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

[Tony Vargas]

But it wasn't. You are trying to simplify the closing of TSR in a way to justify your ridiculous argument about a release schedule.

It is a little silly to say that the wealth of cool D&D stuff in the 90s killed TSR. Yeah, it was going too deep on novels, collectible games, and general mis-management. But, really, so what?

We don't have to point to the slow:release correlation in the 80s to shore up speculation that slow release will be successful for 5e.

It already has been successful.

 

[Shasarak]

Agreed. But you didn't play a "psionicist." You played a wizard, or fighter, or whatever. And with a good roll, got a few broken powers to play with. Are you guys saying this is what you want in 5e psionics? I'm starting to get confused by all this 1e psionics love. Or is it that it is the only thing to cling to when it comes to 5e's "failings"?

I guess it depends if you want to play a Psionicist or Mystic (seems to be Mikes favoured term) in 5e. Personally I can take or leave it.

I think there was a play test for a few levels of Mystic at some stage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Says you?

The return of unsold novels was cited at the time as a cause of TSR's financial failure. It's really 'says history.' But, whatever, you also think 5e has more decision points than other other edition two years into the run. While I'm sure it's got 1e beat, and mabye it even edges out 3.0 or 2e (depending on how you define decision points), but 3.5 or 4e or PF?

During what part of character creation did you make the decision point to become a psionicist in 1e?

It was part of character creation, just a random part. Just like your stats. For instance, (IIRC) if you rolled a 6 INT, you didn't get to choose your class, fighter was the only option.

In spite of the randomness of 1e, characters could include non-fighters and even psionics.

Randomness vs choice is just an artifact of the mechanics of the day. You've pointed out, yourself, that such mechanical minutia isn't relevant.

There will *always* be someone waiting for *something*. I fail to see the point being made here.

Therefor we shouldn't try at all? By that logic, the basic pdf is all the 5e we ever needed.

Also, thanks for mischaracterizing my original question by claiming I called people "crows" instead of "crowd". Subtle, but well played.

Typo. That kind of mistake is murder, though.

But when I asked that question, I was specific in "more". That 5e has more choices and options. You were the one trying to bring in specific missing minutia and optional tack-on features in the back of the book. Not me.

The Mystic is a class that's in line to be added to the game. That there are already more options in 5e than in the 1e PH isn't a reason to cancel it. When someone who loved a past edition of D&D wants to play a type of character they could, in that edition, or indeed, in all past editions at some point, in the case of psionics in general, pointing out the many options he doesn't want as if that met his desire is non-productive.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This thread will eat itself.

and most likely get indigestion

 

[Shasarak]

But it wasn't. You are trying to simplify the closing of TSR in a way to justify your ridiculous argument about a release schedule.

Here are the reasons for why TSR went down.

1: The Blume brothers and their extravagant spending.

2: Lorraine Williams and her horrible money management of the company as a whole, among many other things she did internally that had nothing to do with the game.

3: CCG's

4: TSR's answer to the CCG craze. (Spellfire and Dragon Dice).

5: Tons of unsold hard back novels.

6: Now there was a theory, that was never confirmed, that lucrative products and the many settings didn't help, even though they were very popular. They could have put out tons of books but limited their settings.

1 through 5 were what really brought the company down. Not the release schedule nonsense.

You forgot that they were also selling their box sets for less then the cost of making them.

 

[Jester David]

If you want to make the argument that more books = shorter lifespan of an edition then maybe you could at least give some supporting evidence that such and such edition had so many books and lasted for this many years as compared to this edition that lasted for a shorter time with more books.

Okay.
There are six real editions of D&D: 1-5 and Basic.
1e lasted from 1977 to 1989.
BECMI D&D lasted from 1983 to 2000.
2e lasted from 1989 to 1999 (or 1989 to 1995 and 1995 to 1999).
3e lasted from 2000 to 2003.
3.5e lasted from 2003 to 2007.
4e lasted from 2008 to 2010.
4e Essentials lasted from 2010 to 2012.

So the longest editions are, in order, BECMI, 1e, 2e, then 3.5e.

BECMI didn't have any real accessories beyond the level increasing books (Companion or Immortals) and the Creature Catalogue as everything else was a some combination of world book or adventure.
It's in super high demand. The books fetch a very high price on the secondary market. And the Red Box is arguably the best selling D&D product of all time.
1e only had the 8 accessories and a wealth of adventures. Even those were fairly small most of the time.

In contrast, 2e only had a half-dozen hardcover expansions. But it had soooo many softcover books and TSR struggled for money and eventually went bankrupt.
Given I'm separating Essentials, I could probably arguably separate the 1995 Revised 2nd Edition products. The mid-edition relaunch which was an attempt to revitalize the game and boost sagging sales. It really served the exact same purpose as 3.5e and Essentials. And it launched with a whole host of new accessories and tweaks to the system.

Following that were the four super short editions. Each edition grew shorter and shorter. Each edition had increasingly more "assumed" crunch.


So the longest lasting versions of D&D are BECMI and AD&D by a wide margin, which are also the ones with the fewest waves of player accessories and splatbooks.

Now, correlation does not equal causation. So the two examples could just be flukes. The short lifespan of 3e and 4e could be attributed to failures of those systems.
However, it makes sense to try a lighter release schedule to see what happens. To follow a model somewhat simmilar to the most successful and longest lasting version of D&D: BECMI - albeit without separating the Core Rules into several different products.
If the edition starts to fail, they can always add more content. But it's foolish to try what's been done four or five times in the past and expect a different result. Because once you introduce bloat you can't undo it.

 

[Corwin]

Therefor we shouldn't try at all? By that logic, the basic pdf is all the 5e we ever needed.

Who's saying any of that? Don't hurt yourself taking such clumsy swings at those strawmen there...

 

[Jester David]

You forgot that they were also selling their box sets for less then the cost of making them.

A boxed set. I believe it was the Planescape one with the cloth map. It was hardly a regular occurrence.

 

[Corwin]

The Mystic is a class that's in line to be added to the game. That there are already more options in 5e than in the 1e PH isn't a reason to cancel it. When someone who loved a past edition of D&D wants to play a type of character they could, in that edition, or indeed, in all past editions at some point, in the case of psionics in general, pointing out the many options he doesn't want as if that met his desire is non-productive.

Look, at this point it feels like you are dragging me into the weeds just so you can point at my grass stains and mock.

The point I've been making was never about not wanting more options. Or canceling the ones that are sure to come. It was reminding people, who are complaining about not enough splat, that the "splat" that would have been seen as such in previous editions is baked into the core books already. That the wonderfully rich assortment of options we have in 5e already makes the early releases of previous editions jealous.

That's it. Why you chose to die on that hill, I'll never know.

 

[nswanson27]

Look, at this point it feels like you are dragging me into the weeds just so you can point at my grass stains and mock.

The point I've been making was never about not wanting more options. Or canceling the ones that are sure to come. It was reminding people, who are complaining about not enough splat, that the "splat" that would have been seen as such in previous editions is baked into the core books already. That the wonderfully rich assortment of options we have in 5e already makes the early releases of previous editions jealous.

That's it. Why you chose to die on that hill, I'll never know.

By merit of the fact that WotC is releasing more content (however slow) would imply that WotC disagrees with you. Otherwise, they would simply say "It's already in what's already released."