There appears to be a theme building up for this week, so I just wanted to jump on the bandwagon early.
Because they might change their mind and don't want to be yelled.
Marketing reasons would be my guess. Only announce once you are ready to start advertising.
Chris, they have, just not to tools. 
(Mods, Chris and I are intardwebz buddies and he knows I jest.)
The Secret Masters of Gaming will not permit it.
(In your most parental tone) Because they said so. That's why.
Do you think it could possibly be because there is some kernel of truth to the sentiment?
No, no... let's bury our heads back safely in the sand. 5e's release schedule and support from Wizards is totally fine... no one is lacking anything. One book per year on the horizon is an acceptable level of support for a system that is barely a year old.
Hurin88 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
The mere fact that anyone on these forums is actually playing Dungeons & Dragons 5E, means that there is enough content to play the game.
Do I want more options? Of course, but the fact remains that we all have enough to play the game right now, as it is.
If you are not playing the game because you feel there is not enough content, then that is another story entirely.
Hurin88, can I ask which category you fall into?
Back on topic, what theme is building up? I have not seen any collection of stuff to suggest a theme. 
Torg_Smith wrote:
Content holes are starting to be filled in by Frog God Games, Necromancer Games, and Goodwin Games, all of which have products customized for fifth edition D&D.
They help keep enthusiasm up between official WoTC releases. I've been having fun adding in spells and creatures from the Necromancer books into my "Lost Mines of Phandelver" adventure. My crew seems to like the variety.
I dont really see a problem. I dont really plan on buying any of the campaign books, though I am currently playing through elemantal evil campaign. I personally dont see the need for too much right now. Of course I would love setting books, just for new fluffs, but I think there is plenty of support considering the system as a whole isnt even a year old. Thats like beating diablo 3 in a week and then expecting the new expansion pack the next month.
I was talking about the theme around these here parts of late.
Even Enworld is selling short "5e but not 5e" adventures via Patron. Official WotC stuff is a little slow coming, but there are plenty of unofficial adventures available.
I assume they're just giving Princes of the Apocalypse some time to breath. They don't want the next thing to draw attention away from Princes.
That is a rational and considered thought, DMStevenH. What are you doing here?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Synjin wrote:
So seven 4E releases, as opposed to four 5E ones. Hardly the chasm of disparity some make it out to be.
Synjin wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
So you want some fluff to indicate what the "current" FR will be like?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Their secrecy benefits me in these ways:
1) In instances like yesterday, I get to be pleasantly surprise not by "in a few months we intend to have a thing you might like become available" but by "here is something you might be interested in, and you can get it now."
2) Less times that I have an expectation of something coming out and WotC fails to meet that expectation, causing me dissapointment.
3) There are actually less people spreading negativity by complaining that WotC isn't sharing their future release plans than I am used to seeing complain that the next products coming up are the wrong choices, or about any delays that might occur in the release schedule, or even doom-saying about how WotC is going to scew up a particular product because a prior product of perceived similarity didn't go over well.
4) It gives me a bit of hope that WotC really have changed the way they are doing things, and if they can change by playing their releases close to the vest that maybe they can also actually stick to "quality over quantity" which would be a welcomed change.
DaleMcCoy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
My argument is that you should not reduce the relationship between a member of the D&D community and the game D&D to that of a consumer and a product. It is that, but not *just* that. We are not merely consumers, and d&d is not merely a product. It is bigger than that.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
edwin_su wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
DanyBallon wrote:
DanyBallon wrote:
Synjin wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
DaleMcCoy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
I think the nature of the product itself has to be a determining factor when valuating the importance of community feedback and company transparency. Making the comparison to Cascade is too much of a stretch, and this is coming from someone who called the disparity in the manner AL clarifies the different tiers of Expeditions vs retail adventures as a "divide of hypocrisy." Dish detergent is a rather fungible product, unlike the niche market of tabletop rpgs. Entertainment products, as a whole, tend to rely on brand loyalty for their survival moreso than in other industries. Comparison against other types of entertainment products would yield a more accurate measurement of how important feedback and transparency are to brand loyalty.
