WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Stormonu]

If D&D has a problem, it is that it is on cruise control, and content churn. Back when 5E started, they had a small crew and content was sparse. I don't know about others, but it seemed like more care and thought went into the products coming out. Also, most of the initial adventures were new (the Dragon Queen trilogy) or rehashes/remixes of classic material - taking a handful of old adventures, mashing them together and taking out what didn't work in modern gameplay (Strahd, Storm King's Thunder, Prince of the Apocalypse, Tomb of Annihilation).

Perhaps it was the publication of Tales of Yawning Portal - direct reprints of old adventures - that made the D&D team realize that they could simply ride the nostalgia wave to churn out more without having to dip too hard/deep into the "new" (Ghosts of Saltmarsh, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, Van Richten's).

Recently, they've hit an "experimental" stage/sideline - Candlekeep, Witchlight, Radiant Citadel, Tasha's the upcoming Deck of Many Things book - seeing how far they can bend D&D and people still buy into it. I'd almost think they're bored with "traditional" D&D and are quietly trying to push it into something it's never been.

I mean they have the problem that they have to produce to live, but I think they're being asked to dump too much onto the market too fast. Not nearly as much as previous editions, but I think they need to scale back content to about 2-3 books a year. I think we'd all like to see books that have had more time and energy devoted to them than the phoned-in content of the latest Spelljammer set.

 

[Zardnaar]

If D&D has a problem, it is that it is on cruise control, and content churn. Back when 5E started, they had a small crew and content was sparse. I don't know about others, but it seemed like more care and thought went into the products coming out. Also, most of the initial adventures were new (the Dragon Queen trilogy) or rehashes/remixes of classic material - taking a handful of old adventures, mashing them together and taking out what didn't work in modern gameplay (Strahd, Storm King's Thunder, Prince of the Apocalypse, Tomb of Annihilation).

Perhaps it was the publication of Tales of Yawning Portal - direct reprints of old adventures - that made the D&D team realize that they could simply ride the nostalgia wave to churn out more without having to dip too hard/deep into the "new" (Ghosts of Saltmarsh, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, Van Richten's).

Recently, they've hit an "experimental" stage/sideline - Candlekeep, Witchlight, Radiant Citadel, Tasha's the upcoming Deck of Many Things book - seeing how far they can bend D&D and people still buy into it. I'd almost think they're bored with "traditional" D&D and are quietly trying to push it into something it's never been.

I mean they have the problem that they have to produce to live, but I think they're being asked to dump too much onto the market too fast. Not nearly as much as previous editions, but I think they need to scale back content to about 2-3 books a year. I think we'd all like to see books that have had more time and energy devoted to them than the phoned-in content of the latest Spelljammer set.

Alot of those earlier adventures weren't that good either but they're great comparatively.

But you had a decent amount of quality as well.

 

[Davies]

I don't quite understand the idea of the original post.

It's clickbait. Particularly egregious clickbait, given that the OP has since stated that they didn't mean it literally.

 

[Parmandur]

What I'm wondering is that WotC has data. I was under the impression that their one true in-house full setting book (Eberron) in 5e was successful. Is there a reason why they did not try to imitate that success with other settings and instead went back to adventures with setting lore within, or am I mistaken in the Eberron setting book being successful?

Yes, it was successful, which is why they did more: and Rav ica was, apparently, one of the fastest selling D&D books ever published when it came out just a year earlier. But Ravnica is maybe where you want to look to understand the continuing evolution of 5E Setting products, as the experiments they tried there leapfrogged over Eberron into all the future Setting products.

 

[S'mon]

In my experience, it has become increasingly apparent that a lot of fans of older settings want WotC to copy-paste the entirety of the older setting books they like with just updated mechanics. They don't want the books or settings "redone" or "updated" for new editions, they want the same books just with the mechanics of the edition their group is currently playing.

Which isn't really necessary - I've been running a campaign based on FR9 Bloodstone Lands for years now, first in 1e, now in 5e. Conversion is just a question of deciding how the given 1e/2e level spread translates to what I want for NPCs in the 5e game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which isn't really necessary - I've been running a campaign based on FR9 Bloodstone Lands for years now, first in 1e, now in 5e. Conversion is just a question of deciding how the given 1e/2e level spread translates to what I want for NPCs in the 5e game.

So conversion is just a matter of converting? Makes you wonder why they bother publishing new books at all then, beyond the core three.

 

[darjr]

So conversion is just a matter of converting? Makes you wonder why they bother publishing new books at all then, beyond the core three.

Well because they've been making new stories instead of just restating the old ones.

 

[humble minion]

Yes, it was successful, which is why they did more: and Rav ica was, apparently, one of the fastest selling D&D books ever published when it came out just a year earlier. But Ravnica is maybe where you want to look to understand the continuing evolution of 5E Setting products, as the experiments they tried there leapfrogged over Eberron into all the future Setting products.

Huh, I haven't read Ravnica, but even though Eberron is not my cup of tea, the Rising from the Last War book is the absolute gold standard of 5th ed campaign setting books in my opinion. Just the structure, and the wealth of eminiently usable content, and the plot hooks, etc etc etc. And yes, i can quibble about the implementation of Dragonmarks and some of the editing in the Sharn section, but really it just leaves everything else in the dust. I wish they'd used it as a model for what came after, rather than having adventures increasingly eat up the content of ever-thinner campaign setting books.

 

[S'mon]

So conversion is just a matter of converting? Makes you wonder why they bother publishing new books at all then, beyond the core three.

How much conversion is there really when the book just lists an NPC's level? It's not like there are actual stat blocks to convert. Really I could use the NPC levels as-is, there's only one listed over 20 AFAICR. But I'll often prefer to be lazy and use the 5e NPC stat blocks rather than generate a PC class NPC.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

A good thing they could do for a FR lore compendium is allowing to buy as POD, on the DMsGuild, all the ''gazetteer'' sections of adventures books, coupled with a few maps of the environing dungeons and the non-adventure-specific statblock for monsters and NPC. Maybe as soft-cover?

Its still pretty Sword-Coast specific, but its a good amount of lore without having to pay for a whole adventure you dont intent to run.