D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[pkt77242]

That's simply not possible. Since I am talking about 1 general content release and there have been 0 of those, you cannot possibly have been getting 1 per year. How about you engage in the conversation being had, rather than try to twist it into something that it isn't?

I think that you are twisting it. The original complaint was about lack of splat not lack of general splat. You have twisted it to mean "general" so that you can feel vindicated. There has been 1 splat a year, that splat just isn't what you want because you want "general" splat.

You are the hungry man who when offered a burger, you say "No, I wanted a pizza".

 

[Hussar]

Um, no. We've repeatedly said 1 per year.

But, wouldn't that be in addition to the books we're already getting right? So, 1 setting specific book like SCAG and 1 generic book too.

Now, to be fair, 1/year probably wouldn't be a huge issue, depending on how meaty the book was. But, remember, you've shifted the goalposts pretty hard here. We ARE getting 1 book per year, just not one that you want.

And, isn't your argument that without these books, people will leave D&D for greener pastures? That without a generic splatbook every year, people will move on to games with more material. But, where is your evidence of this? Two years in and every single metric we look at shows 5e D&D to be doing spectacularly well. It's by far the most played RPG. It's by far outselling any other RPG.

How much better would it have to do to justify the expense of what you're asking for. And, remember, you're not asking for just one book. You're asking for a class/race book, right? So, which races? Which classes? How many are we talking about here? Because every book like this that you add, that add new classes, and new races and new feats and new spells, makes the game just that much more complex. Three Big Book of Classes down the road and suddenly we're back to needing a spreadsheet to track options.

I mean, the primary argument against 3pp is that they aren't Adventurer's League compatible. But, that doesn't apply to SCAG does it? SCAG material is legal in AL play. So, why isn't SCAG being included as new material? Granted, again, it might not be new material that you want, but, we're not talking about what you want, we're talking about what's good for the hobby. Volo's guide material will likely also be AL compatible. And, wasn't the online web content for Princes of the Apocalypse also legal?

So, if you're an AL player, you've had two supplements so far and a third one due in a short time. If you're a home player, then there's the DM's Guild right there with more content than you could possibly use, all for pretty much the cost of a cup of coffee. Money wasted arguments kinda fall down when twenty bucks buys you eight or ten supplements.

To sum up though, what evidence do you have that a lack of generic material is hurting the hobby in any way?

 

[Caliburn101]

But, isn't this PRECISELY what is supposed to happen? You want more content, WotC is not providing that content, so, you mosey on over to another source, buy their book and keep right on playing D&D.

Where's the loss? What's the problem? Presumably you bought your Core 3 books, so, WotC is pretty happy. You're still playing the game, meaning that WotC is losing you as a customer as you haven't, as @Maxperson is claiming would happen, switched games. When WotC eventually does come out with something for you, I imagine you'll buy it, no?

So, where's the problem. You the customer got content that is useful at your table. WotC keeps trucking along. Everything's groovy. Aren't you pretty much a poster child for how this paradigm is supposed to work?

I am far from the 'poster child' - whatever it is you precisely meant by that...

Official material released by WoTC which is useful for most campaigns and most GMs is buried within APs which, unless the adventures are used, are otherwise superfluous.

Why should I need to buy Rage of Demons just to have Demon Lord stats for instance? I don't want the adventure, but I am forced to purchase it to get to the stuff I DO want.

From the perspective of someone who hasn't decided to run the AP and run a FR campaign, it's like having sub-prime mortgages bundled up into my investments. I don't want them, but I cannot invest in what I want without them...

Now I'm not short of money, so I have the APs anyway. But it is a poor business model from the non-AP following non-Forgotten Realms GM/player customer's point of view.

Adventures should be separate from significant rules, spells and monster expansions, especially if those adventures are sizeable and expensive affairs.
A
s for third party support - remember, WoTC own much of their IP detail. No-one else was going to release the stats for the named Demon Lords because of that. So third party can only add additional material, not release older core material in it's 5th edition iteration. Even where it can do that, any material WoTC releases later covering something already supported by a third party then over-writes that material and thus makes that purchase at least partially superfluous.

Add to this the fact third parties (and the rest of us for that matter) are kept in the dark about the substantive content of the release schedule and we all have to guess what third party material to buy 'just in case' it won't be covered by WoTC.

If you are running repeated campaigns, each with the latest AP at it's heart and you are setting it all in the Realms, then great - you are being very well supported and should be pleased with the style and pace of releases from WoTC.

For the rest of us (a majority based on the 'which campaign do you run' survey done on these forums many months ago) then there are varying degrees of adaptation of material (with the inevitable non-use of parts of it) and dead money invested in pages and pages of material we will never use due entirely to the way it is bundled up into large set-pieces.

You have completely misunderstood my point, and in assuming that the situation is good as it is, are not seeing from the perspective of the majority who do not fit into the exact model of 5th Ed. gamer being supported.

 

[Zhern]

But, isn't this PRECISELY what is supposed to happen? You want more content, WotC is not providing that content, so, you mosey on over to another source, buy their book and keep right on playing D&D.

Where's the loss? What's the problem? Presumably you bought your Core 3 books, so, WotC is pretty happy. You're still playing the game, meaning that WotC is losing you as a customer as you haven't, as @Maxperson is claiming would happen, switched games. When WotC eventually does come out with something for you, I imagine you'll buy it, no?

So, where's the problem. You the customer got content that is useful at your table. WotC keeps trucking along. Everything's groovy. Aren't you pretty much a poster child for how this paradigm is supposed to work?

Glad someone gets it. This is exactly what is supposed to happen! And honestly, the creatures in the Fifth Edition Foes by Necromancer Games and Tome of Beasts by Kobold Press are much more interesting and well constructed than those in the book with the official WotC Golden Seal of Approval. Yeah, the 3PP monsters might be beefier than their CR but so what? It is perfectly reasonable to scale the fight when creating the encounter or as the encounter progresses. And besides, the players aren't supposed to go into every encounter knowing they will win. If there is no risk versus reward then why play?

The solutions to a lot of the "problems" pointed out so far exist or can be created but it is much easier to gripe about something than to try and resolve the issue by creating a solution or making use of an existing solution. And the whole argument about WotC playtesting versus 3PP not playtesting is BS. A lot of the 3PP houses have been formulating these ideas for new content for years - during which time the ideas are vetted with other developers, tested out in different situations, refined, etc. - and adapting that idea to the 5e framework.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that you are twisting it. The original complaint was about lack of splat not lack of general splat. You have twisted it to mean "general" so that you can feel vindicated. There has been 1 splat a year, that splat just isn't what you want because you want "general" splat.

Go back and re-read it. He calls out the adventure paths and such just like I do. The OP is about general content releases, not what has already come out.

 

[Zhern]

I am far from the 'poster child' - whatever it is you precisely meant by that...

Official material released by WoTC which is useful for most campaigns and most GMs is buried within APs which, unless the adventures are used, are otherwise superfluous.

Why should I need to buy Rage of Demons just to have Demon Lord stats for instance? I don't want the adventure, but I am forced to purchase it to get to the stuff I DO want.

From the perspective of someone who hasn't decided to run the AP and run a FR campaign, it's like having sub-prime mortgages bundled up into my investments. I don't want them, but I cannot invest in what I want without them...

Now I'm not short of money, so I have the APs anyway. But it is a poor business model from the non-AP following non-Forgotten Realms GM/player customer's point of view.

Adventures should be separate from significant rules, spells and monster expansions, especially if those adventures are sizeable and expensive affairs.
A
s for third party support - remember, WoTC own much of their IP detail. No-one else was going to release the stats for the named Demon Lords because of that. So third party can only add additional material, not release older core material in it's 5th edition iteration. Even where it can do that, any material WoTC releases later covering something already supported by a third party then over-writes that material and thus makes that purchase at least partially superfluous.

Add to this the fact third parties (and the rest of us for that matter) are kept in the dark about the substantive content of the release schedule and we all have to guess what third party material to buy 'just in case' it won't be covered by WoTC.

If you are running repeated campaigns, each with the latest AP at it's heart and you are setting it all in the Realms, then great - you are being very well supported and should be pleased with the style and pace of releases from WoTC.

For the rest of us (a majority based on the 'which campaign do you run' survey done on these forums many months ago) then there are varying degrees of adaptation of material (with the inevitable non-use of parts of it) and dead money invested in pages and pages of material we will never use due entirely to the way it is bundled up into large set-pieces.

You have completely misunderstood my point, and in assuming that the situation is good as it is, are not seeing from the perspective of the majority who do not fit into the exact model of 5th Ed. gamer being supported.

I agree with you completely on this. Bundling new bits of crunch in the APs doesn't work well for a lot of people. I personally loathe the Forgotten Realms in their current form and I found the APs, with the exception of Strahd, to be very disappointing. It would have been nice if there were player companion materials for each of the APs like was done with Princes of the Apocalypse. I believe the PDF of that was free or at least very cheap (2.99 maybe? That could be on Fantasy Grounds that it was 2.99, though). I'm lucky in that I can afford to buy each of the APs for these little nuggets of crunch and I understand that not everyone can so they end up missing out. A consolidated grouping would probably sell fairly well, especially if it were a softcover or even a PDF.

As far as substantive content releases that are pure crunch, I don't see that happening regularly. I mean, it will be what? 3 years since 5e dropped next year when the first major rules expansion is released, if it actually does happen as some WotC staff have alluded to. Until then, a lot of the wishes for more crunch content are going to go unfulfilled because of that - people need to either get used to it or look for other options (like 3PP content).

Someone mentioned this previously, and it is absolutely correct - WotC, driven by Hasbro, is managing a brand. They will continue to do so based on market research and will try to minimize the need for another version for as long as the brand is viable. Yes, they want happy customers and if you poll the community at large you'll very likely find that WotC is adhering to a version of the 80/20 rule, but they are in the business of making money. Their biggest incentive if their bottom line and I can guarantee you that a corporation like Hasbro will not let them forget that.

