D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

The 5E Monster Manual, Player’s Handbook, and Dungeon Master’s Guide will not stay in print. New players must either use purely digital rulebooks (which works for some people) or find a new version.

We aim to keep the spirit of tabletop alive by producing beautiful, inviting versions of the core rulebooks for those who prefer to play face-to-face and those who don’t want to pay a monthly subscription to play.


Look, never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence, but given that there were a lot of people that were insisting that the new version of D&D (1D&D) would be subscription-only, and that this was a prevalent rumor- complete with fake mock-ups on social media, this is either a truly unfortunate mangled bit of verbiage, or a knowing nod.

shrug

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

I agree Snarf likely doesn't think that, that's why I asked him about it - but then he blocked for answering his questions lol. I mean fair play, it's a short life, block who you like but it made me laugh!

But the whole "not provably true" point re: stopping publishing is absolutely equivocation and nonsense if you agree that they will like 99% chance stop printing.

And as I keep saying, the "our version will be closer!" is just opinion/marketing. Is it kind of funny? Yeah a little bit. But it's not "wrong" or something, it's just things companies claim. I mean, let's be real dude - even if KP published something that was basically 5E with only:

A) The necessary changes to avoid copyright issues.

B) A handful of small tweaks.

Someone, somewhere, would still regard it is as "less true to 5E than 1D&D". And in fact that somewhere would be here lol, and they'd run a multi-page thread arguing the point!

 

[Bolares]

With respect, it's an opinion.

well, duh. Do I really have to say that I'm expressing my opinion every time I do it? I thought it was pretty obvious when I started the post stating that I didn't really see a difference, and not with "there is no difference". And thanks for the dictionary copying, but yes, in my opinion, saying that your game (that isn't done yet) is more similar (is this the right wording?) to 5e than OD&D (that is also not done yet), all the while both playtest are really similar to one another is :
2
: characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE
with emphasys on the unfair and deceptive parts.

 

[Bolares]

The 5E Monster Manual, Player’s Handbook, and Dungeon Master’s Guide will not stay in print. New players must either use purely digital rulebooks (which works for some people) or find a new version.

We aim to keep the spirit of tabletop alive by producing beautiful, inviting versions of the core rulebooks for those who prefer to play face-to-face and those who don’t want to pay a monthly subscription to play.


Look, never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence, but given that there were a lot of people that were insisting that the new version of D&D (1D&D) would be subscription-only, and that this was a prevalent rumor- complete with fake mock-ups on social media, this is either a truly unfortunate mangled bit of verbiage, or a knowing nod.

shrug

I get what you are saying, but I prefer to still refrain to atribute that part to malice, because that's not obvious enough to me yet, and the obvious part is still pretty bad to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

with emphasys on the unfair and deceptive parts.

I mean, by that logic, all marketing and opinion of any kind on an unfinished product is "unfair and deceptive", then, isn't it?

 

[Bolares]

And as I keep saying, the "our version will be closer!" is just opinion/marketing.

sure it's opinion/marketing, but that doesn't make it less distateful (IN MY OPINON ). My point, andthe point of most people that I see here agreeing with me is that KP is a well respected company in the community, that has a lot of good product and good reputation. So they should focus on saying why their game will be great and not resort for this kind of bad marketing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

sure it's opinion/marketing, but that doesn't make it less distateful (IN MY OPINON ). My point, andthe point of most people that I see here agreeing with me is that KP is a well respected company in the community, that has a lot of good product and good reputation. So they should focus on saying why their game will be great and not resort for this kind of bad marketing.

If you said "distasteful", I wouldn't really argue, to be honest. I don't agree but that's literally a matter of taste.

"Dishonest" is what I have a problem with, because it invokes a much stronger notion that there's something fundamentally incorrect, and I don't think anyone has demonstrated that. Calling it a "dark road" is also ludicrously dramatic I would personally suggest.

 

[Bolares]

I mean, by that logic, all marketing and opinion of any kind on an unfinished product is "unfair and deceptive", then, isn't it?

I don't see how this is true. I'm not objecting to them promesing something about an unfinished product. I object to them stating as if fact it was, that their game will be closer to 5e, when all current evidence points to it being really similar to OD&D. I don't know how many times I repeated that by now... Maybe we are just talking in circles around each other and just agree to disagree.

 

[BrokenTwin]

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.

I wouldn't say there's as large of a difference as I would like, but I do think there is a difference in intent (how much intent matters varies highly by person, obviously). I don't think KP's intent is to deceive people with words they don't believe are true, I think they're honestly attempting to convince people that there are reasons to support their product over WotC's offering.
Having said that, to reiterate, still not a fan of the phrasing, but it's more of a mild "ew adversarial marketing" than a gross misconduct that changes my opinion of the company as a whole.

 

[Bolares]

If you said "distasteful", I wouldn't really argue, to be honest. I don't agree but that's literally a matter of taste.

"Dishonest" is what I have a problem with, because it invokes a much stronger notion that there's something fundamentally incorrect, and I don't think anyone has demonstrated that. Calling it a "dark road" is also ludicrously dramatic I would personally suggest.

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

being incorret is not the only definition of dishonest...