D&D General On gatekeeping and the 'live-streaming edition wars'

[Reynard]

I'm going to riff on a sentiment from upthread:

If you watch D&D games but do not play, you are a fan, not a player. This is a matter of definitions, not something involving looking down my nose at people.

The Force is with you, young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi ... yet.

Meanwhile, the table at my FLGS always has room for one more. (What is the record for most chairs pulled around a table?) Come on over and join us!
Whenever you'd like, we can help your 'yet' become 'now'.
Welcome!

Again, those two hobbies provide different experiences. Watching actual play isn't a replacement for playing. It's an entertainment of its own. Not everyone that watches even wants to play. It's good to welcome them to the table if they express interest but it's a little rude to sort of demand they give it a shot.

 

[3catcircus]

Again, those two hobbies provide different experiences. Watching actual play isn't a replacement for playing. It's an entertainment of its own. Not everyone that watches even wants to play. It's good to welcome them to the table if they express interest but it's a little rude to sort of demand they give it a shot.

True, but it's even ruder that viewers demand that publishers kowtow to their wants and desires over the players and DMs who actually use their books.

 

[Reynard]

True, but it's even ruder that viewers demand that publishers kowtow to their wants and desires over the players and DMs who actually use their books.

Yes, that would be rude if it ever actually occurred, rather than a company seeing a market niche that hasn't been exploited.

 

[Sadras]

Watching actual play isn't a replacement for playing. It's an entertainment of its own. Not everyone that watches even wants to play. It's good to welcome them to the table if they express interest but it's a little rude to sort of demand they give it a shot.

I find you're misreading/twisting @Eltab's post.
He provided a chipper, wity invitation for a person to play not some 'sort of demand' as you put it.

 

[Maxperson]

There's only two things I hate in this world. Gatekeepers who are intolerant of other people's playing choices and Paladins.

I'd like to play a Gatekeeper Oath Paladin in your game. Pretty please?

 

[cmad1977]

True, but it's even ruder that viewers demand that publishers kowtow to their wants and desires over the players and DMs who actually use their books.

That’s... not a thing. So, go on being mad about nothing.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Indeed. I have a feeling some people demanding another FR campaign book are more interested in reading about the current political situation in Cormyr than actually playing a PnP game set there.

Honestly, I wouldnt be surprised if we get an adventure set there soon - we haven't had a "politics of fantasy kingdom" GoT-lite type campaign. And Cormyr is both Sword Coast adjacent and a popular area pre-5e...

 

[DemoMonkey]

"I'd like to play a Gatekeeper Oath Paladin in your game. Pretty please?"

Sorry, Gatekeeper Oath Paladins should only be played by REAL D&D fans. You aren't qualified to Gatekeep.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Honestly, I wouldnt be surprised if we get an adventure set there soon - we haven't had a "politics of fantasy kingdom" GoT-lite type campaign. And Cormyr is both Sword Coast adjacent and a popular area pre-5e...

I think as part of the anthogy of adventures by different authors that is rumoured to be in the pipeline I think that's very likely.

Probably not as the main adventure path though, which I suspect is something of a CoS sequel. (It's also very difficult to keep interesting for 10 or so levels!)

 

[MNblockhead]

True, but it's even ruder that viewers demand that publishers kowtow to their wants and desires over the players and DMs who actually use their books.

How is it rude for consumers to express their desires for products to the companies producing them?

It it just good business sense if those companies produce products that large numbers of people want. There have always been consumers of TTRPG material, whether active players or not, who buy material more to enjoy reading than to put into use at the table. I really enjoyed Ravnica and both of the two recent Eberron books, though I doubt I'll ever run a campaign there. I already have enough material to run games for many years. But I still enjoy reading setting books.

Also, since I don't really have the time to keep up on Critical Role, I'm excited for the cartoon and it about having the setting book to add to the enjoyment of the world the CR team created. As a DM running a game set in the Lost Lands (Frog God Games), I can still get inspiration from other setting books. Even if I stopped running or playing in games, I can still enjoy reading the setting books.

The great thing about good setting books is that they can be enjoyed as lonely fun but also used to run games in.

I can't comprehend how this is taking anything away from anyone.

Even if the CR book is responsible for pushing away the release of other setting books (which CR and WotC claim it is not), as an old grognard, I just don't care. I've got the original Greyhawk on PDF and can still run games in that setting. Fans of older settings can still get materials for those older settings. Fans of new settings that have not been published can't. Supporting brand new settings tied to wildly popular shows and other games only makes sense.

If I want setting material that was popular in prior editions, I really don't need for it to be released in 5e. I can still get those materials pretty easily on DMs Guild.

If they revamp older settings for 5e and print them in high-quality hardcovers, that's cool, but they are going to make those decisions on how many copies they can expect to sell. I can't see how a Dark Sun, for a popularly cited example, can hope to compete with a CR or MTG source book, given the relative sized of their fan bases.