Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide: The First Official D&D 5E Setting

Yes, it is new, I was just creating a thread for it myself.

 

[Mistwell]

That actually doesn't count the whole story, because you have to remember that in AD&D's earliest days (1977, 1978) that OD&D content counted as "AD&D" content as well

Also irrelevant as I was responding to the question of how much content was published for AD&D 1e in the first year of AD&D 1e. Content which came before that date might be compatible with it, but it doesn't count towards how much content was published in that year (it was from a different year). All I was responding to was the quantity of content released in the first year of AD&D. That's it. If it came before or after that year, it doesn't count towards that year. If it's content people liked or disliked, it still all counts towards that count. It's a really simple question - there is no nuance here, there is no subtlety, it's just an objective counting question I was responding to.

Was there more content in terms of words and page count in 5e than 1e? Absolutely!

That's it. That's the beginning and end of that part of the debate. Nobody asked what people liked or disliked or could use or anything like that. The comment was "the AD&D 1e publishing schedule was not as sparse in the first year of AD&D 1e than the 5e publishing schedule so far". I disagreed, and I was correct, regardless of whether people like it (a subjective question) or had access to materials from before that year that they could use with it.

 

[Patrick McGill]

Also irrelevant as I was responding to the question of how much content was published for AD&D 1e in the first year of AD&D 1e. Content which came before that date might be compatible with it, but it doesn't count towards how much content was published in that year (it was from a different year). All I was responding to was the quantity of content released in the first year of AD&D. That's it. If it came before or after that year, it doesn't count towards that year. If it's content people liked or disliked, it still all counts towards that count. It's a really simple question - there is no nuance here, there is no subtlety, it's just an objective counting question I was responding to.


That's it. That's the beginning and end of that part of the debate. Nobody asked what people liked or disliked or could use or anything like that. The comment was "the AD&D 1e publishing schedule was not as sparse in the first year of AD&D 1e than the 5e publishing schedule so far". I disagreed, and I was correct, regardless of whether people like it (a subjective question) or had access to materials from before that year that they could use with it.

If we're going to include compatible prior content, fifth edition for sure wins; there's a ton of non crunch content from the entire life of d&d, and I've found converting dcs on the fly and subbing in 5e monsters super easy for older adventures.

 

[epithet]

This has to be the most useless iteration of the edition wars so far. Seriously, we're fighting over which edition cranked out more content, faster?

This serves only to distract from what should probably be the most important consideration: should the content release for D&D right now be sped up? Personally, I have the impression that there is a focus on quality control and polish with these releases that has been absent in some of the "classic" releases. The broad involvement of the player base in the testing of new mechanics inevitably causes development to take longer, but produces a better end result.

I also think there is already a great body of source material for us to draw on for campaign material. If you're just looking for a dungeon crawl, there are dozens of modules out there to choose from, pretty easily converted into the current edition. Third-party tools like Kobold Fight Club make it easy to generate 5th edition encounters if you don't want to crunch the numbers yourself. That frees the developers of new products to focus more on creating interesting stories and characters to add texture to their world.

My only real criticism of the product release schedule thus far is that it is all Forgotten Realms, all the time. It is easy enough to convert this stuff to a setting like Greyhawk, but the settings that are a little different, like Eberron and Athas, really need some base-level support to make them fully operational in the current edition, and I don't see that support forthcoming. The Eberron focussed UA article was a pretty good start, but by no means sufficient. Athas, because of how different it is, will require even more attention. My hope is that once the Mystic gets its brain all sorted out, Athas will get its turn. That looks like it might take a while, unfortunately.

I also believe that the suits at Hasbro need to pull their heads out of their corporate fundament and provide a reasonable license to 3rd party content creators. We've seen that companies like Necromancer/Frog God and Sasquatch can finagle the terminology covered by the legacy OGL to create material that is basically compatible with the 5th Edition, but it's asinine that they should have to tap-dance around certain terms and thread the needle of creating compatible content without overtly stating that it is compatible with D&D 5e. That kind of bovine manure just makes WotC seem out of touch and silly, perhaps unfairly as a result of a legal department more focussed on action figures and related accessories.

 

[DM Howard]

One issue of Dragon has more potential benefit then one super adventure. It just appeals to a wider audience. It would be like comparing a big apple to a basket of fruit. And you get at least six of those in the first year - before the release of the Monster Manual.

Completely agree. I get that people really like the small amount of content that has come out so far, but what I don't get is their defense of WotC's paltry release schedule and almost complete lack of variety; except in what big bad you are going after in that period's epic adventure. The licensing is great as the more avenues you take the brand the better, but that isn't a good excuse or substitute for products designed for the brand's core competency: the pen and paper RPG. I don't expect many people on here to agree with me as I have never amassed much xp (read: certification of agreement) on these forums, but the truth hurts.

 

[Mistwell]

Completely agree. I get that people really like the small amount of content that has come out so far, but what I don't get is their defense of WotC's paltry release schedule and almost complete lack of variety; except in what big bad you are going after in that period's epic adventure. The licensing is great as the more avenues you take the brand the better, but that isn't a good excuse or substitute for products designed for the brand's core competency: the pen and paper RPG. I don't expect many people on here to agree with me as I have never amassed much xp (read: certification of agreement) on these forums, but the truth hurts.

Subjective opinion /= truth. A lot of people have gone into detail on why they prefer this pace of releases to an increased pace (the dangers of bloat), and why they prefer adventures to splat-book type additional crunch (the dangers of bloat). You disagree, which is a position that has many supporters as well. Are you asking for a better explanation on why people fear the dangers of bloat that come with a more rapid pace of releases or a more diverse type of releases?

