I want more options. Wizards is a business. They sell me more options. It is that simple. You do not like something? Then do not buy it.
This is like complaining about a restaurant offering more options to appeal to more customers. Chill out. Let other customers enjoy their meal.
Serious question: Do you think in order for some option to be used in the game it must be included in a book or in a supplement? It must be official?
In the early days when there were fewer classes and certainly fewer options in print we used to just house rule new classes or variations on those available.
It is ironic how those who crave options but defer to Wizards and have them decide for them what's optional effectively wind up with fewer options than the infinite number of them available to those of us who just build our own classes, our own spells, our own items, etcetera.
To expand on your analogy: One needn't complain just because a restaurant has added more options to its menu. But one can also cook up a greater variety of meals in one's own kitchen.
I go to a restaurant for convenience. Just because I like cooking does not mean I want to cook every single day. I am a GM, you really think I do not homebrew? I also break rules, fudge dice, utilize dirty humor, and do all the other fun stuff that is not appropriate to publish in books.
And now that I am back home skimming the whole thread, you do not even seem to like the restaurant, how they do their business, half the food they sell, or the patrons dining there. You can go to other restaurants if you do not like Wizards. You do not have to try their whole menu either, and many people just stick with the popular basic lunch and dinner specials. Hell, if you are really that broke, they will give you a metric shit ton of free samples; they might not look nor taste the best, but it is freaking free food. You can dine in at a corner and order take out if you do not like the customers there. And as you have said before, you can also cook at home too.
Imagine if you will a group of friends who play the same board game every Friday night at the same friend's house and yet every one of them buys that board game. Imagine if you will that they needn't. Imagine they've no plans to play with others. Once a week. Every week. At Dave's place. Now imagine that game puts out cool little add-ons. Dave buys them. Can't miss out. But so does everyone else. They needn't. But they do.
The psychology going on there—and boy is it a case study if ever there were—is what Wizbro are banking on. It frustrates them that it is only the DMs among us who typically buy more than the Player's Handbook. Or at least that used to be the case with the possible exception of a player voluntarily purchasing a campaign setting or an accessory for his or her table. This is probably one of the motivations behind their putting out the equivalent of 3.5e's PHB II in the form of Xanathar's and Tasha's. Twice. The motivation behind alternate cover editions. There are so many new players and it is there where they see the money. They would make more just by updating the core rule books every few years or putting out more supplements like the aforementioned Xanathar's and Tasha's. They'd make more. But the game would be poorer for it than had they instead put at least some time and effort into actually designing quality campaign settings or accessories that DMs can use at their tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Neither Xanathar's nor Tasha's were the equivalent of 3.5e. Not even close. Equivalent of the 1e Unearthed Arcana, maybe, but even then only really Xanathar's.
Any given DM only needs one setting. And curious what 'accessories' would be more popular or would sell better than actual rule books. Do you have any examples?
'Just updating core rule books' is EXACTLY what angered people about 3.5e. That is exactly what 3.5e was. 3.0, with needed errata, sold as a new edition. How would updating existing books without selling new versions earn them more money?
This is probably one of the motivations behind their putting out the equivalent of 3.5e's PHB II in the form of Xanathar's and Tasha's.
A DM only "needs" one setting? I never said a DM "needs" anything did I?
That doesn't mean some of us wouldn't like to see the Forgotten Realms handled as well as it was in '87 and in '90. See them release something for Lankhmar like they did in '85. See them do Dragonlance properly. Or see them do Planescape justice. Instead of making a mess of it like they're inevitably going to do.
I have been playing since the 7th grade and not one DM I've known personally in all that time has strictly stuck to just one among either their own or published campaign settings. DMs have always had their preferences as well as ultimately enjoyed running their own homebrew campaign settings—and I prefer to do that myself—but I cannot think of a single table at which I played throughout the '80s and '90s where the DM wasn't eager to try something new TSR had put out. A mate of mine who DM-ed groups I played in in the late '80s and early '90s still has all those classic boxed sets. We tried and enjoyed the them all. They're collectables now for good reason. They were quality products.
What sorts of accessories? My DM shelf consists of a ruleset—as well as a few old TSR products I still use at the table—and then is otherwise filled with accessories. More than just the core monster manual. Books of tables. A book of gods. A book about how to generate religions or cults for one's games. Books for generating guilds and factions. City generators. Books that expand on what player characters might do other than just adventure. Books of tables for sandbox generation. Etc etc etc.
I'm sure you'll state the obvious and say a DM can do much of this him- or herself. But the same could be said for the rules. It was only earlier today in fact I saw someone point out elsewhere how his personal Desert Island game shelf wouldn't even require a copy of the rules as these they said they knew like the back of their hand. That instead they'd take with them a classic campaign setting and two books' worth of DM tools out of which they'd get more.