That said, the two entertainment products that best reflect a consistently growing trend of increased feedback/transparency in the entertainment industry are tv/film and video games. Marvel would not have revealed the entirety of the Phase 3 lineup, unless they knew that doing so would more good than harm. Seeing the schedule for the next 5 years gave us a look at the direction the MCU is heading, even if it had the consequences of lowering the stakes in Age of Ultron. Likewise, gaming companies whose IPs live and die based on community involvement, like MMORPGs, FPSs, and MOBAs, are increasing the use of game analytics and player feedback in the development of updates and other future content. During the proliferation of social media over the past decade, we've seen the development process shift from Develop->Announce->Release to Announce->Develop->Release. While the new paradigm is more evident in the updating of games, we're seeing it apply more to initial development as well because of programs like Steam Greenlight.
Therefore, I think that adopting a more transparent stance will only benefit WotC in the long run. One needs to look no further than the 2 year playtest for 5e to see how working with your community influences brand loyalty. Now, I don't expect a major announcement of the next storyline season until at least mid-May. We are literally a couple of days removed from the full retail release of Princes of the Apocalypse. Any kind of announcement now would run the risk of cannibalizing PotA's first month sales.
Synjin wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
I think one thing that people keep overlooking is that the 5e calendar year is not aligned with a normal calendar year. The 5e calendar year begins in mid-July. As we get closer to end of Year 1 5e, we should start to hear word of what's to come in the future. The release of PotA could be likened to the final big harvest before the start of winter, when focus gets shifted to planning the next year's crops. The Expeditions would be akin to substinence crops, frequently yielding smaller harvests to stay afloat in between major harvests.
WotC spent years cultivating the ideal seed for this edition. For as much as we like to say they owe us something, we owe them the opportunity to complete the first year's harvest before declaring the land infertile. It's a far better option than salting the earth with incessant complaints about the growing pains that come with every new edition changing the production model of the previous edition.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Synjin wrote:
KlaudisRex wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Here's an idea - why don't we write our own supplements? Publish our own magazines? Upload them here as pdf's as fast as we can write them? Any volunteers to get involved?
Issue 1 (17th April)
- 10 new playable races
- 3 new classes and 14 new subclasses
- 27 new backgrounds
- Variant rules for firing into melee from above
- A whole new adventure for levels 1-20 that isn't set in FR
- 38 pages of Canon Lore
PM me with your articles for inclusion by Wednesday at the latest.
On Thurday, I will post an announcement that Issue 1 will be delayed, but post the contents lists for the forthcoming Issues 2-50.
The following Tuesday, I will post an anoucement that the project has been cancelled but give no reasons.
There. That was fun while it lasted, wasn't it? 
I demand an update on Bolditalic's progress on his officially announced supplement!
DemoMonkey wrote:
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
~Vroomfondel~
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
I think the reason we can't have nice things is because Wizards has dramatically cut back on support for 5e. It at least means we can't have as many nice things.
I'm glad we can agree that 13 is greater than 4, and hence, that 5e is not being as well supported as 4e was.
Hurin88 wrote:
I think 3-4 non-campaign/setting/adventure books a year would be a nice reasonable pace.
4E also had monthly Dungeons and that was osmething I have been missing since the magazines died in physical form.
Ironically I voted for a slower release schdule as well. But by slower I did not mean slow as molass,
I just got one officially licensed 5e Eberron adventure in my post box... featuring an artificier, that seems to be a modified warlock.
Ok check it, to my best understanding WOTC is holding back the FR campaign because they're letting the players develope the world through the book campaigns and Expedtion and Epics. They did state the idea of the FR campaign might be looked into maybe next year because they stated something like that last year about looking into it in a couple of years which would put it next year maybe.
BoldItalic wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Dougan_Axehammer wrote:
I'm glad we can all agree that 5e is worthy of our support.
Hurin88 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
I susspect that if they, as they seem to be, are working closely with other companies for releases. They will have contracts limiting what both parties can make public in the lead up to releases. In order to stop the other companies leaking details, they may be required to not announce things early either.
Mistwell wrote: