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

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'm going to nitpick your nitpick by pointing out that I said "a book that sells only to homebrewers theoretically sells to 55%" - I didn't actually claim that a 'general' book would only sell to homebrewers.

On the other hand, just because someone is playing in a homebrew world it doesn't mean they'll have any use for a particular piece of "general" content. Whereas you can be certain that the 35% playing in the Realms can easily fit a FR themed book into their games.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dang it, we got over 40 pages already.

 

[Corwin]

On the other hand, just because someone is playing in a homebrew world it doesn't mean they'll have any use for a particular piece of "general" content. Whereas you can be certain that the 35% playing in the Realms can easily fit a FR themed book into their games.

Why do you think that? Any particular bit of FR material may go unused by a FR campaign as well. Some could argue, much of the material might never get used. I mean, if a campaign is taking place in and around Cormyr, what good is the section of the source material referring to Durpar? Or Chult? Or the hundreds of other locales and regions never touched upon in the campaign being played?

 

[JeffB]

In that case do we have 3e, 3.5, 4e and Essentials as the last four editions before 5e?

3.5 made many minor and major changes invalidating a great many thiings outside of.classes. Essentials is not even close to that kind.of revision.

 

[Tony Vargas]

3.5 made many minor and major changes invalidating a great many thiings outside of.classes. Essentials is not even close to that kind.of revision.

Oh, it was at least as substantial a revision - it just maintained a fiction that they were mostly additions, not changes.

 

[Shasarak]

3.5 made many minor and major changes invalidating a great many thiings outside of.classes. Essentials is not even close to that kind.of revision.

With 4e there was constant monthly minor and major changes, so does that mean that every time we have errata it counts as a new edition?

Either way, if 3.5 is a new edition then Essentials must also be considered a new edition using the same definition.

And if Essentials is a new edition then the premise that rapid production of content kills editions does not apply as Essentials had much less support then any of the proceeding "editions" and yet lasted the shortest time of them all.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Why do you think that? Any particular bit of FR material may go unused by a FR campaign as well. Some could argue, much of the material might never get used. I mean, if a campaign is taking place in and around Cormyr, what good is the section of the source material referring to Durpar? Or Chult? Or the hundreds of other locales and regions never touched upon in the campaign being played?

I was thinking about 5E style FR books, not the highly specific stuff from 2e etc. Yeah sure it's possible to write FR content that's not relevant for 95% of realms players, but we all know that the WotC of 2016 isn't going to publish anything like that.

 

[Corwin]

I was thinking about 5E style FR books, not the highly specific stuff from 2e etc. Yeah sure it's possible to write FR content that's not relevant for 95% of realms players, but we all know that the WotC of 2016 isn't going to publish anything like that.

<looks at his Sword Coast Adventurers Guide...>

 

[Shasarak]

2E, 3xE and 4E all had rapid release schedules. There were quite a few splat books for 2E, such as the guides/kit books, etc.

Let us not forget that 2e lasted for 11 years which was not bad considering how it was supposed to have split its audience with all the different settings and constant release of content.

I wonder how the anti-content people reconcile that?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Dang it, we got over 40 pages already.

I know! He told us to just stop 45 pages ago! Doesn't anybody pay attention nowadays?!?