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

[hawkeyefan]

That's not true. If I didn't base my purchases on merit, I'd just buy third party stuff without checking it first, and it would be whatever. The fact that I don't have time to study third party material means that I don't buy it. Not because of lack of merit, but because I can't discern the merit.

Fair enough. You don't know. Your earlier comments sounded like someone who had a strong dislike for 3rd party material rather than someone who didn't know about them.

 

[Corwin]

Ok, so if the player can not "force" anything into the game, how can we then use a new class from the Dms Guild reliably expecting to be able to play it?

So adult-style conversations are not a viable tactic anymore for hashing out desires at a table?

Sure some DMs are going to allow it but I have seen a lot of DMs that will not even allow official material in their games. Take the 5e Gun-slinger for example for a very popular class that uses equipment ie guns that are not always accepted.

Okay? I'm just not sure why your table experiences should be presented as any kind of baseline or expectation. It certainly isn't indicative of my experience playing D&D through the ages.

 

[Corwin]

You can of course cite objective numbers proving this claim, right?

And yet you claim it as a fact. Interesting.

Not the picture you claim.

You keep saying that, but no new data has been provided that shows that this same dynamic is present for recent editions.

That's the claim, but I haven't seen any objective numbers proving this statement.

Show the sales statements that prove your claims.

I'm just going to go ahead and borrow every single one of these replies of yours for the next response I need to make to you, m'kay?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wow, is it just me or did this thread get very nasty very quickly?

 

[Maxperson]

Fair enough. You don't know. Your earlier comments sounded like someone who had a strong dislike for 3rd party material rather than someone who didn't know about them.

I don't know NOW. During 3e I did look at the material and found almost all of it lacking in merit.

 

[Jester David]

You can of course cite objective numbers proving this claim, right?

And yet you claim it as a fact. Interesting.

Not the picture you claim.

You keep saying that, but no new data has been provided that shows that this same dynamic is present for recent editions.

That's the claim, but I haven't seen any objective numbers proving this statement.

Show the sales statements that prove your claims.

So...your counter argument is basically "nuh-uh"?

Neither of us can cite numbers or sales figures. Both of us have to operate with some assumptions. At least I provided deductive reasoning to back up my claim.
Care to offer anything to this discussion? To expand any of your points into an actual rebuttal?


The only people who have access to the actual numbers are WotC. Who have been dramatically reducing the number of RPG books they release each year. They went from monthly D&D books in 3e, down to books every couple months, and then down to a book each quarter. And now just three books a year.
They're not going to do that for no reason. What could it be?

Well... there are two realistic possible options for "the reason":
1) The D&D team at WotC is really, really bad at their job and is ignoring the majority of their fans. And even though D&D is experiencing a renaissance unlike anything seen since the '80s, this would be even bigger if they were releasing annual or twice annual books of crunch. Twice as big actually since the majority of fans are not being served.
OR
2) The group of fans that want large supplemental books of crunch and will buy those books are a smaller subset of the entire fanbase and not enough of an audience to entirely sustain the RPG or profitable enough on the long term to cater to.

In one option, D&D is good. Because the fans are happy, the brand is well-managed, and there's limited risk of the edition being killed by bloat or power creep. No everyone is happy, but you can't make everyone happy all the time.

In the other option, D&D is effed. Totally effed. And not just because the majority of fans won't be satisfied by anything less than endless and regular new crunch (which risks bloat and power creep). No, it is effed because it means D&D is staffed and managed by people with no concern for the desires of the fans that pay their salary and sustain their brand. That are not only mismanaging the brand, but are doing so after a massive public playtest and armed with the feedback from numerous surveys, customer feedback forms, and direct customer feedback on Twitter and message boards. And are unable to do anything to correct this due to under staffing and a limited operational budget set by upper management. So D&D is either staffed by people who are hilariously poor at their jobs or are purposely sabotaging the game.

And that is CRAZY depressing. Because it means the D&D RPG is going to rapidly die in the next couple years and WotC/Hasbro is going to shelve it along with the dozens of other "failed" brands and IP.
So I don't believe that. Because it goes against what I'm seeing everywhere else and not just a few people here and there on message boards. And because it's needlessly depressing and I choose not to swallow that bitter pill. Because there's enough negativity out there already. And because the amount of mental hoops needed to jump through to believe that possibility are borderline full-on conspiracy theorist.

 

[ccs]

And yet we have to police all the material from DMsGuild.

Nope. Just whatever I think might sound interesting. Same as I have to from any other company, WoTC included. Been doing that for 30 years +/-.... The only thing different is the delivery system.

 

[ccs]

Well that depends, especially if you are a new DM.

Nope, works just fine for us vets as well.
For ex; Psionics. I don't like them. Never have. They don't interest me. So when I'm the DM they just don't exist. I don't care what edition we're playing, who wrote it, what corner of the web you found it in, or how balanced it may or may not be. It's not being used.

 

[Maxperson]

So...your counter argument is basically "nuh-uh"?

In response to your, "Yeah huh!", sure.

Neither of us can cite numbers or sales figures. Both of us have to operate with some assumptions. At least I provided deductive reasoning to back up my claim.
Care to offer anything to this discussion? To expand any of your points into an actual rebuttal?

Here's the difference. You're claiming yours as fact. Back it up. Mine is my opinion.

Well... there are two realistic possible options for "the reason":
1) The D&D team at WotC is really, really bad at their job and is ignoring the majority of their fans. And even though D&D is experiencing a renaissance unlike anything seen since the '80s, this would be even bigger if they were releasing annual or twice annual books of crunch. Twice as big actually since the majority of fans are not being served.
OR
2) The group of fans that want large supplemental books of crunch and will buy those books are a smaller subset of the entire fanbase and not enough of an audience to entirely sustain the RPG or profitable enough on the long term to cater to.

False Dichotomy. There are other possible reasons for their actions than your number 2.

 

[Shasarak]

D&D is doing very well by any metric: books sold, audience, social media presence, growth, etc.
That it only has three to five people on the RPG staff just means the unqualified success also translates to sizable profits for WotC.

Well, any metric except producing product or novels etc but thank goodness its doing well on Facebook and Twitter.