D&D 5E WotC to increase releases per year?

[delericho]

Speaking for myself, I'd be happy to see a somewhat-increased cadence - more books means more chance of them producing books that I want to see.

That said, I'm more or less done with buying 5e books now, so the chances are fairly low.

(I enjoyed "Rime of the Icemaiden", but have very limited need for new adventures. I didn't like either "Xanathar's" or "Tasha's", so am not interested in a player-facing book. And I have no need for more monsters at this time. So more or less all I would actually buy is a setting book for Ravenloft (which is coming), Spelljammer (but absolutely not a Spelljammer/Planescape mash-up), or Dark Sun. Oh, and if they produce another book for Eberron I'd probably buy that - but probably only one.)

 

[R_J_K75]

What I'd really like would be a big book full of optional rules, that could be used to update settings like Dark Sun and Spelljammer without WotC needing to bring out an official setting of their own.

I agree. I think they should've done this right from the start. Released a larger conversion book(s) for the mechanical parts of the various campaign settings.

 

[Mercurius]

I didn't see this before posting my other thread about the fifth product, but in that I hesitated writing that I could see them adding a fifth hardcover--and sixth major product--this year, due to the earlyish release of the second book.

Bloat was peak 4E, 3E, and 2E, in which 10-12 hardcovers were released per year, plus a bunch of other stuff. There's a lot of room to play between that and 5E's 3-4 hardcovers plus an extra product or too.

I think they could publish the following on a yearly basis and not achieve bloat for many years:

• One new setting
• One classic setting
• Two adventure paths
• One splat
• One luxury/special product or box set

That's six books/boxes. You could probably add one or two minor items.

Furthermore, bloat is mostly the result of excessive rules options (or secondary setting books), so as long as they don't over do it with those, I think they can publish significantly more.

Plus, consider what has come before:

2014: Release of 5E
2015-17: Three hardcovers
2018-20: Four hardcovers

Would that mean...

2021-23: Five hardcovers?

 

[Reynard]

• Two adventure paths

Who are these going to sell to? Even at one per year there is no time to run them all. I think a collection of smaller adventures per year is a good idea, though.

 

[Oofta]

Who are these going to sell to? Even at one per year there is no time to run them all. I think a collection of smaller adventures per year is a good idea, though.

Maybe they'll start supporting higher levels? Or make one very campaign world specific? So a "standard" adventure path and then one that's in a different setting such as Eberron.

I mean, I wouldn't bet any money on it but just because individual groups couldn't play both doesn't mean that there's not enough room for two if they target them differently.

But at this point might as well put ideas on a dartboard and throw darts while blindfolded because that will be just about as accurate.

 

[OB1]

Who are these going to sell to? Even at one per year there is no time to run them all. I think a collection of smaller adventures per year is a good idea, though.

I'm not sure they are releasing adventure paths with the idea that all existing players will purchase each of them. APs and Campaign settings are designed to entice new players into the game with a story hook that appeals to them, and thus sell more PHBs, which is where the real profit margin is.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure they are releasing adventure paths with the idea that all existing players will purchase each of them. APs and Campaign settings are designed to entice new players into the game with a story hook that appeals to them, and thus sell more PHBs, which is where the real profit margin is.

Emphasis mine. Is that true? I have never heard that reasoning before.

 

[Scribe]

Emphasis mine. Is that true? I have never heard that reasoning before.

I think it makes sense. New worlds, new subversions of expectation, more chances that if what was not previously working for someone, is changed or presented in a new way that draws them in.

A rules pack (Guide to Everything or whatever) appeals more to people who are already in.

 

[Reynard]

I think it makes sense. New worlds, new subversions of expectation, more chances that if what was not previously working for someone, is changed or presented in a new way that draws them in.

A rules pack (Guide to Everything or whatever) appeals more to people who are already in.

I guess it makes sense for some of the more recent releases. I don't think Storm King's Thunder would have attracted too many new players, but I can see Avernus doing so, given the high profile on Baldur's Gate in adjacent media and the cool Mad Max war machines, etc... I wonder if we have any way of knowing whether the Magic settings drew players of that game into D&D who had not done so before. Also, it suddenly occurs to me that I have no idea who plays Magic, demographic wise.

 

[Horwath]

I actually think we are due for a remaster release of the Core. NOT 5.5, just cleaned up, eratta'd and tweaked rules and options.

That sound suspiciously like 5.5