Also - I don't know how others think about it, but the XP system doesn't really mean much from my perspective. Your lack of XP isn't a sign that people don't like your opinions. It could be any number of things, from name recognition to the time or days you post to the threads that interest you to anything. And the XP system doesn't allow negative XP. I suspect if it did allow negative XP I'd have close to zero XP total, as I probably get about as much disagreement as agreement. And if mod warnings gave big negative XP ,I'd probably be in the minus I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Benji]

The first 4 major releases of 5e just match what was already available originally (although not compiled into hardback) and the other 2 may or may not actually be useful depending if you use pre-designed adventures or not which historically is not the case.

So really we currently have a few UA articles and a couple of pages from the Dragon+

If we're only counting stuff people use, you'd have to throw out quite a lot of stuff from AD&D - Unless you visited boot hill on a regular basis. It's also a kind of odd argument becuase everyone uses different things.

 

[DM Howard]

Subjective opinion /= truth. A lot of people have gone into detail on why they prefer this pace of releases to an increased pace (the dangers of bloat), and why they prefer adventures to splat-book type additional crunch (the dangers of bloat). You disagree, which is a position that has many supporters as well. Are you asking for a better explanation on why people fear the dangers of bloat that come with a more rapid pace or releases or a more diverse type of releases?

By that same measure I could say that the views of the "pro slow release" folks are subjective opinions and thus don't equate to the truth. But here it is: Are you truly telling me that WotC should focus on licensing, cut down their D&D staff to bare bones and release only 3 - 4 products a year? Really? I dislike bloat as much as the next guy, but if you want more tools to run games you are pretty SOL in this strategy. Rereleasing PDFs of old content is not a good resource. If that's true than to heck with it and we can tell WotC we don't need any new adventures either.

Also - I don't know how others think about it, but the XP system doesn't really mean much from my perspective. Your lack of XP isn't a sign that people don't like your opinions. It could be any number of things, from name recognition to the time or days you post to the threads that interest you to anything. And the XP system doesn't allow negative XP. I suspect if it did allow negative XP I'd have close to zero XP total, as I probably get about as much disagreement as agreement. And if mod warnings gave big negative XP ,I'd probably be in the minus I wouldn't worry about it.

Oh, I'm not really worrying about it, I was just trying to make a point. For the record Mistwell I really respect your opinion on this and I normally agree with you.

 

[joshinminn]

Too much FR? Maybe. But I'm a middle aged guy with disposable income, so I'll buy it anyway and not complain.

 

[Mistwell]

By that same measure I could say that the views of the "pro slow release" folks are subjective opinions and thus don't equate to the truth.

Yes, and you'd be right. The "pro-slow release" position is purely subjective opinion and not truth. It's just a preference. WOTC's interests are extending the life of the edition and increasing the amount of money they make over the life of the edition. Nobody knows if this type and pace of release schedule will help those things, or hurt them, or result in the same as prior editions. I don't think even WOTC knows. It's all an educated guess.

But here it is: Are you truly telling me that WotC should focus on licensing, cut down their D&D staff to bare bones and release only 3 - 4 products a year?

First, I don't think they cut the staff to bare bones. From what I can tell, they've increased the D&D staff from about 13, to about 30, in the past year. That's not bare bones. I don't know how many people WOTC had working on D&D in the first year of 3.0e, but my guess is it's roughly comparable to this. Bottom line, it's not the bare bones people keep saying (I don't think it ever was in fact, I think we just were not aware of how many people were working in that department earlier).

Second, so far they've been at about 6 major releases a year. Yes, I am saying that's a fine pace, at least from my perspective. I think it's sustainable long term, controls bloat, increases interest in each individual release far more than they would have had if they had a more rapid schedule, and overall is healthy for D&D.

As for licensing, I am not sure what you mean. If you mean this "outsourcing vs. collaboration" debate, I don't view what they've been doing as outsourcing, and I think they are MORE involved with each release so far, directly, than they were with typical 3.5e releases (which had heavy subcontractor work on them with less supervision from WOTC). But if instead you mean the video games and movies and such - yeah, that's also really healthy for the brand. It means Hasbro's expectations of revenue can be put on product lines that actually have the potential to meet and exceed those demands. The TRPG portion of the company could never meet those expectations, but a movie or video game might. And both increase wider brand recognition for the TRPG game, which is good for the game as well. Already when I go into a game store and play in an Adventurer's League game I get tons of a new generation of players interested in playing, when they've never played a TRPG before.

Really? I dislike bloat as much as the next guy, but if you want more tools to run games you are pretty SOL in this strategy

I do fine making my own. The game was intentionally made more flexible to accommodate this, and it works pretty well. There is also a ton of third party support out there I can turn to if I need it. There's no lack of tools available, and I never understood the need for an officialness stamp for private games.

Rereleasing PDFs of old content is not a good resource. If that's true than to heck with it and we can tell WotC we don't need any new adventures either.

Well that's true, we don't NEED new adventures either. I am running Savage Tide for 5e right now. But new adventures are fun too.

Oh, I'm not really worrying about it, I was just trying to make a point. For the record Mistwell I really respect your opinion on this and I normally agree with you.

Cool, thanks. Same here.

 

[Winterthorn]

Colour me mildly surprised. I'm looking forward to seeing the product at my FLGS I'm not a huge fan of Forgotten Realms, but I can work with this...