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

[Maxperson]

Umm, what's this 2-3 years? We've had SCAG in the first two years, plus the soon to be released Volo's guide and then this potential mechanical book sometime next year. Seems like one per year to me.

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

 

[Hussar]

No, I don't agree. Remember, we disagree about a fundamental point. I believe firmly that a majority of players wants some general release content, so my "needs" are not just my own.

But, no one seems to be really disputing that people would like some new content. I mean, if no one wanted new content, WotC sales would tank and that would be it really. Shut the doors, turn out the lights and go home. Why would you produce new content for people that didn't want new releases?

However, you've still managed to ignore the point. What's the tipping point? How many releases sink an edition? 3e died after about 30 books. 3.5 died after about 40 books. 4e died after 40 books. They hit the wall. And, let's not forget, we've got Paizo as another data point. Paizo for a long time only released a couple of bigger books a year. Yes, they had the AP's, but, they didn't push splats for quite a few years.

And, now, what, seven years in, Paizo looks to be fading pretty hard. Would anyone be shocked to see a Pathfinder 2.0 in the next two to three years? So, maybe a ten year run? 30 (ish) core supplements? Gee, that number doesn't seem to change that much. Sure, lots of extra Golarian supplements, but, I'm talking the big, heavy duty books that are supposed to appeal to broad audiences, you're monster manual supplements, your class books, your race books. Those things.

The faster your release those books, the sooner your edition dies. Spread it out and you can keep things going for a LOT longer.

 

[Hussar]

Nobody here is asking for large numbers of splats. That's another of your assumptions

But, AGAIN, what is a "large" number? By all evidence, an edition is done after about 30 books. So, you want to release 4 books per year? Great, edition's done in 6 years. The goal here is to keep this alive for MORE than 10 years.

Your assumption is that you think people won't wait. That people will just lose interest and move on and without a steady diet of books, they'll find some other line.

Let me introduce you to Mr. Martin.

 

[Maxperson]

But, no one seems to be really disputing that people would like some new content. I mean, if no one wanted new content, WotC sales would tank and that would be it really. Shut the doors, turn out the lights and go home. Why would you produce new content for people that didn't want new releases?

However, you've still managed to ignore the point. What's the tipping point? How many releases sink an edition? 3e died after about 30 books. 3.5 died after about 40 books. 4e died after 40 books. They hit the wall. And, let's not forget, we've got Paizo as another data point. Paizo for a long time only released a couple of bigger books a year. Yes, they had the AP's, but, they didn't push splats for quite a few years.

The number I have put forth and seen others put forth is 1 book a year. At 30-40 books, you do the math on how long it will take for 5e to die at that pace.

And, now, what, seven years in, Paizo looks to be fading pretty hard. Would anyone be shocked to see a Pathfinder 2.0 in the next two to three years? So, maybe a ten year run? 30 (ish) core supplements? Gee, that number doesn't seem to change that much. Sure, lots of extra Golarian supplements, but, I'm talking the big, heavy duty books that are supposed to appeal to broad audiences, you're monster manual supplements, your class books, your race books. Those things.

Pathfinder is at what, 60 books? I've heard they surpassed 3e and 4e for release rate.

The faster your release those books, the sooner your edition dies. Spread it out and you can keep things going for a LOT longer.

The edition is not going to last the 30-40 years that the rate we want will cause, anyway. It will die well before then, and so even at a rate of 1 general content book per year, the edition won't be killed by it.

 

[Maxperson]

But, AGAIN, what is a "large" number? By all evidence, an edition is done after about 30 books. So, you want to release 4 books per year? Great, edition's done in 6 years. The goal here is to keep this alive for MORE than 10 years.

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

 

[PMárk]

In regard to DMGuild content not being accepted, that's something I can understand. Content from the DMGuild is not canonical.

It probably seems strange to some to approach rules content in such a manner. But, to me at least, rules content for an RPG is still part of the overall thing that is the story, world, and experience of the game. And content is either canonical, or it is not.

Now, I'm not extreme in this. I'm willing to use non-canon material sometimes. Especially as a game master. But I get it.

This, so much. Thanks!

I might add that being non-canonical comes with a lot of other baggage, when fiction, setting and game/rules are intertwined.

I understand how D&D is a big box of lego for a lot of people. Creating stuff is fun, I enjoy it. It's just I also enjoy some thematic lego sets (settings) and especially stories from those settings' characters. Reading is a big part of my brand enjoyment in rpgs.

No official material=no canon material=no living settings=neither new setting lore, nor fiction. Honestly, my main interest isn't a big hardcover crunch book every year, but living settings and setting-thematic crunch. That's my main problem with DMsG. The material there is not canon, or it's old. I don't really know what1s worse, not getting material for FR, which is a living setting, or not getting material for any of the other settings, thus condemning them to oblivion on the long run and losing numerous fantastic things.

It reminds me somewhat to the CWoD/NWoD dichotomy. Some people like NWoD more, because it doesn't have metaplot and "canon" history, but it's a big sandbox. Some people like CWoD more, because they like gonzo stories and the notion of a living world. Of course it's just a part of the picture, there are other reasons, but I'm feeling frequently that this is the most important separator.

 

[pkt77242]

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

Again what you want. Why does it have to be a "general" release? Crunch works well across settings unlike fluff, so why the demand for "general"?

The crunchy bits of SCAG are useable in most campaigns. Yes if you play in a very particular setting it might not work but the same could be said of a "general" release. What crunchy parts from SCAG won't port easily to most settings?

 

[pkt77242]

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

You are getting one per year, just not the one YOU​ want.

 

[Maxperson]

You are getting one per year, just not the one YOU​ want.

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?

 

[Maxperson]

Again what you want. Why does it have to be a "general" release? Crunch works well across settings unlike fluff, so why the demand for "general"?

Because there is no book of only setting crunch, and I'm not going to burn money just because YOU want me to buy a book where 2/3 of it is useless to me. Tell you what, if you mail me a money to pay for the 2/3 of wasted setting space, I'll put up the money for the 1/3 that is crunch.