 

[Maxperson]

But, wouldn't that be in addition to the books we're already getting right? So, 1 setting specific book like SCAG and 1 generic book too.

Now, to be fair, 1/year probably wouldn't be a huge issue, depending on how meaty the book was. But, remember, you've shifted the goalposts pretty hard here. We ARE getting 1 book per year, just not one that you want.

I haven't shifted anything. Both the OP and what I am talking about is general content. If you add setting books to the general content books of 3e, you go from 65(general content) to 121(adding in Eberron and FR). The combined release rate is 30.25 books a year. The general content release rate is 8.125 books a year.

5e has released 14 books in total in 2.25 years. That's 6.2 a year so far. Add one more and you're at 7-8 a year combined releases. Adding one book of general content a year to what has already been released won't even remotely come close to the 30.25 book release rate of 3e, and 3e lasted 8 years in total (3e+3.5). You are asking for 10 years only.

How much better would it have to do to justify the expense of what you're asking for. And, remember, you're not asking for just one book. You're asking for a class/race book, right? So, which races? Which classes? How many are we talking about here? Because every book like this that you add, that add new classes, and new races and new feats and new spells, makes the game just that much more complex. Three Big Book of Classes down the road and suddenly we're back to needing a spreadsheet to track options.

I'm asking for 1 book for year of general content and have said that I'm not picky about it. It can be classes, races, items, optional rules, etc., or some combination.

To sum up though, what evidence do you have that a lack of generic material is hurting the hobby in any way?

A whole lot of people both here and on the D&D boards have been asking for some for a long time now. People who don't get what they want, go elsewhere. That's human nature.

 

[BryonD]

If meaningless anecdotes offend your sensibilities, please be advised to skip this post.

My group has switched back to Pathfinder.
I led that change, but the votes were two in favor, two don't care either way, and zero for stay with 5E.
We played 5E for right at two years. We had a lot of fun. It is a great game.
I'd been playing 3E/PF for going on 15 years and 5E was the good new shiny. It worked great.
Now that we've played 5E for two years, it isn't new. And we feel that the depth of the game (or lack thereof) is starting to show. Which isn't remotely to say that it is inadequate. Again, we had two great years with it. I'm sure we could continue playing it for some time and have a lot of fun. But the level of texture offered by PF is simply greater. It took 15 years to "burn out" the first time and that has been nicely recharged. Whereas 5E burnout is already starting. Not so bad I need to quit, but bad enough that the levels of preference clearly crossed over and PF is back in the lead.

I think the thinness of content has played into this.
But honestly I think it is largely the nature of the bounded system. I've been very vocal in praising it and I'm not retracting that. But two years later it is kinda done. And when they do put out a new class or spell they feel very mechanically shallow. I'm not going to try to defend my opinion here. It is my opinion and is shared by my group, so that is good enough. But for examples sake, a new class is still going to be the same prof bonus plus their prime attribute to hit one simple AC. I'm eager to get back touch ACs and frequent ability damage, and size modifiers, etc etc etc.
Things feel more distinct and customized.

I make no claim that this applies to any other group.
I make even less claim that this applies to the TTRPG marketplace.
And I make way far and away less claim that if this *did* apply to the TTRPG marketplace that it must matter at all to WotC's big picture brand value strategy for D&D.

 

[Sadras]

I'm eager to get back touch ACs and frequent ability damage, and size modifiers, etc etc etc.
Things feel more distinct and customized.

My feelings on 5e very much mirror yours, however as DM, I'm not nearly that confident in my mastery of 3.x, hence we have instead stayed with 5e and created house rules for touch attacks, ability damage and the like. It is easier for me to incorporate - that just means my players needed to be happy with me (along with their input) modifying/updating rules as we played.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There has been no general release content in 2-3 years. None. Setting specific content is not general release content.

Elemental Evil.

The Elemental Evil pdf is general content, officially released with 4 races and spells. Sure, it didn't come in a book, but it was general release content.

And for that matter, how should we define the Unearthed Arcana material? I'm using quite a bit of the Eberron Unearthed Arcana in my current game (3 people in my party are playing "shifters" and a 4th is playing a changeling) and when I played a game last year I played the Storm Sorcerer from the Waterborne Unearthed Arcana.

I understand Unearthed Arcana is billed as playtest material, needing work, but that doesn't mean it isn't gneral content, usable for free by the players from the offices of WoTC. Looking through my folder of them... I'd say about 6-7 of them have content I'd be more than happy to use in game, some depends on whether I want to use it as a DM or as a player, but do those count?

Volo's Guide is going to have general content.

There is another book of general content coming, rumor has it next year.


So, even if we don't count Unearthed Arcana, with Elemental Evil, Volo and another book on the horizon aren't we looking at 1 general content release a year, barring the 1st year of the game when they came out with the Core Books.... which is about as general content release as you can get?