Quote from: David Johansen;821416a long running television show

i want a drow soap opera

Quote from: RPGPundit;821306But what do you think 5e's staying power is?  Assuming that WoTC would actually stand by wanting to have an evergreen system, assuming that was actually their goal, to stay with 5e, how much staying power do you think it has?

Doesn't that assumption make this discussion moot, as the answer ultimately depends on whether WotC stand by that goal?

Quote from: Piestrio;821414The absolute glacial pace of supplements and very thin release schedule are fantastic signs for the RPG.

D&D is finally being treated like a top tear IP.

Attack Wing
Dice masters
Various board games
Miniature lines
Etc...

All those getting he lions share of love and attention means that D&D will finally have a chance to just be an RPG without having to also be WOTCs cash cow.

The less "development", the less "support", the less "new, new, new!" The better.

With any luck WOTC will forget about the RPG except for the occasional reprint and the rare new product when the whim strikes them.

Agreed, the more they can mine the D&D IP in areas other than RPGs, the less there is a need to constantly reboot the RPG. I'm cautiously optimistic that this game will last longer than the 6 year cycle.

Attack Wing also looks pretty cool, though I don't want to put that much money into another "wallet death by billion cuts" tabletop game. I'm already into Dice Masters (marvel though, not D&D), which is bad enough.

Quote from: tuypo1;821418i have never understood the idea of splatbook bloat how could a new splat ever be a bad thing as long as the content is good

new spells new weapons new monsters new items so much new stuff

and stuff is always good

Problem is, for most of the target market, it's not our first rodeo. How many Manuals of the Planes do you want to buy? And splats bring a lot of problems like power creep, which again a lot of people have wised up to. People just won't rush out to buy stuff like they did in 2003.

I believe it does.

1. It's easy to customize. I don't know why people are having a hard time with NPC construction, you don't need a cadre of full write-ups unless that NPC becomes important. Most of the time I choose AC, HD, HP, an attack roughly gauged from level and choose a couple defining personality traits. I tuned up healing to match my desires. It plays fast and my "new to RPGs" players are having a blast. It's easy to teach, easy to run, and more importantly it's good no-hassle FUN.

2. Supplements are focused on people with real lives/responsibilities who need a framework within which to run a game without the hours of prep one might put into it rolling their own. However, it works just fine for that too. I've tuned my 5e for Harn World (and Harn World in some aspects to 5e...) and it seems to be working fine at my table. You can see lots of actual play posts on G+ about this first adventure arc. People are playing the shit out of the basic set through the two hardcover adventures.

3. The release schedule is based on getting things done right (the willingness to delay the DMG...) and releasing useful products that sell. WOTC already demonstrated they are willing to re-focus as needed (canceling the adventurer's handbook...). It's about playable and useful, not creating an unending churn of rules Legos. Paizo/Pathfinder have the rules Lego crowd well in hand (and doing handsomely to boot).

Let the naysayers wring their hands. It's tomfoolery. There are 1000 games out there. Instead of bitching, just find one you like and fucking play it. Why is this hard?

Quote from: tuypo1;821422your a better man then i

Athenians owned slaves, does that make democracy a slaver?  

Oh right, we are a Republic!

Hmmm, Alexander had slaves, what does that say about The Alexandrian?!?

Quote from: Teazia;821459Athenians owned slaves, does that make democracy a slaver?  

Oh right, we are a Republic!

Hmmm, Alexander had slaves, what does that say about The Alexandrian?!?

im not even sure what your trying to get at here

Quote from: Teazia;821459Athenians owned slaves, does that make democracy a slaver?  

Oh right, we are a Republic!

Hmmm, Alexander had slaves, what does that say about The Alexandrian?!?

i know its kind of my thing to point out that sort of picture is against the rules but oh my god thats so cute i could just eat it all up

Quote from: tuypo1;821465im not even sure what your trying to get at here

Oh, what I got from S'mon's post is that when he became FB friends with one dude who found out that he ascribed to Lockean "Natural Rights" rather than what one might call modern progressive "Human Rights," the dude used an ad hominem response rather than engage with the actual ideas behind Lockean "Natural Rights".

The later post by Teazia pointed out that you could do this with other ideas, such as the basic principles of democracy, because the people who originally put forth those ideas had some abhorrent practices(in this case, the example was also slavery, though this being ancient Greece, I'm sure quite a bit more could be said as well). I took it to be a show of empathy for what happened to S'mon, and an expression of frustration with ad hominem arguments in general.

