D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[mamba]

Ok, 4e was a very clean system that provided consistent results from input. It provided a lot of class balance. It was easy to prep for as a GM. It's monsters were (eventually) fun and exciting to engage with.

great, and given this, is 1DD moving further away from that than 5e is?

 

[Imaro]

No, there is, you just stubbornly refuse to consider it.

There is a gap--a massive, MASSIVE gap--between:

"We do X thing because X thing gets the largest number of paying customers"

and

"We did X thing because it actually matches our explicitly-stated goals."

Speaking of not getting things... please go back and take the time to read the exchange that lead to the post you are quoting... it's not a general question it's specific to the poster I was addressing and his specific criteria for determining this... which other posters are still trying to suss out... but yeah, continue to tell me what I won't "stubbornly" accept.

Now with that out of the way... how do you know whether WotC did something for one reason or the other? Are you in their meetings, do you even know what their goals are for D&D? Finally choosing to do something (which you initially suggested) because it receives a large approval rating isn't the same as choosing to do it ONLY because it gets the largest number of paying customers... even though they can and do align..

Avatar: the Last Airbender being about Asian ethnic groups is not what would get the largest number of paying customers in the United States. That would be having white characters. As has been the case for ages and ages, because white people are still narrowly the majority.

But the people who made Avatar didn't do that. They had a clear, specific vision, and they followed it. They were true to the art (to an almost ridiculous degree--all depicted writing in A:TLA is actual Chinese that says more or less what it should, and writing from ancient times is actual ancient Chinese, and say to the best of our knowledge more or less what it should.) They didn't pander. They didn't make something safe and inoffensive. They had a character suffer a psychotic break "on camera." They had legit actual horrible things in a kids' show.

And it was awesome.

That is a demonstration of what can be "good for the art," without being what is necessarily best for the company that made it. Making Avatar was a big risk--and it ended up paying off. Making Korra...well. It's a lot more controversial.

Ok now I'm totally confused...If this is your example of what avoiding strict appeal to popularity and good for the business... I find it even harder to give credence to the argument that WotC has steadily gone down a road of prioritizing what is good for the business and it's originally majority cis-white heterosexual male audience to where they are now with things like... The Radiant Citadel (which I brought up previously and it was dismissed), with their more diverse artwork, their movie which features 3 out of 4 main characters as PoC, their public statements about diversifying their leadership (which received backlash from many in the OSR... wonder why), public playtests so they can get a better feel on what ALL of their fans want and so on. I'm not seeing how that argument can be made with any type of credibility if this is an example of the criteria.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok now I'm totally confused...If this is your example of what avoiding strict appeal to popularity and good for the business... I find it even harder to give credence to the argument that WotC has steadily gone down a road of prioritizing what is good for the business and it's originally majority cis-white heterosexual male audience to where they are now with things like... The Radiant Citadel (which I brought up previously and it was dismissed), with their more diverse artwork, their movie which features 3 out of 4 main characters as PoC, their public statements about diversifying their leadership (which received backlash from many in the OSR... wonder why), public playtests so they can get a better feel on what ALL of their fans want and so on. I'm not seeing how that argument can be made with any type of credibility if this is an example of the criteria.

Why do you think the only possible form of "do the thing that gets more people no matter what" involves race or gender?

There are many ways you can say "do whatever gets more people no matter what."

 

[Imaro]

Why do you think the only possible form of "do the thing that gets more people no matter what" involves race or gender?

I don't... I was just taking a que from your example.

There are many ways you can say "do whatever gets more people no matter what."

Yes there are... and if you were a mind reader and/or privy to internal WotC information you could probably speak with some knowledge on the matter insofar as their goals with D&D were concerned... are you?

 

[Oofta]

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.

This is a very odd attitude. Long term, sustained popularity is an indicator of at least competence. Lack of popularity is no indication one way or another, I'm sure there are fantastic products out there that don't get purchased, but people do not buy crap year after year when there's a plethora of other options.

You do you, but this continued insistence that only you can judge whether or not something is a quality product and that everyone who actually likes the product are just sheeple is kind of insulting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They literally are, they’ll just be revised versions.