It is also for good reason that books of that nature consistently win ENNIES.
Just how do you think third-party publishers make a living?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Imagine if you will a group of friends who play the same board game every Friday night at the same friend's house and yet every one of them buys that board game. Imagine if you will that they needn't. Imagine they've no plans to play with others. Once a week. Every week. At Dave's place. Now imagine that game puts out cool little add-ons. Dave buys them. Can't miss out. But so does everyone else. They needn't. But they do.
The psychology going on there—and boy is it a case study if ever there were—is what Wizbro are banking on. It frustrates them that it is only the DMs among us who typically buy more than the Player's Handbook. Or at least that used to be the case with the possible exception of a player voluntarily purchasing a campaign setting or an accessory for his or her table. This is probably one of the motivations behind their putting out the equivalent of 3.5e's PHB II in the form of Xanathar's and Tasha's. Twice. The motivation behind alternate cover editions. There are so many new players and it is there where they see the money. They would make more just by updating the core rule books every few years or putting out more supplements like the aforementioned Xanathar's and Tasha's. They'd make more. But the game would be poorer for it than had they instead put at least some time and effort into actually designing quality campaign settings or accessories that DMs can use at their tables.
It's not a zero-sum game. They can both make more campaign settings like Ravenloft and Planescape, and more player-focused multiversal supplements like Xanathar's and Tasha's.
And while I can't speak for your playgroup, in mine most of us do buy more than just the PHB. Maybe only one or two people buy the adventure modules, but most of us buy the books that contain the player options, whether physical or digital.
They would make more just by updating the core rule books every few years or putting out more supplements like the aforementioned Xanathar's and Tasha's. They'd make more. But the game would be poorer for it than had they instead put at least some time and effort into actually designing quality campaign settings or accessories that DMs can use at their tables.
The rate of new rule books in 5e (a new set of core books after a decade) is the slowest it's been since AD&D 1e; for comparison, look at previous editions
AD&D 1e (1977) to AD&D 2e (1987): 10 years. A couple core-ish books were published, like Unearthed Arcana, but very few.
AD&D 2e to Revised/Players' Option edition (1995): 8 years. Expanded by 16different "The Complete X Handbook" and 22monstrous compendiums.
Players's Option to 3e (2000): 5 years. 3 core books plus 4 player's option books, and then a total of 7 spell compendiums.
3e to 3.5e (2003): 3 years. Still a few expansions, such as Psionics, Epic Levels, and 5 class splatbooks (Defenders of the Faith, etc)
3.5e to 4e (2008): 5 years. Again, a substantial number of splatbooks.
4e to 4e Essentials (2010): 2 years. Still managed to put out several splatbooks, such as Martial Power and PHB2.
Essentials to 5e (2014): 4 years. A bit slower than the earlier 4e pace, but again, several Player's Option books.
Crawford said that D&D has grown so much in the 5E era, what we've seen is that there are more people who have come to D&D through 5E than any other edition so we also need to include what new players want. Those new players want a game that is even more inclusive. We want to go beyond what we did in 2014.
This is NOT 6th edition or even 5.5. This is very important nuance. We're attempting something that has not been done before in D&D -- revising the game in place.
Crawford continued to that when Wizards created 3.5, it was built on the bones of 3.0, but you had to replace all of your books. That won't be the case here. You'll be able to run your copy of Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel or Curse of Strahd with the new 2024 books. You'll be able to make a character with the 2014 core books and use it at the same table with a character made with the 2024 books. So we're revising 5E and giving it a fresh coat of paint but it's the same game. We want people to buy the new books because they're excited, not because they have to.
The books will include the old terms in the glossary and it will say, "hi, my name changed to this. Everything you read in an old book this term now refers to this term." We don't want any conversion docs. it's all going to be in the book. The new books will say, for example, if your character was made with the 2014 books, you get a feat." We've been working that into the new background because they give a feat. A note says if your background doesn't give you a feat, take a feat.
We're releasing all these new books [like Planescape, Spelljammer, Keys to the Golden Vault] because the 2024 core books are still 5E.
Tasha's and Xanathar's Guide will get a special process. Anything in those books have always had the option to graduate to a core book. When that happens, down the road, we'll combine the leftover material from Tasha's and Xanathar's and add new content. It'll still have a glossary to help guide you to the changes.
Crawford said that D&D has grown so much in the 5E era, what we've seen is that there are more people who have come to D&D through 5E than any other edition so we also need to include what new players want. Those new players want a game that is even more inclusive. We want to go beyond what we did in 2014.
This is NOT 6th edition or even 5.5. This is very important nuance. We're attempting something that has not been done before in D&D -- revising the game in place.