Let me put forth something here. Think of something that you believe to be good and true. I don't need to know what it is, but just keep it in mind throughout the rest of this paragraph. There is a very good chance -- almost certain, in fact -- that the early proponents of the idea that you're thinking of, as well as many of the people who adopted it later on, also did and/or believed things that you would find abhorrent. And yet something good and true doesn't stop being good and true just because people with other, bad beliefs/practices also believe it. If that was the standard, then you could literally dismiss any idea without actually having to engage the idea itself.

That's basically it. Smon: "He didn't engage the actual ideas; rather, he engaged in ad hominem." Teazia: "Here is something else that you could also dismiss if ad hominem was considered a legitimate debate tactic rather than the informal logical fallacy that it is." And then me, clarifying things to the best of my understanding.

Quote from: trechriron;821457There are 1000 games out there. Instead of bitching, just find one you like and fucking play it. Why is this hard?

I agree with you Trechiron.

Piestrio has a good point too.

Quote from: trechriron;8214573. The release schedule is based on getting things done right (the willingness to delay the DMG...) and releasing useful products that sell. WOTC already demonstrated they are willing to re-focus as needed (canceling the adventurer's handbook...). It's about playable and useful, not creating an unending churn of rules Legos. Paizo/Pathfinder have the rules Lego crowd well in hand (and doing handsomely to boot).

  I still remain somewhat concerned/baffled by the 'one adventure path every six-eight months as massive combined products' as the only published support. The Adventure Path model has worked for Paizo, but in a more continuous, bite-sized approach and with ancillary material. If you're not hooked by whatever 1E adventure series they're homaging this time , there's nothing to buy from WotC for half a year or more, and you have to either roll your own material or go third-party.

QuoteLet the naysayers wring their hands. It's tomfoolery. There are 1000 games out there. Instead of bitching, just find one you like and fucking play it. Why is this hard?

  If it were ten or fifteen years ago, I'd say there'd be a legitimate reason to care--as D&D goes, so goes the industry. But the rise of new production, distribution and creative options means that the industry/hobby could now even survive a D&D crash.

  At this point, my interest is primarily academic, with the exception that WotC is holding on to one piece of IP I still care about (Ravenloft), and a general belief that 'more D&D players' is better for the hobby overall. All three of those concern points I mentioned above relate to this--will the game blow up in their faces at some point if not handled with care, will there be enough support (not necessarily rules support, mind) to keep them interested in the game in the long run, and will they be welcomed even if they don't agree with the Right Way to play D&D?

Quote from: trechriron;8214572. Supplements are focused on people with real lives/responsibilities who need a framework within which to run a game without the hours of prep one might put into it rolling their own. However, it works just fine for that too. I've tuned my 5e for Harn World (and Harn World in some aspects to 5e...) and it seems to be working fine at my table. You can see lots of actual play posts on G+ about this first adventure arc. People are playing the shit out of the basic set through the two hardcover adventures.

Do you have a link? And do you have your conversion posted anywhere? I am a long time Harn fan (Just got Araki-Kalai and the new map) and repurpose a lot of their material to use in my weekly Majestic Wilderlands game.

For example I used Gardieren as the foundation for the town the PCs are visiting.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xFLM6C40blk/VQeGxCUaTTI/AAAAAAAAEL4/hRqhvTaM6bA/s1600/Castle%2Band%2BTown.jpg

I'm sure it has been mentioned, but 5e will have staying power for as long as it's the most recent edition.  Then it will be relegated to smaller groups of gamers just like every edition before it.  It won't ever fully go away, just like OD&D hasn't fully gone away.  But it's also D&D, the biggest name in the biz, so as long as it's the supported edition, it will continue to have players, from 1 year out to 10 years out to 20 years out.  Well, as long as people play TTRGPs at any rate.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821306Over on Tangency.net, they're already engaging in (highly wishful) thinking about replacing 5e, mostly as a system of the RPGnet culture's resentment over the end of 4e and the return of a D&D system that's actually D&D.

But what do you think 5e's staying power is?  Assuming that WoTC would actually stand by wanting to have an evergreen system, assuming that was actually their goal, to stay with 5e, how much staying power do you think it has?

5e has no staying power at all.

This current edition is not a special snowflake. WoTC will not magically stop using the "planned obsolescence model" for D&D. They never have before, and they certainly won't now. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

In a few years, there will be a 6e. I don't know what it'll look like, but it will eventually make its appearance.

It's inevitable.