D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Minigiant]

I suppose. I guess after ten years of WotC producing largely the same format every single time, expecting this book to be different is a bit... strange? Sure the content is different, but, as far as format goes, how is Ravenloft or Tasha's any different from SCAG or Xanathar's?

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would expect anything different. WotC's been pretty open and clear about what's in the books, to the point of publicly playtesting large amounts of the material beforehand. Turning around and complaining that they don't have new rule modules for things they've never even mentioned (like, say, Armor as DR as an example) isn't really paying attention.

I don't think many expect to see a bunch of rules that drastically change the fluff or crunch of D&D.

But it is completely in someone's right to complain that the official publisher doesn't provide something in any way popular that unofficial publishers are providing. Niche is a matter of degrees and not everything WOTC created for 5e was begged for. It's irrational to expect something when the turn had been made. However one can complain about the turn. Especially if another direction or option was once hinted at.

I don't expect big rule modules from WOTC at this point. That's why I predicted a downturn in 2 years in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

complaining that they still don't have new rule modules

That's a bit of a misquote since you didn't highlight the second part of that sentence.

Let's see, they now have new rule modules on naval combat (not to my taste, but, they are there), horror rules, new downtime rules, new chargen rules, and a fair list of other changes over the years.

Saying that they have "no" new rule modules simply isn't true.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think many expect to see a bunch of rules that drastically change the fluff or crunch of D&D.

But it is completely in someone's right to complain that the official publisher doesn't provide something in any way popular that unofficial publishers are providing. Niche is a matter of degrees and not everything WOTC created for 5e was begged for. It's irrational to expect something when the turn had been made. However one can complain about the turn. Especially if another direction or option was once hinted at.

I don't expect big rule modules from WOTC at this point. That's why I predicted a downturn in 2 years in the first place.

confused stare

Isn't providing niche stuff precisely what unofficial publishers are for? Isn't that the whole point of the DM's Guild and whatnot?

This isn't 3e where every 3rd party publisher jumped up and down to create entirely new product lines to compete with WotC. Complete settings and whatnot. No. Now, the OGL is doing exactly what it was supposed to do in the first place - allow smaller publishers to chase after the stuff that WotC has no interest in covering.

So, now, you no longer have 3PP like, say, Sword and Sorcery Press publishing entire product lines that mean that you never really need to buy any WotC books. Instead, you have 3PP who are covering the smaller markets and leaving WotC free to gobble up the big stuff.

 

[Minigiant]

stare

Isn't providing niche stuff precisely what unofficial publishers are for? Isn't that the whole point of the DM's Guild and whatnot?

Yes it is.
However what is considered niche is up to debate without numerical proof. Also which products and modules, niche or not, that is officially supported can be debated.

Because not every officially supported 5e product had a D&D majority following pushing for it before publishing.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's a bit of a misquote since you didn't highlight the second part of that sentence.

Let's see, they now have new rule modules on naval combat (not to my taste, but, they are there), horror rules, new downtime rules, new chargen rules, and a fair list of other changes over the years.

Saying that they have "no" new rule modules simply isn't true.

No... It's not a misquote, it's a statement from me pointing out how the omission of a single word allowed you to misrepresent the complaint being made. The rest of the partially bolded sentence in your earlier post was not worth addressing because it depended on that initial misrepresentation. Deliberate or not, it doesn't matter if wotc "mentioned" specific or even broad things they have spent several years saying rulings not rules & telling GMs to build it themselves

 

[Parmandur]

Yes it is.
However what is considered niche is up to debate without numerical proof. Also which products and modules, niche or not, that is officially supported can be debated.

Because not every officially supported 5e product had a D&D majority following pushing for it before publishing.

We don't know that your second paragraph is true, frankly. WotC does big surveys all the time asking very specific product questions. How can we debate if something is niche or not, without numerical proof?

 

[Minigiant]

We don't know that your second paragraph is true, frankly. WotC does big surveys all the time asking very specific product questions. How can we debate if something is niche or not, without numerical proof?

That's my point. A person saying a module is niche has as much validity as one saying it is popular due to the absences of proof or WOTC claims.

Therefore popularity or lack thereof should not be used to as a reason to excuse deep crunchy or fluffy mechanic modules.

 

[Parmandur]

That's my point. A person saying a module is niche has as much validity as one saying it is popular due to the absences of proof or WOTC claims.

Therefore popularity or lack thereof should not be used to as a reason to excuse deep crunchy or fluffy mechanic modules.

It is neither a "reaaon" or "excuse" per se, but a plausible explanation of observed phenomenon. Seems more likely than "WotC obstinate dislikes money."

 

[Minigiant]

It is neither a "reaaon" or "excuse" per se, but a plausible explanation of observed phenomenon. Seems more likely than "WotC obstinate dislikes money."

The idea that a company or corporation might not do something profitable for one reason isn't a crazy one.

There are editions past that could be used as proof and evidence that WOTC at least has a history of not always knowing their fanbase as much as they might think.

 

[Parmandur]

The idea that a company or corporation might not do something profitable for one reason isn't a crazy one.

There are editions past that could be used as proof and evidence that WOTC at least has a history of not always knowing their fanbase as much as they might think.

There is profitable, and then there is profitable enough. Matt Coleville's book was very successful on Kickstarter...but the backers came to a fraction of the copies WotC has said they were aiming for even earlier in the Edition when they had lower expectations. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the desired modules are niche, compared with what they have put out.