Crawford continued to that when Wizards created 3.5, it was built on the bones of 3.0, but you had to replace all of your books. That won't be the case here. You'll be able to run your copy of Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel or Curse of Strahd with the new 2024 books. You'll be able to make a character with the 2014 core books and use it at the same table with a character made with the 2024 books. So we're revising 5E and giving it a fresh coat of paint but it's the same game. We want people to buy the new books because they're excited, not because they have to.
The books will include the old terms in the glossary and it will say, "hi, my name changed to this. Everything you read in an old book this term now refers to this term." We don't want any conversion docs. it's all going to be in the book. The new books will say, for example, if your character was made with the 2014 books, you get a feat." We've been working that into the new background because they give a feat. A note says if your background doesn't give you a feat, take a feat.
We're releasing all these new books [like Planescape, Spelljammer, Keys to the Golden Vault] because the 2024 core books are still 5E.
Tasha's and Xanathar's Guide will get a special process. Anything in those books have always had the option to graduate to a core book. When that happens, down the road, we'll combine the leftover material from Tasha's and Xanathar's and add new content. It'll still have a glossary to help guide you to the changes.
That will make it even worse for anybody sitting down to play D&D 5E after 2024 - suddenly a big discussion about whether they are going to be playing the 2014 or 2024 version of 5E - plus which optional rules from both will be used for the campaign.
Crawford said that D&D has grown so much in the 5E era, what we've seen is that there are more people who have come to D&D through 5E than any other edition so we also need to include what new players want. Those new players want a game that is even more inclusive. We want to go beyond what we did in 2014.
This is NOT 6th edition or even 5.5. This is very important nuance. We're attempting something that has not been done before in D&D -- revising the game in place.
Crawford continued to that when Wizards created 3.5, it was built on the bones of 3.0, but you had to replace all of your books. That won't be the case here. You'll be able to run your copy of Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel or Curse of Strahd with the new 2024 books. You'll be able to make a character with the 2014 core books and use it at the same table with a character made with the 2024 books. So we're revising 5E and giving it a fresh coat of paint but it's the same game. We want people to buy the new books because they're excited, not because they have to.
The books will include the old terms in the glossary and it will say, "hi, my name changed to this. Everything you read in an old book this term now refers to this term." We don't want any conversion docs. it's all going to be in the book. The new books will say, for example, if your character was made with the 2014 books, you get a feat." We've been working that into the new background because they give a feat. A note says if your background doesn't give you a feat, take a feat.
We're releasing all these new books [like Planescape, Spelljammer, Keys to the Golden Vault] because the 2024 core books are still 5E.
Tasha's and Xanathar's Guide will get a special process. Anything in those books have always had the option to graduate to a core book. When that happens, down the road, we'll combine the leftover material from Tasha's and Xanathar's and add new content. It'll still have a glossary to help guide you to the changes.
That will make it even worse for anybody sitting down to play D&D 5E after 2024 - suddenly a big discussion about whether they are going to be playing the 2014 or 2024 version of 5E - plus which optional rules from both will be used for the campaign.
Fail to see how. People already play 5th edition with houseruled versions from past editions.
And in the quote it says that you can make a char from either at same time and have rules to balance it.
It's like when people ask "Which version of an Orc - Wildemount, original, updated?" or "Which version of Genasi? Newest or original?" etc.
It is far more complicated to have games with all homebrew settings, races and classes -- and people do that all the time without issues and can more easily balance it.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Look back and look at the frequency with which TSR would put out campaign settings and accessories. Things for DMs. Things for their tables. From which their players would benefit.
Between 2014 and 2023 the list of books Wizards put out that target players is the PHB, XGtE, TCoE, and some really marginal stuff like One Grung Above. Other things may include components of interest to players, but is primarily targeted at DMs. By comparison, during the period from the AD&D 2e PHB in 1989 to the revised PHB in 1995, the list was
The PBH, Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Thief's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbooks, Complete Wizard's Handbook, Complete Psionics Handbook, Complete Book of Dwarves, Complete Bard's Handbook, Complete Sha'ir's Handbook, Complete Book of Elves, Complete Books of Gnomes and Halflings, Complete Book of Humanoids, Complete Ranger's Handbook, Complete Paladin's Handbook, Complete Druid's Handbook, Complete Barbarian's Handbook.
Tell me again about how TSR favored quality and products for DMs over quantity and products for players.
It's not a zero-sum game. They can both make more campaign settings like Ravenloft and Planescape, and more player-focused multiversal supplements like Xanathar's and Tasha's.
And while I can't speak for your playgroup, in mine most of us do buy more than just the PHB. Maybe only one or two people buy the adventure modules, but most of us buy the books that contain the player options, whether physical or digital.
Reread the post to which you're responding. It doesn't say players only buy the Player's Handbook. The point about players only buying the Player's Handbook is immediately followed by "[at least that used to be the case with the possible exception of a player voluntarily purchasing a campaign setting or an accessory for his or her table. This is probably one of the motivations behind their putting out the equivalent of 3.5e's PHB II in the form of Xanathar's and Tasha's. Twice."
Wizbro have taken what we've always known: there are more players than there are DMs. And because they care more about making money than they do producing quality products they are pouring all the money that goes towards further development of the game into more and more player-oriented books. Their campaign settings now pale in comparison to their earlier edition equivalents. The artwork. The writing. Even many diehard 5e fans complain about how they haven't put out much for DMs.
I want more campaign setting books too, but that's a different complaint than saying there are too many player-oriented books. In case you've forgotten, there's a massive playtest for the new edition happening right now, and its been going on internally for several years before we even saw it, so of course the output for the existing game is going to need to give.
Those "splat books" with new content within them compare how exactly to Wizbro's' plans to just recycle and rerelease the same content packaged with additions?
They all became obsolete once the Players Options books came out in 1995. Wizards is putting out a new minor edition after ten years.
What follows is a list of just campaign settings and supplements for these that TSR released between '84 and '94:
Forgotten Realms Sourcebook and Cyclopedia, Forgotten Realms Adventures, Waterdeep and the North, Moonshae, Empires of the Sands, The Magister, The Savage Frontier, Dreams of the Red Wizards, Hall of Heroes, Cities of Mystery, The Bloodstone Lands, Old Empires, The Great Glacier, Gold & Glory, The Shining South, Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms, The Horde, City System, Dark Sun, Dragon Kings, Slave Tribes, Dune Trader, Veiled Alliance, Valley of Dust and Fire, City-State of Tyr, Earth, Air, Fire and Water, Elves of Athas, The Will and the Way, Birthright Campaign Setting, Cities of the Sun, The Rjurik Highlands, Havens of the Great Bay, Naval Battle Rules: The Seas of Cerilia, Champions of Mystara, Dragonlance Adventures, Time of the Dragon, Tales of the Lance, Dwarven Kingdoms of Krynn, The City of Greyhawk, Greyhawk Adventures, From the Ashes, Lankhmar: City of Adventure, The Grand Duchy of Karameikos, The Emirates of Ylaruam, The Principalities of Glantri, The Kingdom of Ierendi, The Elves of Alfheim, The Dwarves of Rockhome, The Northern Reaches, The Five Shires, The Minrothad Guilds, The Orcs of Thar, The Republic of Darokin, The Golden Khan of Ethengar, The Shadow Elves, The Atruaghin Clans, Hollow World Campaign Set, Planescape Campaign Setting, Planes of Chaos, Planes of Law, Planes of Conflict, Ravenloft: Realm of Terror, Darklords, Islands of Terror, Forbidden Lore, Oriental Adventures, Maztica Campaign Set, Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures, Al-Qadim, Land of Fate, City of Delights, Spelljammer: AD&D Adventures in Space, Lost Ships, Realmspace, The Astromundi Cluster.
And that is not everything.
How many campaign settings and supplements for them have we seen from Wizbro in the past ten years?
Half a dozen?
And how many of those hold a candle to things like the Planescape boxed sets? The best of those gazetteers? The City of Grewhawk? Dark Sun? Either the first or the second edition of Forgotten Realms and its supplements?
If Wizbro don't stop dicking around with UA and overwhelmingly focusing on player options and start actually putting money and thought into making things we DMs can use at our tables they will in time lose customers. There are only so many times they can recycle and release the core rule books with options that have "graduated" from Tasha's and Xanathar's and then put out revisions of Tasha's and Xanathar's with any leftovers and some new UA content as if this makes up for disasters like Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide before even the most gullible of consumers sees right through that ruse. Or is that their plan? Just get new customers every few years? Doesn't matter who their customers are just as long as there are enough of them? The success of Fifth Edition won't be relived.
It's extraordinary how people just refuse to see the obvious.
The irony of “refuse to see the obvious” as you ignore the well-known reality about how people play, the decade we live in, and ramble about Wizards going for “quality versus quantity” while citing TSR’s volume of setting books should not be lost on anyone who is trying to engage in legitimate conversation (i.e. isn’t an alternate account).
The overwhelmingly most popular campaign setting is “homebrew”, with more than half of campaigns being set in a homebrew world. The remaining 40-45% is spread primarily across Forgotten Realms, with a smattering of other worlds taking up the remaining spot. And, of those percent, a large chunk are running official adventures rather than a homebrew campaign.
Wizards knows this - one of their primary reasons for moving away from setting-specific books is that players don’t actually like them and would prefer setting agnostic monster manuals and such. Adventures still exist to provide lore information - and probably are more helpful to folks who are not trying to homebrew. And, of course, there are still some sourcebooks for specific planes published with a degree of regularity - just in proportion to how much desire players actually have for them.
And, of course, Wizards also knows we live in 2023. We no longer live in an era where officially published manuals is the only real way to get lore - the most popular worlds have detailed Wikis that sum up decades of official lore in a more convenient and expensive manner than a published book ever can (including consolidating information from Adventures into a lore book substitute).
Unlike you, Wizards actually understands its game and its players. Rant about them all you want - but your every post only affirms that you have confused your personal reality for actual reality in a way which defies both data and basic understanding of how players play and obtain information.
Some folks see doom, while others see negotiations between the present edition and the future as pretty much what we have now. As has been discussed exhaustively among the participants in this discussion, some tables don't even allow Xanathar's at the table and stick with the core three books, if that. There isn't a lot of fighting among the people actually playing the game now except folks on the internet who want to "win" an argument about some future. I guess that will never change. I would say that treating the ENNIES as some sort of criticism of WotC's products is 1.) like comparing the Oscars to box office, actually it's more like comparing the WGA awards to the box office and 2.) despite the "designers' designers" club of the ENNIES, WotC and 5e has nevertheless done shown pretty well in the ENNIES and 3.) it's pretty clear to anyone not doing quick scans for aha moments that the ENNIES likely inform the direction of D&D design ... that is do you think we'd have had the custom origin/custom lineage options if it weren't for works like an Elf and Orc had a Little Baby and 3.a) something about the revolving door between the third party press and WotC
I mean, this thread was started by some dude who hadn't posted in like a year, has not returned to this thread or any discussions on this forum since they're ignition of this fight, and the same folks are having the same arguments they've had on a half a dozen threads. '"You" or "WotC" or "Modern players" or "Grognards" or "Insert whatever noun you want" are doing it wrong' are just silly conversations to be having ad nauseam. For a game that arguably involves critical thinking skills, some users are just so easily played. But I guess we all should be appreciated for boosting D&D Beyond's Usage data in some regard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you honestly believe if Wizbro put out campaign settings and accessories more often their most avid fans wouldn't buy them no matter how terrible they were then you're the one confusing "your personal reality for actual reality."
My point about quantity over quality is that Wizbro have said themselves they intend to "graduate" content from Tasha's and Xanathar's to new core rule books and do so periodically and to recycle and rerelease Tasha's and Xanathar's with leftover content with just new additions.
Because they know people will buy them.
But they can't put time and effort and thought into a decent campaign setting or accessory?
I wonder why most are just playing homebrew or Forgotten Realms when they aren't releasing things like they used to or when they are it's a half-hearted attempt at it?
How do you think third-party publishers make a living? Oh I'm sure you can wax lyrical about how they don't make the sort of money Wizbro does but then that's really my point about quantity over quality.
Taking this with your catalog of all the settings TSR/WotC had published for prior editions gets at a what seems to be a persistent misunderstanding you have between the scale WotC wants its products to succeed at versus "how third party publishers make a living." One of the reasons WotC does not publish a huge range of settings is because in the history of the D&D brand, multiple settings fragments the audience. Everyone did not in fact buy everything. When WotC puts out a Tasha's or Xanathar's they perform much closer to the core books sales levels than their efforts at settings or adventures. Their individual adventures and settings books, each one does sales that would set many 3rd party presses quotas for a given year. Rich settings are a niche product better maintained by the 3rd party D&D ecosystem ... and it's worked really well for 5th edition.
As far as the recycling ... this isn't that different than say text books. Calculus doesn't change, but the problems and ways of explaining calculus get refreshed every so often to allow for a new round of book sales if you treat character options as expressions of what can be accomplished with the rule set.
Maybe hundreds of like button presses on YouTube don't understand this either, but that's another corner of the internet with lots of other perspectives, and pointing to one comment in the abstract sounds like cherry picking an abstraction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I want more options. Wizards is a business. They sell me more options. It is that simple. You do not like something? Then do not buy it.
This is like complaining about a restaurant offering more options to appeal to more customers. Chill out. Let other customers enjoy their meal.
I'm not complaining about options. You can have all the options you want. What options in this game are you really missing that they need to change the version number or rewrite the full rules every 5-10 years?
There is nothing forcing you to move to 1D&D. If you want to stick with 5e, then do so.
Like any game, updates and so forth are important. 5e is a good game and I enjoy it, but it's purpose was to recover from 4e, which it has done very well. It's not a perfect game though, and they're trying to improve it. Whether they will succeed or not is another question. New editions are inevitable and will continue until D&D becomes unprofitable.
I'm a little curious about people who seem surprised at the fact we're getting a new edition, though. Did you think that after five editions plus the various other forms...we had hit the pinnacle where no more editions would ever be released until the end of time? Even when I was balancing whether I should invest in D&D, which was before the 1D&D announcement, I was weighing up how long it would be before a new edition was released (I'd guessed right, my estimation was '23/'24), so I'm a little confused as to why there are some who seem wrongfooted by the move to a new edition.
