D&D 5E The implications of Basic 5E: An adventure-based approach?

[Umbran]

I definitely would like to see the source on this if/when you're able to recall it. Personally I would be willing to bet cold, hard cash against the possibility of wotc attempting any kind of serious IT development this time around. (Not that I think it's a poor idea by any stretch.)

They probably don't *need* to do any. You can likely get the effective functionality from RPGNow/DrivethruRPG and an accountant to handle billing/payments.

 

[Umbran]

Might mean that 5e published adventures will be nearly edition-independent.

Or, perhaps more correctly, it may make the notion of "edition" hard to nail down. I would suggest they keep version numbers, but the effect could be more of a "living document" than having clearly delineated editions.

 

[AmerginLiath]

That's a cool idea. My first reaction is that I really hope WotC doesn't have control over who gets to make stuff and who doesn't. I'd rather the artists have complete freedom.

But, I suppose anything they wouldn't approve (eg. BoEF) can just be done with altered OGL rules and a little "5e compatible" winknudge.

I could imagine something like the store being discussed, with D&D as the brand, having certain key partners to start off with before opening it up to general submissions. Beyond that, I imagine that the "API" would be almost along the lines of how DRAGON and DUNGEON submissions have worked (although maybe a bit more stringent, due to the cost element). Things like carrying the D&D symbol and likely some additional element containing a clear link to the Basic Rules would be part of the benefits one would gain from being part of WotC's store, aside from mere exposure (and official status) in exchange for a cut of profits.

 

[SigmaOne]

They probably don't *need* to do any. You can likely get the effective functionality from RPGNow/DrivethruRPG and an accountant to handle billing/payments.

Given that they've spent the past year uploading two to three products a week to DrivethruRPG, I can't imagine them making their own store and cutting DTRPG out of it. It wouldn't make any sense, and it would go over very poorly. I imagine they could partner with DTRPG, though. That seems completely feasible, and I imagine a license can be written to include them somehow.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I fully suspect in 2015, we will see some form of splat-book (My guess is that it might look like Paizo's Advanced Player's Guide rather than WotC's Sword & Fist/Complete Warrior/Martial Power types). I could see a yearly "splat" compilation book that gives us new spells, archetypes, feats, races/subraces, magic items, rules-modules, etc. Again, one need only look at the APG to see a one-shot mega-splat is entirely more useful (and easier to balance) than 4-6 [X] Power books.

Likewise, I fully expect settings, both implicit and explicit, to be a fashion. There will be an Eberron book, a Realms book, etc. Along with that there will be a Ravenloft-ish/Horror book, a Kara-Tur/Oriental book, a Planes/Planescape book, etc. I can also see them getting back into Gazetteers and such for settings to occasionally expand one of its key settings. There will be plenty of "Player" crunch there too. (...)

You seem to be thinking in the 'old' world, still, Remathilis, focusing on products for roleplayers. I'm not sure that the classical roleplayers (as customers) will be the group WotC concentrates on.

Maybe they see this storyline-centric approach as a way to attract new customers. In this case they might gradually shift to the model you outlined in your message. But the other way of focusing on storylines and dealing with classical RPG material which caters for people like us as a byline only? Not that I'm wishing it to become true, but don't you think it might be an attractive model - for the suits?

 

[Remathilis]

You seem to be thinking in the 'old' world, still, Remathilis, focusing on products for roleplayers. I'm not sure that the classical roleplayers (as customers) will be the group WotC concentrates on.

Maybe they see this storyline-centric approach as a way to attract new customers. In this case they might gradually shift to the model you outlined in your message. But the other way of focusing on storylines and dealing with classical RPG material which caters for people like us as a byline only? Not that I'm wishing it to become true, but don't you think it might be an attractive model - for the suits?

They have to do both.

They can support the game via modules AND the occasional hardback splat. This is not revolutionary: Paizo is quite successful with 3-4 hardcovers, a bunch of softcover supplements and a monthly module. WotC could easily do a rule expansion (psionics, APG) a setting, and a monster book a year, and still have a module a month or whatever.

