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

[Halivar]

Put me down for saying no middle ground is possible. If you have new print product coming out at any rate higher than zero, you WILL have the wall of books. The only dial you're controlling is how long it takes to get there. It FEELS like it took 3.x a bit longer to get there than Pathfinder, but regardless, they both got there. So did 4E. So, I will say this for the current release paradigm: those slim adventure books will hopefully keep the wall of books a little bit lighter when we eventually get there.

 

[Mistwell]

The backbone of the whole game.



A good short module with bonus abridged rulebook. Good.



Two of which complete the same series; its hard to run Rise of Tiamat without Hoard, so effectively its one AP over two books. So two complete APs.



BZZZT! There is an Elemental Evil Player's Guide, but no player Expansions for Tyranny or Rage (yet, if any). One.



Five. And as you said, experimental and unusable in AL



Puff pieces pimping other products. Barely content.



Good if you have a FLGS and like AL. Unless you resort to torrenting though, most of us won't ever see it.



Three technically. Maybe you mixed the DM screens and Player Expansions up?



Licensed, nothing to do with WotC or the Tabletop Game.



Licensed, nothing to do with WotC or the Tabletop Game.



Really, WotC is supporting the game by letting other people use the OGL to make stuff for it?



That is the core rules, two APs, a PDF remnant of a cancelled/Unannounced splatbook, a bunch of accessories, a bunch of licensed electronic product, and some playtest documents. By that logic, WotC achieved the middle ground in 2013 when they were giving us regular playtest packets, Legends & Lore articles, premium reprint books and the Sundering Modules.

Rem, you not liking material or wanting different material, is not the same as the quantity of content constituting or not constituting a middle ground. Most of your comments are totally irrelevant to whether or not we have a middle ground in terms of quantity of material. That is the issue I keep focusing on - the quantity of content is a middle ground, but some people don't like the quality or nature of that content, which is a different issue (and much more subjective).

 

[Remathilis]

Rem, you not liking material or wanting different material, is not the same as the quantity of content constituting or not constituting a middle ground. Most of your comments are totally irrelevant to whether or not we have a middle ground in terms of quantity of material. That is the issue I keep focusing on - the quantity of content is a middle ground, but some people don't like the quality or nature of that content, which is a different issue (and much more subjective).

So your argument is literally anything is better than nothing?

I want to hold WotC to a higher standard because I've seen what they are capable of. I don't know what demons lurk behind the scenes that are crippling their ability to generate good, tangible content for the game, but I do know that unplaytested "pencil" rules, adware for licensed video games, and a free 25 page PDF scraped out of a cancelled book was NOT what people expected in terms of support for the TT RPG come 2015. WotC may yet surprise us; I hope they do. But right now, there support for the RPG portion sometimes feels more like an afterthought (hello D+).

 

[Agamon]

I want to hold WotC to a higher standard because I've seen what they are capable of. I don't know what demons lurk behind the scenes that are crippling their ability to generate good, tangible content for the game, but I do know that unplaytested "pencil" rules, adware for licensed video games, and a free 25 page PDF scraped out of a cancelled book was NOT what people expected in terms of support for the TT RPG come 2015. WotC may yet surprise us; I hope they do. But right now, there support for the RPG portion sometimes feels more like an afterthought (hello D+).

I expected it. They said this was what they were doing for support before release. I remember the threads, a number of people applauded it, others didn't like it or didn't believe them ("it's WotC, it's in their nature to spit out dozens of books per year").

 

[Remathilis]

I expected it. They said this was what they were doing for support before release. I remember the threads, a number of people applauded it, others didn't like it or didn't believe them ("it's WotC, it's in their nature to spit out dozens of books per year").

I think there was a fair amount of us who thought "Oh, slower schedule. A supplement, a campaign setting, and two adventure paths per year." The Dungeoneer's Handbook seems to align to that train of thought. L&L and Mearls' AMA both hinted at future non-module books. Then, it was like the brakes hit and all there was is two APs this year.

Not too many people wanted PHB2 or Complete Arcane again, but i don't think there were many who just said "you know, UA and the APs will have me covered for the next decade of gaming."

 

[Mistwell]

So your argument is literally anything is better than nothing?

No my argument is we have a middle ground in terms of quantity of content. And you not liking the content is a different, and more subjective, issue. I happen to like the content they're putting out, and so do some others, and it's really much more debatable whether the content is high quality or not. It also raises the issue of, "if you don't like the quality of the content they've put out so far, what makes you think you'd like it if they put out more of it?".

 

[Mistwell]

I think there was a fair amount of us who thought "Oh, slower schedule. A supplement, a campaign setting, and two adventure paths per year." The Dungeoneer's Handbook seems to align to that train of thought. L&L and Mearls' AMA both hinted at future non-module books. Then, it was like the brakes hit and all there was is two APs this year.

It's not just two APs and that's it per year. Right now the rate's been 6 major releases a year, and about double that in terms of minor releases. That rate might change, but there isn't a good basis to think it will go from 6 major and 12 minor to 2 major and 0 minor.

 

[Remathilis]

It's not just two APs and that's it per year. Right now the rate's been 6 major releases a year, and about double that in terms of minor releases. That rate might change, but there isn't a good basis to think it will go from 6 major and 12 minor to 2 major and 0 minor.

Where are the the other four in 2015? I saw six in 2014, but not in 2015.

You hiding info Misty?

 

[S'mon]

Another monster/NPC book, with encounter tables and preferably with proper treasure tables, would encourage me to run 5e. Apart from that I don't need anything from WotC, buying & using OSR stuff with 5e seems to work fine.

 

[painted_klown]

Put me down for saying no middle ground is possible. If you have new print product coming out at any rate higher than zero, you WILL have the wall of books. The only dial you're controlling is how long it takes to get there. It FEELS like it took 3.x a bit longer to get there than Pathfinder, but regardless, they both got there. So did 4E. So, I will say this for the current release paradigm: those slim adventure books will hopefully keep the wall of books a little bit lighter when we eventually get there.

+1 to this.

Eventually, there will be a wall of books. It may take several years to get to that point, but it will get there. I think some people want that wall now. I will say that I absolutely to NOT want that wall to be built any faster. The slower the wall of books is built, the longer the game will receive support and remain the current version.

I look at it like this. If you had a game with a limited amount of high quality and useful books that can be produced for it, and you release them all right away, then what do you have to release later? A 5.5 edition, to start the cycle again? I don't think many people are clamoring for that.

Alternately, they could release all of the "quality" books near the beginning, then start to churn out useless books just to "keep 'em coming". I don't see that as a good thing either.

I think WotC are doing the right thing by releasing less books, especially rulebooks/splat books/etc.

I do think that there has been PLENTY of support for the game, thus far. It allows players to actually use the stuff that is coming out, and allows for WotC to take their time to do well thought out and high quality books.

Even if WotC only release two APs a year, and nothing more, then eventually a wall of books will happen. It will just take several years. I am 100% on board with that strategy. It keeps the 3 core books as evergreen and reduces confusion & the feeling of being overwhelmed by a mountain of rules, for the new players that come in.

There have been a lot of discussions on this forum in regards to attracting new players. Keeping it as simple/minimalist as possible is IMO the best way to go about it.

I wanted to play D&D for YEARS now, but never did, due to the wall of books the other editions produced. I didn't know where to start, and I wasn't about to start buying a wall of expensive books in the hope that I eventually figured it out. When I did get introduced to RPGs by an old school player (who was DMing PF) I was at a crossroads (so-to-speak), Start buying into PF, being way behind, and having a lot of rule books to pick up, or buy into 5E where I had exactly 3 books to buy in order to run the game. Future RPG players will have the same decision to face. Keeping the 3 core as the "evergreen" rule books make the choice easy and obvious. 5E will win.

Rules bloat = VERY bad IMO. Slow pace = Very good IMO.

IMO, YMMV, Etc.