D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Imaro]

If I were to take a stab at it: I would say that "what's best for the game" would be whatever helps best realize the creator's vision. I might not like that vision, and creatives are definitely capable of making decisions that don't have a positive impact on their own vision (from personal experience), but any other definition is rife with issue. Having said that, what's best for something as a creative expression and what's best for it as a commercial product are frequently at odds, and I understand a balance needs to be struck.
I don't really enjoy what WotC has done with D&D in so far as a game engine. I've been generally positive towards the fluff they've put out, and the larger variety of voices and cultures in their products is great to see (missteps aside). They may no longer be making the system I want to play, but I can say that I believe they've done a fantastic job at growing D&D as a game and as a brand. Even if I don't really like the system they are making or the company itself.

But D&D doesn't have one creator. So how do you measure it then? Again, and this isn't a dig at you per se... but it seems like because there's no singular source for true vision... it boils down to what's good for the game is what I want personally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It has to, if you focus on game design over business you either sell a lot less, or go out of business. Neither is desirable for WotC.

TSR kinda did game design over business because their creative side was shielded from the business side, and even the business side had no good idea about the business, resulting in products where every sale is a net loss because the sales price is below the manufacturing cost (nevermind the effort to create it).

While you will probably argue that we got some great products out of that, you cannot argue that it worked out great for TSR

I will argue for the massive content we received during 2e. My favorite period of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

oh I agree, popularity is not everything, but it sure is something you should consider.

Also, how would you want to measure good design? Ignore outside input (not ask for it) and go with your gut feel? I assume that lead to 4e, something they want to never have to go through again

I would simply prefer that they don't base all their decisions on a popularity contest, not that they don't query the public at all. It's a spectrum, like so many other things are. In what way are the designers trusting their own talents if they always land on the side of what's most popular?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you like Level Up... I mean we can get into wordplay pedantry but let's not, I think we both understand who owns Dungeons & Dragons 5e and who publishes official Dungeons & Dragons 5e product... Whatever your opinion is on what is 5e and what is not is irrelevant.

Exactly as irrelevant as yours.

 

[Imaro]

I would simply prefer that they don't base all their decisions on a popularity contest, not that they don't query the public at all. It's a spectrum, like so many other things are. In what way are the designers trusting their own talents if they always land on the side of what's most popular?

Are they always doing that? Was Radiant Citadel the result of a popularity contest or the result of WotC experimenting with a product, writing team, setting, etc. that they hadn't before? More importantly did you buy it to support something new?

 

[Imaro]

Exactly as irrelevant as yours.

Oh, I agree...That's why I'm stating facts...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd love for someone to give me a defintion, outside of what I want, for this mythical "What is best for the game". Even avcoiding sales and revenue and profit... D&D 5e under the guidance of WotC has garnered an unprecedented number of people playing the game and brough more recognition to the game than any other time period with the possible exception of the 80's... so I'll ask what determines what is best for the game?

All I can tell you is that popularity and design are orthogonal concepts. They do not march in lockstep, no matter what some people insist on.

 

[Imaro]

All I can tell you is that popularity and design are orthogonal concepts. They do not march in lockstep, no matter what some people insist on.

Doesn't this depend on what the design goals are?

 

[mamba]

But one can argue--in fact, you just DID argue--that "the business side had no good idea about the business." That seems to be the significantly greater problem there. TSR ran itself into the ground because of faulty business ideas (and a certain amount of active malfeasance, AIUI) completely unrelated to game design.

It is a problem that affected both sides. The creative side could run wild and create settings that sold next to nothing and come up with products where the manufacturing cost exceeded the sales price.

The business side failed at both giving directions about what to create and about reigning in the creative freedom when it conflicted with basic economics and market research (because the business side sucked at both too).

The downfall of TSR can be blamed on the business side, but it is an example of an unchecked creative side running free, without the direction and checks and bounds the business side should give / impose. So it is a good example for prioritizing the design side over the business side and failing as a consequence of that.

We can also give an example of the reverse: a company that ruthlessly prioritized business above all else, which profited only in the short term, only to suffer for it long-term.

sure, short term thinking is a big problem in corporate America. It is much easier to increase profit by cutting investing in the future of the company (research for new products, etc) than to actually grow the business, and in 5-10 years when it comes back to haunt you, that CEO has left with a huge bonus from that decision

It is just as foolish to prioritize business absolutely exclusively as it is to prioritize product absolutely exclusively.

I see this more as measuring the wrong thing. If the CEO bonus were tied to the share price in 10 years instead of the one in the next quarter, such stupid short term decisions would be far less frequent, which is why family owned businesses make them at much lower rates

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It isn't that it's marketing, because obviously it is, but it is bad marketing. I play 5E, and use third party stuff, notably Kobold Press. I've been interested in checking out Black Flag as a supplement to my table, so leaving a bad taste in my mouth is counter productive to their goal of selling me stuff.

That's valid.

However much, perhaps most of this thread isn't on that basis - it's a much harder basis, that being that KP are being somehow "dishonest" or "evil" (dark path indeed - the thread title claims this!) by making a very mild boast. "I don't like this marketing" is an entirely different claim to "This marketing is evil".

I'm going to ask one more time too - where, exactly, did they claim this? I've re-read the statement like four times, and I see that it's vaguely implied, but it seems like all y'all are acting like they actually spell that out, and perhaps I'm somehow missing it (I do have severe ADHD, it's absolutely possible). This all feels a bit Emperor's New Clothes.