Yes. That's how most games work. You write the rules and release the game. It's the same game on store shelves for years. If you update the game, you improve on it maybe 20-30 years later and you don't go backwards...to where you have to fix it with another edition.
Gary Gygax would literally flip his lid if he saw what they did from 2nd Edition to 4th and then had to find people that could try to fix it back with 5. I'd rather WOTC just give it to the public than having to please stockholders every year by changing all the game rules. You don't see Hasbro or Mattel doing that crap with their boardgames. Monopoly has several iterations but it's still the same CORE RULES.
Monopoly is also a VERY simple game - the rules fit on the side of the box lid with plenty of room to spare.
D&D is a very simple game at its core. Most pages in the player's handbook in any edition have been taken up by spell descriptions. The game has gotten needlessly more and more complicated over the past 20 years with the addition of more races and more classes is all.
The average compilation of someone's complete homebrew rules for the game—removing any unnecessary fluff and clunk—would easily fit on fewer than 20 pages.
Introducing new players to the hobby is easy. You play it. You get it. I've seen people take to D&D much easier than I have to shogi.
I'd rather WOTC just give it to the public than having to please stockholders every year by changing all the game rules.
You know the system is in Creative Commons now, right? All the WotC agitation crowd really have is some sort extended lament over brand ownership. It is incredibly easy for anyone to play the D&D game they want to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I go to a restaurant for convenience. Just because I like cooking does not mean I want to cook every single day. I am a GM, you really think I do not homebrew? I also break rules, fudge dice, utilize dirty humor, and do all the other fun stuff that is not appropriate to publish in books.
And now that I am back home skimming the whole thread, you do not even seem to like the restaurant, how they do their business, half the food they sell, or the patrons dining there. You can go to other restaurants if you do not like Wizards. You do not have to try their whole menu either, and many people just stick with the popular basic lunch and dinner specials. Hell, if you are really that broke, they will give you a metric shit ton of free samples; they might not look nor taste the best, but it is freaking free food. You can dine in at a corner and order take out if you do not like the customers there. And as you have said before, you can also cook at home too.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Imagine if you will a group of friends who play the same board game every Friday night at the same friend's house and yet every one of them buys that board game. Imagine if you will that they needn't. Imagine they've no plans to play with others. Once a week. Every week. At Dave's place. Now imagine that game puts out cool little add-ons. Dave buys them. Can't miss out. But so does everyone else. They needn't. But they do.
The psychology going on there—and boy is it a case study if ever there were—is what Wizbro are banking on. It frustrates them that it is only the DMs among us who typically buy more than the Player's Handbook. Or at least that used to be the case with the possible exception of a player voluntarily purchasing a campaign setting or an accessory for his or her table. This is probably one of the motivations behind their putting out the equivalent of 3.5e's PHB II in the form of Xanathar's and Tasha's. Twice. The motivation behind alternate cover editions. There are so many new players and it is there where they see the money. They would make more just by updating the core rule books every few years or putting out more supplements like the aforementioned Xanathar's and Tasha's. They'd make more. But the game would be poorer for it than had they instead put at least some time and effort into actually designing quality campaign settings or accessories that DMs can use at their tables.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
I didn't say they were "the equivalent of 3.5e."
I said they were the equivalent of 3.5e's PHB II.
A DM only "needs" one setting? I never said a DM "needs" anything did I?
That doesn't mean some of us wouldn't like to see the Forgotten Realms handled as well as it was in '87 and in '90. See them release something for Lankhmar like they did in '85. See them do Dragonlance properly. Or see them do Planescape justice. Instead of making a mess of it like they're inevitably going to do.
I have been playing since the 7th grade and not one DM I've known personally in all that time has strictly stuck to just one among either their own or published campaign settings. DMs have always had their preferences as well as ultimately enjoyed running their own homebrew campaign settings—and I prefer to do that myself—but I cannot think of a single table at which I played throughout the '80s and '90s where the DM wasn't eager to try something new TSR had put out. A mate of mine who DM-ed groups I played in in the late '80s and early '90s still has all those classic boxed sets. We tried and enjoyed the them all. They're collectables now for good reason. They were quality products.
What sorts of accessories? My DM shelf consists of a ruleset—as well as a few old TSR products I still use at the table—and then is otherwise filled with accessories. More than just the core monster manual. Books of tables. A book of gods. A book about how to generate religions or cults for one's games. Books for generating guilds and factions. City generators. Books that expand on what player characters might do other than just adventure. Books of tables for sandbox generation. Etc etc etc.
I'm sure you'll state the obvious and say a DM can do much of this him- or herself. But the same could be said for the rules. It was only earlier today in fact I saw someone point out elsewhere how his personal Desert Island game shelf wouldn't even require a copy of the rules as these they said they knew like the back of their hand. That instead they'd take with them a classic campaign setting and two books' worth of DM tools out of which they'd get more.
It is also for good reason that books of that nature consistently win ENNIES.
Just how do you think third-party publishers make a living?
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
It's not a zero-sum game. They can both make more campaign settings like Ravenloft and Planescape, and more player-focused multiversal supplements like Xanathar's and Tasha's.
And while I can't speak for your playgroup, in mine most of us do buy more than just the PHB. Maybe only one or two people buy the adventure modules, but most of us buy the books that contain the player options, whether physical or digital.
The rate of new rule books in 5e (a new set of core books after a decade) is the slowest it's been since AD&D 1e; for comparison, look at previous editions
From the Creator Summit
The 2024 Books Are Not 6E Or Even 5.5
Crawford said that D&D has grown so much in the 5E era, what we've seen is that there are more people who have come to D&D through 5E than any other edition so we also need to include what new players want. Those new players want a game that is even more inclusive. We want to go beyond what we did in 2014.
This is NOT 6th edition or even 5.5. This is very important nuance. We're attempting something that has not been done before in D&D -- revising the game in place.
Crawford continued to that when Wizards created 3.5, it was built on the bones of 3.0, but you had to replace all of your books. That won't be the case here. You'll be able to run your copy of Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel or Curse of Strahd with the new 2024 books. You'll be able to make a character with the 2014 core books and use it at the same table with a character made with the 2024 books. So we're revising 5E and giving it a fresh coat of paint but it's the same game. We want people to buy the new books because they're excited, not because they have to.
The books will include the old terms in the glossary and it will say, "hi, my name changed to this. Everything you read in an old book this term now refers to this term." We don't want any conversion docs. it's all going to be in the book. The new books will say, for example, if your character was made with the 2014 books, you get a feat." We've been working that into the new background because they give a feat. A note says if your background doesn't give you a feat, take a feat.
We're releasing all these new books [like Planescape, Spelljammer, Keys to the Golden Vault] because the 2024 core books are still 5E.
Tasha's and Xanathar's Guide will get a special process. Anything in those books have always had the option to graduate to a core book. When that happens, down the road, we'll combine the leftover material from Tasha's and Xanathar's and add new content. It'll still have a glossary to help guide you to the changes.
Maybe this helps? (In spoiler to conserve space)
From Enworld (link to source more info there)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That will make it even worse for anybody sitting down to play D&D 5E after 2024 - suddenly a big discussion about whether they are going to be playing the 2014 or 2024 version of 5E - plus which optional rules from both will be used for the campaign.
Fail to see how. People already play 5th edition with houseruled versions from past editions.
And in the quote it says that you can make a char from either at same time and have rules to balance it.
It's like when people ask "Which version of an Orc - Wildemount, original, updated?" or "Which version of Genasi? Newest or original?" etc.
It is far more complicated to have games with all homebrew settings, races and classes -- and people do that all the time without issues and can more easily balance it.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Have you ever actually looked at what TSR actually published?
Between 2014 and 2023 the list of books Wizards put out that target players is the PHB, XGtE, TCoE, and some really marginal stuff like One Grung Above. Other things may include components of interest to players, but is primarily targeted at DMs. By comparison, during the period from the AD&D 2e PHB in 1989 to the revised PHB in 1995, the list was
The PBH, Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Thief's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbooks, Complete Wizard's Handbook, Complete Psionics Handbook, Complete Book of Dwarves, Complete Bard's Handbook, Complete Sha'ir's Handbook, Complete Book of Elves, Complete Books of Gnomes and Halflings, Complete Book of Humanoids, Complete Ranger's Handbook, Complete Paladin's Handbook, Complete Druid's Handbook, Complete Barbarian's Handbook.
Tell me again about how TSR favored quality and products for DMs over quantity and products for players.
I want more campaign setting books too, but that's a different complaint than saying there are too many player-oriented books. In case you've forgotten, there's a massive playtest for the new edition happening right now, and its been going on internally for several years before we even saw it, so of course the output for the existing game is going to need to give.
They all became obsolete once the Players Options books came out in 1995. Wizards is putting out a new minor edition after ten years.
The irony of “refuse to see the obvious” as you ignore the well-known reality about how people play, the decade we live in, and ramble about Wizards going for “quality versus quantity” while citing TSR’s volume of setting books should not be lost on anyone who is trying to engage in legitimate conversation (i.e. isn’t an alternate account).
The overwhelmingly most popular campaign setting is “homebrew”, with more than half of campaigns being set in a homebrew world. The remaining 40-45% is spread primarily across Forgotten Realms, with a smattering of other worlds taking up the remaining spot. And, of those percent, a large chunk are running official adventures rather than a homebrew campaign.
