D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[BryonD]

Yes, but GURPS approach to splatbooks is very different from how 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder do it. .

Heh Lets not go there. I used to be a huge GURPS fanboy. I am very familiar with GURPS.

But the point is that if you are the hypothetical version of Hussar looking at GURPS, you see a ton of books and don't know where to start.
If you are looking at Pathfinder you also see a ton on books, but the point of these books are quite different.

Edit: if anything, you simply reinforcing my point that getting worked up over a lot of covers is silly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Obviously this depends greatly upon the group in question.

Different groups will have different levels of tolerance for the problems in question, but, if you're using all the available options for a list-based system like D&D or Pathfinder, the more options come out, the more complex the game you're playing and the more potential holes open up in it. If you love combing through mountains of material looking for loopholes and broken combos, of course, 'tolerance' can cross the line into preference. Some people /do/ like a system more the worse it's broken. No accounting for taste, but there is accounting for list-based systems, and they have more problems the more you add to them.

5e's comparatively slow release, so far, is mitigating that sort of self-inflicted damage. It might turn out to be an excellent long-term strategy that lets the game build some loyalty before it starts turning into a twisted powergaming nightmare/optimizer's dream/"weird wizard show."

 

[Hussar]

Sure

And there are people who won't go Pathfinder because of Pathfinder.

It seems clear that no system is going to appeal to everyone and you can find reasonable stones to throw at anything.

So the relevant question is not "will someone find a reason to dislike this?", the relevant question is "How do we get a lot of people to like this for as long as possible?".
I think Paizo has demonstrated that quite well.
Again, by the number that you personally quoted, Pathfinder's 6-year-and-going existence blows away both 3E and 4E. So it is a model of success.
Pretty much everyone who didn't like 3E, doesn't like Pathfinder.
I know a lot of people who very much liked 3E and yet don't like Pathfinder.
It is easy to find people who don't like Pathfinder.
It is hard to find a game with a better template of success in the modern market.
Clearly these two things are not directly related.

And by the same token, it can't be said that PF's huge output is a reason for its success. It may be a big help, it may not. But it can certainly be said that it has not stopped it from being a huge success.


All that aside, I'd find it strange to see APs as a barrier to entry. You buy the ones that you find interesting and ignore the rest (with zero being a completely valid response). Same for all of the Golarion stuff. Just don't buy it.
The actual core game release schedule has been rather modest.

GURPS is, literally, built upon its splat books. To me personally, that is all the better. But I can see how that may turn others away. But if you see the same barrier for Pathfinder then you are not looking at it clearly.

Really? It's that simple? If I pick up the 13th AP (I have no idea which one that is, and it doesn't matter for my point) is there nothing in that AP mechanically beyond the core books? All I'd need is the core books and that AP and I'd have everything I need to run that AP?

I really, really doubt it. One of the major points of Pathfinder is incorporating what came before. So that means that there are a bunch of classes, monsters, items, and mechanics for the 19th AP that didn't even exist for the 1st AP. At least GURPS is somewhat self contained, as @ chriton227 says. Or even something like Savage Worlds, which I am more familiar with, I know that I can use my SW Explorer Edition, pick up whatever campaign book that catches my eye and I'm good to go. It's truly modular.

I really don't think Paizo is. Everything is built on what came before. It's additive, which makes sense considering the target audience. Paizo isn't particularly interested in a game with low barriers to entry. Not when your core book is several hundred pages long and you have a release schedule that puts 2e TSR to shame.

 

[dmccoy1693]

It might turn out to be an excellent long-term strategy

It could. Or it could be an unmitigated disaster. It could be that busy GMs are not finding the material they need with 5e and are not willing to wait for the "long term" for the material they need to run their games and turn back to Pathfinder that has Bestiaries, NPCs books, adventures, setting material and much more.

The thing I find funny is is that, the most common trend I am seeing from those glad for the lack of support are all citing concerns about power creep optimization while all those that are saying they want more support are saying they want more GMing material. (not 100% true, but just a trend)

 

[occam]

D&D has never handled a lot of supplements too well. Broken combos emerge, the game loses coherence, becomes too complicated, and starts shedding existing players and repelling new ones. Happened with 2e, 3e - probably would have happend with 4e if it's run had been long enough. But, it didn't happen with AD&D or the rules Cyclopedia, because they had slower releases.

Well, they had slower release frequencies if you only count system-focused products. But they produced a lot of adventure material (modules, and some campaign setting items). There weren't many 1e products that expanded the game system (Unearthed Arcana, the Survival Guides, Oriental Adventures), at least if you exclude all of the material in Dragon. But the AD&D years were chock-full of adventures, especially once Dungeon started up (yes, a bit of a double standard there), and that didn't seem to hurt, at least not until well into 2e. When the OP mentioned a lack of products, the complaint was centered on adventures, not system extensions. It wasn't until 3e that system extensions came to dominate the release cycles, and I don't think that turned out well in the long run. But I wouldn't mind seeing some more adventures and settings.

Edit: BTW, I'm not saying that producing more adventures is a good idea for WotC. It may not be; the audience for any particular product is more limited, and it may not make enough financial sense. Just saying that I can sympathize with the OP's desire for more adventure material.