What they need to avoid is a hard cover a month like in 3.5 or 4e.

 

[DaveMage]

Or, perhaps more correctly, it may make the notion of "edition" hard to nail down. I would suggest they keep version numbers, but the effect could be more of a "living document" than having clearly delineated editions.

If they *really* want to take this to the next level, they could allow 3PPs to publish adventures for *any* edition and then post it on the site under that edition.

 

[Patrick McGill]

If they *really* want to take this to the next level, they could allow 3PPs to publish adventures for *any* edition and then post it on the site under that edition.

That would be both gnarly and create another wave of goodwill within the community.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They have to do both.

They can support the game via modules AND the occasional hardback splat. This is not revolutionary: Paizo is quite successful with 3-4 hardcovers, a bunch of softcover supplements and a monthly module. WotC could easily do a rule expansion (psionics, APG) a setting, and a monster book a year, and still have a module a month or whatever.

What they need to avoid is a hard cover a month like in 3.5 or 4e.

Did 4E ever actually have a time when it had hardcovers coming out that fast? Not denying it, but I wasn't aware of it. The sad thing is, I think 4E's pacing would have been pretty solid, release-wise, if they hadn't been putting out the X Power books (all of which would have been better off as just being more articles in Dragon, imho).

I'd personally actually be disappointed if they only did one rules expansion a year unless a whole bunch of solidly-made stuff was coming out in Dragon. Two would be good. Three might be beginning to push it, though.

To be clear, I personally reject arguments to the tune of "If they put out less stuff, it'll automatically be better balanced!". Every TT RPG I've ever seen which attempted balance or claimed it is pretty much prima facie evidence to the contrary - there should be a link, logically, rationally, sure - but in practice, whether stuff is balanced or not comes down entirely (imho/imex) to three things:

1) Does the game have sufficient structure in power/ability/feat design to support balance?

2) Do the designers actually want the game to be balanced? (Which includes them being willing to devote effort to fixing things which are no longer the hottest latest thing).

3) Are the designers willing to make significant changes to abilities via errata?

4E had all of these so was the most balanced TT RPG I've come across. Tons of other TT RPGs have come out with new stuff far slower, but ended up wildly less balanced because they lacked one, two or all of the above .

 

[Remathilis]

Did 4E ever actually have a time when it had hardcovers coming out that fast? Not denying it, but I wasn't aware of it. The sad thing is, I think 4E's pacing would have been pretty solid, release-wise, if they hadn't been putting out the X Power books (all of which would have been better off as just being more articles in Dragon, imho).

June 2008: PHB/DMG/MM
July: None, but supplemental like char sheets and DM screen
August: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
September: Adventurer's Vault
October: Forgotten Realms Player's Guide
November: Draconomicon 1, Martial Power
December: Manual of the Planes
January 2009: Open Grave
February: Dungeon Delve
March: Player's Handbook 2
April: Arcane Power
May: Monster Manual 2
June: Eberron Player's Guide
July: Eberron Campaign Guide, Divine Power
August: Adventurer's Guide 2, Dragon Mag Annual
September: Dungeon Masters' Guide 2
October: Primal Power, Draconomicon 2
November: NONE
December: The Plane Below.

I'd say that out of 18 months, they released 22 hardcovers. That's a helluva design and development schedule! (and that ignores DDi and Modules)

To be clear, I personally reject arguments to the tune of "If they put out less stuff, it'll automatically be better balanced!". Every TT RPG I've ever seen which attempted balance or claimed it is pretty much prima facie evidence to the contrary - there should be a link, logically, rationally, sure - but in practice, whether stuff is balanced or not comes down entirely (imho/imex) to three things:

I'm saying if they don't rush to put on 22 hardbacks in 18 months, they might have a chance to better playtest it.

Remember, a bad module can be fixed or forgotten. A bad rulebook lingers in the ruleset forever. If they release fewer rulebooks and spend more time ironing out kinks, we'll have a better ruleset as it begins to expand and mature.