D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Micah Sweet]

My problem with 3pp is that in my groups they tend to "open the floodgates". If I allow one 3pp product, all the g'dam players will start bothering me to use some broken stuff they saw

In all fairness, that's a table problem, not one with the product. If all 5e companies are treated the same, and you're clear with your players and ask them not to badger you, I think it would be ok. Of course, I don't know your group, so I'm just guessing.

 

[Bolares]

but I wouldn't say they're being outright dishonest in their claims. Just laying really heavy on the spin.

I don't really see the difference here. Maybe my definitions are off, but saying your game will be the spiritual sucessor to 5e, while implying OD&D will not, coupled with the fact that both playtests are pretty similar is a dishonest argument. Again, that does not make KP a dishonest company, I like them quite a lot actually, but this take, yeah, this ain't it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

None of us is disputing this... in fact, stating that this point is obvious is part of our point....

Absolutely people are. The entire "not provably true" deal is disputing that.

Literally the only other thing people are criticising KP for is implying their version will be closer than WotC's version. But even that's fine, because it's just marketing. And opinion - and like I was saying to @Snarf Zagyg before he peace'd out, that opinion will be debated long into the future.

 

[Bolares]

In all fairness, that's a table problem, not one with the product. If all 5e companies are treated the same, and you're clear with your players and ask them not to badger you, I think it would be ok. Of course, I don't know your group, so I'm just guessing.

100% it's a table problem (I don't even know if it is really a problem per se). I'm just sharing why I rarelly use 3pp, not trying to give a community wide diagnosis. My players are my childhood friends, asking them not to badger me is as useful as asking Snarf to post only 2 paragraphs when they are the OP on a post...

 

[Micah Sweet]

IT isn't just them wanting broken stuff (but look at my screen name i know people who that is true for) it's Ross wanting a new cool warlock pact, and Jim wanting the werewolf class from this, and kurt wanting just these two feats from these two books.... it adds up

Maybe you can pick just a couple books, or just a couple companies, and say, "you can use these things in this campaign". It's the default to WotC that bothers me. They're really no better than anyone else, and may be worse than some depending on your point of view.

 

[Bolares]

Absolutely people are. The entire "not provably true" deal is disputing that.

Literally the only other thing people are criticising KP for is implying their version will be closer than WotC's version. But even that's fine, because it's just marketing. And opinion - and like I was saying to @Snarf Zagyg before he peace'd out, that opinion will be debated long into the future.

I don't think snarf was saying what you think they are saying. I hope snarf knows they will not keep publishing 5e....

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't really see the difference here. Maybe my definitions are off, but saying your game will be the spiritual sucessor to 5e, while implying OD&D will not, coupled with the fact that both playtests are pretty similar is a dishonest argument. Again, that does not make KP a dishonest company, I like them quite a lot actually, but this take, yeah, this ain't it.

Well, there's another part of it as well.

They are also heavily implying that while they are going to sell physical books for face-to-face play, WoTC will only be selling subscriptions, and will not sell any physical books.

Which I find to be ... not just incorrect, but playing on people's fears. Obviously, it's always possible, just like anything in the future is possible, but there is no indication that WoTC will decide to stop selling physical books.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't really see the difference here. Maybe my definitions are off, but saying your game will be the spiritual sucessor to 5e, while implying OD&D will not, coupled with the fact that both playtests are pretty similar is a dishonest argument.

No.

With respect, it's an opinion.

You don't have to agree with it, but it's not "dishonest" by any legitimate use of the term:

M-W defines "dishonest" thusly (and I don't prefer M-W but at least they're easy to find lol)

1
obsolete : SHAMEFUL, UNCHASTE

2
: characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE

Actually fascinated because I didn't know the obsolete meaning!

But unless you regard all marketing and opinion as "lacking in trustworthiness", which y'know, fair if you do, I don't think there's anything particularly egregious about KP's statement. And if you do regard marketing that way, then the entire D&D Direct we just have from WotC should be characterized as "dishonest".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think snarf was saying what you think they are saying. I hope snarf knows they will not keep publishing 5e....

Do you know why people bang their heads against walls?

Because it feels good when they stop.

Some of us just choose not to bang our heads on certain walls to begin with.

 

[Bolares]

They are also heavily implying that while they are going to sell physical books for face-to-face play, WoTC will only be selling subscriptions, and will not sell any physical books.

I don't really think that's what they wanted to say with that part of the anouncement. Sure, you can read it that way because the phrase was badly worded, but I give them enough credit to assume they are not just blatanly lying to us in such a dumb way.