Wizards knows this - one of their primary reasons for moving away from setting-specific books is that players don’t actually like them and would prefer setting agnostic monster manuals and such. Adventures still exist to provide lore information - and probably are more helpful to folks who are not trying to homebrew. And, of course, there are still some sourcebooks for specific planes published with a degree of regularity - just in proportion to how much desire players actually have for them.
And, of course, Wizards also knows we live in 2023. We no longer live in an era where officially published manuals is the only real way to get lore - the most popular worlds have detailed Wikis that sum up decades of official lore in a more convenient and expensive manner than a published book ever can (including consolidating information from Adventures into a lore book substitute).
Unlike you, Wizards actually understands its game and its players. Rant about them all you want - but your every post only affirms that you have confused your personal reality for actual reality in a way which defies both data and basic understanding of how players play and obtain information.
Some folks see doom, while others see negotiations between the present edition and the future as pretty much what we have now. As has been discussed exhaustively among the participants in this discussion, some tables don't even allow Xanathar's at the table and stick with the core three books, if that. There isn't a lot of fighting among the people actually playing the game now except folks on the internet who want to "win" an argument about some future. I guess that will never change. I would say that treating the ENNIES as some sort of criticism of WotC's products is 1.) like comparing the Oscars to box office, actually it's more like comparing the WGA awards to the box office and 2.) despite the "designers' designers" club of the ENNIES, WotC and 5e has nevertheless done shown pretty well in the ENNIES and 3.) it's pretty clear to anyone not doing quick scans for aha moments that the ENNIES likely inform the direction of D&D design ... that is do you think we'd have had the custom origin/custom lineage options if it weren't for works like an Elf and Orc had a Little Baby and 3.a) something about the revolving door between the third party press and WotC
I mean, this thread was started by some dude who hadn't posted in like a year, has not returned to this thread or any discussions on this forum since they're ignition of this fight, and the same folks are having the same arguments they've had on a half a dozen threads. '"You" or "WotC" or "Modern players" or "Grognards" or "Insert whatever noun you want" are doing it wrong' are just silly conversations to be having ad nauseam. For a game that arguably involves critical thinking skills, some users are just so easily played. But I guess we all should be appreciated for boosting D&D Beyond's Usage data in some regard.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Taking this with your catalog of all the settings TSR/WotC had published for prior editions gets at a what seems to be a persistent misunderstanding you have between the scale WotC wants its products to succeed at versus "how third party publishers make a living." One of the reasons WotC does not publish a huge range of settings is because in the history of the D&D brand, multiple settings fragments the audience. Everyone did not in fact buy everything. When WotC puts out a Tasha's or Xanathar's they perform much closer to the core books sales levels than their efforts at settings or adventures. Their individual adventures and settings books, each one does sales that would set many 3rd party presses quotas for a given year. Rich settings are a niche product better maintained by the 3rd party D&D ecosystem ... and it's worked really well for 5th edition.
As far as the recycling ... this isn't that different than say text books. Calculus doesn't change, but the problems and ways of explaining calculus get refreshed every so often to allow for a new round of book sales if you treat character options as expressions of what can be accomplished with the rule set.
Maybe hundreds of like button presses on YouTube don't understand this either, but that's another corner of the internet with lots of other perspectives, and pointing to one comment in the abstract sounds like cherry picking an abstraction.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm not complaining about options. You can have all the options you want. What options in this game are you really missing that they need to change the version number or rewrite the full rules every 5-10 years?
Yes. That's how most games work. You write the rules and release the game. It's the same game on store shelves for years. If you update the game, you improve on it maybe 20-30 years later and you don't go backwards...to where you have to fix it with another edition.
Gary Gygax would literally flip his lid if he saw what they did from 2nd Edition to 4th and then had to find people that could try to fix it back with 5. I'd rather WOTC just give it to the public than having to please stockholders every year by changing all the game rules. You don't see Hasbro or Mattel doing that crap with their boardgames. Monopoly has several iterations but it's still the same CORE RULES.
Monopoly is also a VERY simple game - the rules fit on the side of the box lid with plenty of room to spare.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
D&D is a very simple game at its core. Most pages in the player's handbook in any edition have been taken up by spell descriptions. The game has gotten needlessly more and more complicated over the past 20 years with the addition of more races and more classes is all.
The average compilation of someone's complete homebrew rules for the game—removing any unnecessary fluff and clunk—would easily fit on fewer than 20 pages.
Introducing new players to the hobby is easy. You play it. You get it. I've seen people take to D&D much easier than I have to shogi.
You know the system is in Creative Commons now, right? All the WotC agitation crowd really have is some sort extended lament over brand ownership. It is incredibly easy for anyone to play the D&D game they want to play.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.