 

[Shasarak]

I really don't think Paizo is. Everything is built on what came before. It's additive, which makes sense considering the target audience. Paizo isn't particularly interested in a game with low barriers to entry. Not when your core book is several hundred pages long and you have a release schedule that puts 2e TSR to shame.

Not according to the new Pathfinder Strategy Guide as well as the new Core Pathfinder Society.

I would say that Paizo is indeed interested in making the barrier to entry lower.

 

[pemerton]

Paizo sells the PDFs to all their large hardcover books for $10, regardless of if/where you bought the physical book.

<snip>

By comparison, Wizards has released only a gimpped version of the game as a PDF and there is no legal version of the full game on PDF.

<snip>

The no-PDF policy is encouraging piracy, and it is leaving money on the table.

I'm pretty sure this has been addressed upthread.

WotC wants strong game stores: that is how it promotes and sells M:tG. PDFs undermine strong game stores; hence WotC isn't releasing PDFs of core books.

I can't remember who posted this (someone, on some thread in the past couple of months), but it seemed plausible then and it still does.

The money that you say is being left on the table is not comparable, I believe, to the money that strong game stores generate by way of M:tG.

Some people have forgotten the licensing scheme that they tried to pull in 4E. That was a pure money grab and it ruined the game overall

<snip>

Hasbro. Everything so far is done in the sterile business practice against their customer base.

I put my money where my mouth is.

I don't know what "money grab" you are talking about. The GSL was a free licence that licensed the use of WotC trademarks, trade dress and some arguably copyrighted items.

That the uptake was low is a matter of record, but that has nothing to do with it being a "money grab".

As for Hasbro acting against their customer base, I am part of their customer base and from 2008 to 2013 or thereabouts they served me fine (the last 4e book I bought was the Dungeon Survival Handbook in 2013, but it was around a year later that I subscribed for a little while to DDI, to download the magazines).

And given the reported sales information for 5e - Amazon ranks, ICV ranks, posts by game store owners - WotC/Hasbro seems to be giving a big customer base exactly what it wants!

 

[wedgeski]

Regarding PDF's: let's say that WotC decide to put the full rulebooks on DnDClassics or wherever, and they inevitably post them at their full retail price - i.e. £30 in UK, and whatever that price might be everywhere else.

Will everyone complaining about the lack of PDF's then go quiet, or will they just start moaning about the price? I'd bet the latter.

 

[BryonD]

Different groups will have different levels of tolerance for the problems in question, but, if you're using all the available options for a list-based system like D&D or Pathfinder, the more options come out, the more complex the game you're playing and the more potential holes open up in it. If you love combing through mountains of material looking for loopholes and broken combos, of course, 'tolerance' can cross the line into preference. Some people /do/ like a system more the worse it's broken. No accounting for taste, but there is accounting for list-based systems, and they have more problems the more you add to them.

It has always seemed silly to me to self-inflict wounds of using too much optional material all at once. The PF core works by itself just as good as it did the day it was released.

5e's comparatively slow release, so far, is mitigating that sort of self-inflicted damage. It might turn out to be an excellent long-term strategy that lets the game build some loyalty before it starts turning into a twisted powergaming nightmare/optimizer's dream/"weird wizard show."

"Comparatively slow"? There is certainly a range of much slower release that 5E could follow without complaint from me. But the actual rate of *advertised upcoming* splat material is zero. And it is clearly creating negative response.

I get that there are people who love this. And I have no issue with that. But it is like the lessons of the 4E era went completely unlearned. We had a group of people who loved it. But there was a lot of people who were unhappy. Rather than responding to those people the reaction was that they were just wrong and not needed. Two years later the fans were shocked when the bottom had fallen out.

The fact that I like 5E vastly more than 4E does nothing to change my assessment that paying attention to more of the fan base is important.

 

[BryonD]

Really? It's that simple? If I pick up the 13th AP (I have no idea which one that is, and it doesn't matter for my point) is there nothing in that AP mechanically beyond the core books? All I'd need is the core books and that AP and I'd have everything I need to run that AP?

Yep. I have not bought the past couple. But they typically reprint any "extra" rules right there in the product.

I know that, for example, the Mythic based AP made a big deal out of being "Mythic" and assumed that book. But this was not hidden information, it was one specific book for one specific AP.

(And all of this ignores that everything is available free online for grabbing just the part that interests you)

I really, really doubt it. One of the major points of Pathfinder is incorporating what came before. So that means that there are a bunch of classes, monsters, items, and mechanics for the 19th AP that didn't even exist for the 1st AP. At least GURPS is somewhat self contained, as @ chriton227 says. Or even something like Savage Worlds, which I am more familiar with, I know that I can use my SW Explorer Edition, pick up whatever campaign book that catches my eye and I'm good to go. It's truly modular.

I really don't think Paizo is. Everything is built on what came before. It's additive, which makes sense considering the target audience. Paizo isn't particularly interested in a game with low barriers to entry. Not when your core book is several hundred pages long and you have a release schedule that puts 2e TSR to shame.

OK, I think you are wrong. But so be it. As I said, you are going to find legitimate reasons to throw stones at any game. 4E *could* have lasted much longer without appealing to me. PF continues to last without appealing to you.

Neither of those items are really here nor there to the point that, again, by your own numbers, PF has blown away both of the modern D&D editions. And there is no real alternative for setting the benchmark for success at keeping one edition going strong.