Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Where are the options?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6844751" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>That's an extreme way to put it. </p><p>But in both 4e and Pathfinder, because updates were possible and became the norm, there was a slow decline in quality that ended in a terrible book and a sudden re-commitment to better testing and editing.</p><p>Human nature?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Each time Paizo does a new print run, they do an errata pass. Which has slowly expanded to include small rule fixes and rebalancing. </p><p></p><p></p><p>But you said the pagination would stay the same.How can you have a new ranger option, new spells, new feats, etc and keep the same number of pages?</p><p>Either the content gets replaced or the books is expanded. If content is replaced, it's an update. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This still gets into the issue of a player bringing a new and different book to the table and expecting it to be automatically accepted. I can imagine some DMs not reacting well to a player springing a book with different content they're unfamiliar with. </p><p>To say nothing of the Adventurer's League, with one player with the "fixed" class that is doing much better than the other player. </p><p></p><p>Any time new content is added - and this is new content - it needs to be approved by the DM. And some DMs only want the "core" game. When you introduce a revision, it's causing a conflict, since the assumption is it's "the core rules" but it's still a change and new content and needs to be vetted by the DM. That's problematic. And introducing a revision means work for the DM since they need to go through the updates and see what's been changed and what's the same, which is very different than just reading brand new content. </p><p></p><p></p><p>"In practice" the changes were 3.5e, as that was the only time WotC has done something like this. (If you don't count Essentials.)</p><p>"In theory" the changes might not be many, but that hasn't worked well in the past. And people are still sore about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is telling game designers not to design games. </p><p>The catch is where to draw the line. Only underpowered options? What about overpowered options? Unclear rules? Rules that are clear but not working as intended? </p><p></p><p></p><p>Which just puts people in a position where they have to wait or buy content they know isn't "finished" and needs to be "patched". The longer people have to wait just means they get antsier wondering what will or will not be fixed. </p><p>When you know the update is coming, the content loses appeal. I know that during my 4e days, I banned PHB3 and Martial Power 2 at my table until the first updates, knowing it'd only be a few months.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The trade dress should be the same, as should the name and colour tone. It's not like people get confused and think that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a different book when the cover changes. </p><p>As long as it's called "PHB Revised" it should be fine.</p><p></p><p>But, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I really don't want a revision of the PHB. Not until sales lag and they can do a complete interior overhaul. But even then, that should be a look change at most, like what they did in late 2e. </p><p></p><p></p><p>So a publishing company should publish a book and not advertise and hype it? </p><p>WotC is a business not a charity. They're not here not to make money. </p><p>If they're making a new printing, they need to pay for that print run as well as the cost of the redesign and editing. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The more I think about this issue, the less I want/need the information in a physical book. A revised PHB just causes confusion and conflict, and only really matters to optimizers who want all their options to be strong. Meanwhile, having alternate content that fills the same niche just means less new options when we do get some of the rare new content. I'd rather see a new ranger or two that does something interesting and fun than a retread of a ranger we already have. </p><p></p><p>Variants released free online are different, since you can opt into that. And many of the fixes can be applied via the DMsGuild. Since DMs need to approve any new content anyway, there's no functional difference between an official book, and official PDF, and a 3rd Party/Fan published rules patch. </p><p>(A variant ranger is still problematic as it's unlikely to work with current & future subclasses, meaning it either has to replace the class or it won't receive updates.)</p><p></p><p>The need for official errata only exists in the strange space where DMs only play "by the rules" and don't house rule or change the rules. If DMs feel comfortable and are encouraged to make the game their own, then official updates mean less as DMs can balance and rebalance anything that's not working at their tables. We don't really need a revised Beast Master ranger as any DM who really feels strongly about it being underpowered has likely taken steps to fix it. </p><p>Official patches is last-decade game design thinking… Empowering DMs and giving them the tools to fix things themselves is a better tactic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6844751, member: 37579"] That's an extreme way to put it. But in both 4e and Pathfinder, because updates were possible and became the norm, there was a slow decline in quality that ended in a terrible book and a sudden re-commitment to better testing and editing. Human nature? Each time Paizo does a new print run, they do an errata pass. Which has slowly expanded to include small rule fixes and rebalancing. But you said the pagination would stay the same.How can you have a new ranger option, new spells, new feats, etc and keep the same number of pages? Either the content gets replaced or the books is expanded. If content is replaced, it's an update. This still gets into the issue of a player bringing a new and different book to the table and expecting it to be automatically accepted. I can imagine some DMs not reacting well to a player springing a book with different content they're unfamiliar with. To say nothing of the Adventurer's League, with one player with the "fixed" class that is doing much better than the other player. Any time new content is added - and this is new content - it needs to be approved by the DM. And some DMs only want the "core" game. When you introduce a revision, it's causing a conflict, since the assumption is it's "the core rules" but it's still a change and new content and needs to be vetted by the DM. That's problematic. And introducing a revision means work for the DM since they need to go through the updates and see what's been changed and what's the same, which is very different than just reading brand new content. "In practice" the changes were 3.5e, as that was the only time WotC has done something like this. (If you don't count Essentials.) "In theory" the changes might not be many, but that hasn't worked well in the past. And people are still sore about it. Which is telling game designers not to design games. The catch is where to draw the line. Only underpowered options? What about overpowered options? Unclear rules? Rules that are clear but not working as intended? Which just puts people in a position where they have to wait or buy content they know isn't "finished" and needs to be "patched". The longer people have to wait just means they get antsier wondering what will or will not be fixed. When you know the update is coming, the content loses appeal. I know that during my 4e days, I banned PHB3 and Martial Power 2 at my table until the first updates, knowing it'd only be a few months. The trade dress should be the same, as should the name and colour tone. It's not like people get confused and think that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a different book when the cover changes. As long as it's called "PHB Revised" it should be fine. But, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I really don't want a revision of the PHB. Not until sales lag and they can do a complete interior overhaul. But even then, that should be a look change at most, like what they did in late 2e. So a publishing company should publish a book and not advertise and hype it? WotC is a business not a charity. They're not here not to make money. If they're making a new printing, they need to pay for that print run as well as the cost of the redesign and editing. The more I think about this issue, the less I want/need the information in a physical book. A revised PHB just causes confusion and conflict, and only really matters to optimizers who want all their options to be strong. Meanwhile, having alternate content that fills the same niche just means less new options when we do get some of the rare new content. I'd rather see a new ranger or two that does something interesting and fun than a retread of a ranger we already have. Variants released free online are different, since you can opt into that. And many of the fixes can be applied via the DMsGuild. Since DMs need to approve any new content anyway, there's no functional difference between an official book, and official PDF, and a 3rd Party/Fan published rules patch. (A variant ranger is still problematic as it's unlikely to work with current & future subclasses, meaning it either has to replace the class or it won't receive updates.) The need for official errata only exists in the strange space where DMs only play "by the rules" and don't house rule or change the rules. If DMs feel comfortable and are encouraged to make the game their own, then official updates mean less as DMs can balance and rebalance anything that's not working at their tables. We don't really need a revised Beast Master ranger as any DM who really feels strongly about it being underpowered has likely taken steps to fix it. Official patches is last-decade game design thinking… Empowering DMs and giving them the tools to fix things themselves is a better tactic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Where are the options?
Top