me to make my own.

 

[aramis erak]

The psionics and Mearls' tweets thread made me think...

What if what D&D is now is all we're ever getting?

Three core books, two modules per year, and that's it. No supplements, no rules expansions, no campaign settings. New monsters, spells, races, etc come in the appendixes of those storyline modules. Some additional (use at your own risk) support via Unearthed Arcana.

Would you be happy with that? Would you continue to play knowing there would be no Forgotten Realms Campaign book, no Monster Manual 2, no Psionics Handbook, no Eberron, Dark Sun, or Dragonlance setting guides? Just two mega modules per year? That is 2017, the same general options would exist as in 2015 (save your choice of storyline to play)?

Can D&D exist on a "Boardgame" support system: One main game, two scenario packs per year, and nothing else?

Except that there was a short rules supplement this year.
And I expect another in a few months. (september-ish). Those will add up.

I like the slower pace. I get to use new stuff in play before newer stuff comes out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can D&D exist on a "Boardgame" support system: One main game, two scenario packs per year, and nothing else?

Yes.

Doesn't even /need/ both scenario packs.

 

[delericho]

The psionics and Mearls' tweets thread made me think...

What if what D&D is now is all we're ever getting?

I'm pretty sure it's not - Mearls' tweet indicated some doubt about years 2-3, so if we haven't seen an expansion by then, I'd expect something big at that time. Though it may be one big book rather than half a dozen smaller splats.

Would you be happy with that? Would you continue to play knowing there would be no Forgotten Realms Campaign book, no Monster Manual 2, no Psionics Handbook, no Eberron, Dark Sun, or Dragonlance setting guides?

No, and probably not - I suspect I'll get one campaign out of 5e as-is, and then I'll be looking for something more. The problem being that the 5e core has put a fresh coat of paint on the same options I played with for a decade with 2nd Ed and for another decade with 3e. They did, of course, need to cover those first, and it's fair enough to have a delay before adding to that. But, for me, they're played out.

Can D&D exist on a "Boardgame" support system: One main game, two scenario packs per year, and nothing else?

That's a different question, of course, and I think the answer to this one is "yes". But, as I said above, Mearls has indicated some doubt about years 2-3, so we'll see.