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

[Evenglare]

Didn't read any of the posts before, but I'm completely down for an evergree 5e. Infact I was down with the essentials evergreen 4e, but we all know how that turned out. Just give us an OGL for 5e so people can make stuff for it and let it be ... just announce that's what they intend to do. None of this stringing us along nonsense.

 

[Mistwell]

It would be interesting to see a shelf at a game store dedicated to 5e, and the shelves dedicated to Pathfinder. And then we can imagine what a new player would think about what to buy, or how overwhelmed they might feel.

I couldn't find any so far. This I did find, but it's only a small portion of the Pathfinder material:

 

[delericho]

Imagine you're new...and you want to pick up the game...and you see this

Is that the only alternative?

Edit: Mistwell's post was edited while I was making my own reply. Certainly, the "wall of books" is a problem for new customers. As I imply above, though, I'm inclined to think a middle ground is possible.

 

[fuindordm]

I would keep playing 5E, but I would be disappointed to be unable to give WotC more of my money for the kinds of products I like. I very rarely buy modules or APs, but I devour campaign settings and rules supplements.

 

[the Jester]

Considering that I'm still perfectly willing to play B/X with little more rules-wise than the two 64 page booklets released 35 years ago, I think 5E has a good chance.

IMHO game sold as a product of YOUR imagination shouldn't need an endless treadmill of stuff from someone else's.

Well said, Exploder.

I agree with him here- if I need more stuff (and I do), I am happy to convert or create it on my own. I've already got hundreds of magic items and spells, dozens of monsters and several archetypes/subclasses that cover converting several old paragon path/prestige class options.

 

[Mistwell]

Is that the only alternative?

Edit: Mistwell's post was edited while I was making my own reply. Certainly, the "wall of books" is a problem for new customers. As I imply above, though, I'm inclined to think a middle ground is possible.

I keep hearing about this middle ground implying we are not currently at a middle ground. But...we are. In the first year we will have (at least) three core books, a starter set, three hardback huge adventures, free player expansions for the three hardback adventures, many UA articles with experimental rules, Dragon+, a ton of adventure material and support for Adventurer's League, and a DMs screen. That's not counting things like Fantasy Grounds, the video game announcements, etc.. along with tons of third party material. That's a middle ground. It's just not the middle ground YOU want, but that's different from it not being a middle ground. It's a lot more than we got with some prior editions of the game at this point in the edition cycle.

All these claims of middle ground are just really "I want more" or "I want different". Neither of which is really "I want a middle ground" - instead they are claims that could be made regardless of the quantity of material. We HAVE a middle ground.

You know I can't confirm it, but this FEELS like more stuff than we had in the first year of 3.0e. I wonder if others can confirm or deny that?

 

[Morrus]

I keep hearing about this middle ground implying we are not currently at a middle ground. But...we are. In the first year we will have (at least) three core books, a starter set, three hardback huge adventures, free player expansions for the three hardback adventures, many UA articles with experimental rules, Dragon+, and a DMs screen. That's not counting things like Fantasy Grounds, the video game announcements, etc.. along with tons of third party material. That's a middle ground. It's just not the middle ground YOU want, but that's different from it not being a middle ground. It's a lot more than we got with some prior editions of the game at this point in the edition cycle.

All these claims of middle ground are just really "I want more" or "I want different". Neither of which is really "I want a middle ground". We HAVE a middle ground.

Yeah, I'm not caught up with the adventures yet. 12 months, 6 hardcover books, a starter set, and a couple of DM screens. I honestly think that's perfectly fine - it's a major item every 2 months or less, on average.

 

[delericho]

I keep hearing about this middle ground implying we are not currently at a middle ground. But...we are.

Every time this discussion comes up, those of us who want more are presented with the Pathfinder wall of books as if that were the only other option - either we go with WotC's planned one book in the next six months or we go with Paizo's six books every month.

But those are not the only two options. While I would, indeed, like a little more, I also don't want to swing to the other extreme. So, yes, what I want is a middle ground between where we are now and that wall of books. Which, by definition, is not where we are now.

I've made no bones about wanting more from WotC. And I don't feel any need to speak in code about this.

(And, yes, I get that that's not what YOU want, and it's not what WotC appear to be planning. I'm merely stating a preference, on a thread where the OP specifically asked for such opinions.)

 

[Mistwell]

Every time this discussion comes up, those of us who want more are presented with the Pathfinder wall of books as if that were the only other option

No, you're not. That's just another exaggeration. That was a separate post I made, not in reply to you. My reply to you is, "In the first year we will have (at least) three core books, a starter set, three hardback huge adventures, free player expansions for the three hardback adventures, many UA articles with experimental rules, Dragon+, a ton of adventure material and support for Adventurer's League, and a DMs screen. That's not counting things like Fantasy Grounds, the video game announcements, etc.. along with tons of third party material. That's a middle ground."

How is that not a middle ground? Respond to what I said, not the strawman.

So, yes, what I want is a middle ground between where we are now and that wall of books. Which, by definition, is not where we are now.

How is that not simply "I want more" or "I want different"? You have to first demonstrate we're NOT in a middle ground right now. You have not done so. This IS a middle ground - you just don't happen to like this middle ground. But, what reason does anyone have to think you'd like a different middle ground, that you wouldn't still want more or different? We have to start from asking if this really is a middle ground, and I am saying yes it is. As Morrus said, it's about one major product every other month - that's a middle ground.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, you're not. That's just another exaggeration. That was a separate post I made, not in reply to you. My reply to you is, "In the first year we will have (at least) three core books, a starter set, three hardback huge adventures, free player expansions for the three hardback adventures, many UA articles with experimental rules, Dragon+, a ton of adventure material and support for Adventurer's League, and a DMs screen. That's not counting things like Fantasy Grounds, the video game announcements, etc.. along with tons of third party material. That's a middle ground."

How is that not a middle ground? Respond to what I said, not the strawman.



How is that not simply "I want more" or "I want different"? You have to first demonstrate we're NOT in a middle ground right now. You have not done so. This IS a middle ground - you just don't happen to like this middle ground. But, what reason does anyone have to think you'd like a different middle ground, that you wouldn't still want more or different? We have to start from asking if this really is a middle ground, and I am saying yes it is. As Morrus said, it's about one major product every other month - that's a middle ground.

Well let's see. The starter set (presuming you mean Basic) is just a subset of the three books, for which there is no "at least" nor even any indication that there will be more; the adventures have not received very good reviews (like most WotC adventures) and are often discussed in the "how can I fix this?" manner; the free expansions, from what I've seen, amount to "a handful of spells and some magic items"; the UA articles are useless to the vast majority of players because they're COVERED in "DM red flag" things that make it incredibly unlikely that they'll fly at most tables AND their lack of playtesting is often blatant; Dragon+ doesn't actually contain content, it's an advertisment on your phone; I haven't seen any of this AL stuff you mention and there are plenty of people who never join AL; and a DM screen is only useful for DMs who can't put together something better for themselves, which I'd argue most of them can.

So...what we really have are three core books, some adventures and expansions if you ever run WotC adventures, a bunch of UA articles that will rarely see the light of play (and which explicitly warn DMs away from the content!), and some organized play stuff that I've never heard mentioned before today.

Now, if this were an indie game, just the "core books" and the odd campaign or two would make perfect sense. Heck, I'll even be generous and call the UA stuff an actual book (even though it has like a tenth the content of an actual book and almost no playtesting). It feels like FFG was further along with its Star Wars stuff, at a comparable amount of time in, than WotC has been, despite the former being a vanishingly smaller company.