Sorry for the typo of missing out 5E, but I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

They are saying that this is incorrect. It’s not remotely a confusing statement.

Thanks for being unpleasant to someone with severe ADHD (as I'm pretty sure you're well aware, given how often I mention it) because they missed something out (in this case catching M-W's use of "incorrect"). Twice now in one post. Super-classy.

No, they’re right.

No, as a simple matter of fact, you agreeing with an opinion, doesn't magically make it not an opinion. I'm surprised how many people are struggling hard with this concept.

That is false. Anyone reading the thread can see very easily that it is false.

What else are they criticising it for, then?

I don't see anything that remotely warrants the level of drama and aggression that most of the posts (including yours here) have in the KP statement.

this dishonestly indicates that the 2024 rule books won’t be 5e

?????????

They won't be 5E. They'll be 1D&D. By WotC's own description. What are you talking about?

It's fine to argue that KP's also won't be 5E - that makes sense - they won't be. But you can't argue 1D&D isn't 1D&D.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

They won't be 5E. They'll be 1D&D. By WotC's own description. What are you talking about?

No, WotC have repeatedly said 2024 D&D will be 5e. 1D&D is the playtest and a marketing term to indicate 2014 and 2024 D&D are one game: 5e.

Also, is this actually you (@Ruin Explorer), this doesn’t read like your typical response.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, WotC have repeatedly said 2024 D&D will be 5e.

No, they've said it's compatible with 5E, that's rather different. They've been extremely clear that it'll be compatible - we see from the playtest that it'll be moderately compatible, like 2E to 1E, pretty much - i.e. playable kind of compatibility. And if it's "5E" then frankly, so is Black Flag, so is A5E and so on. They're all about equally compatible so far - actually that's not true - A5E is looking slightly more compatible than either 1D&D or Black Flag.

And yes, it's me, but frankly I'm horrified by the behaviour of people in this thread, and the level of drama you guys have going. It's bizarre and I don't get it, so I'm a bit weirded out honestly. It's like normally sane people have turned into some sort of pitchfork-y mob for an offence I can't pretend I understand. I'm sorry if that seems rude but I honestly don't get why you're so extremely upset, and why there's so much dramatic language being chucked around, because of like, marketing language from 3PP which makes less than 1% as much money as WotC, probably less than 1% as much money as D&D does for WotC.

(Normally I'm the guy with the most dramatic or out-there take, or one of them - so it's particularly weird to be on the other side of that, where I have the least dramatic and most /shrug take on the thing!)

 

[Oofta]

No, there is, you just stubbornly refuse to consider it.

There is a gap--a massive, MASSIVE gap--between:

"We do X thing because X thing gets the largest number of paying customers"

and

"We did X thing because it actually matches our explicitly-stated goals."

Avatar: the Last Airbender being about Asian ethnic groups is not what would get the largest number of paying customers in the United States. That would be having white characters. As has been the case for ages and ages, because white people are still narrowly the majority.

But the people who made Avatar didn't do that. They had a clear, specific vision, and they followed it. They were true to the art (to an almost ridiculous degree--all depicted writing in A:TLA is actual Chinese that says more or less what it should, and writing from ancient times is actual ancient Chinese, and say to the best of our knowledge more or less what it should.) They didn't pander. They didn't make something safe and inoffensive. They had a character suffer a psychotic break "on camera." They had legit actual horrible things in a kids' show.

And it was awesome.

That is a demonstration of what can be "good for the art," without being what is necessarily best for the company that made it. Making Avatar was a big risk--and it ended up paying off. Making Korra...well. It's a lot more controversial.

So who gets to decide what a worthwhile goal is? Because for WOTC, the goal is to sell as much product as they can and to target as broad an audience as they can. They seem to be quite successful at that with 5E, certainly more successful than the last couple of editions.

So it seem comes back to "I don't personally like it so no matter how many people do it's bad."

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

No, they've said it's compatible with 5E, that's rather different. They've been extremely clear that it'll be compatible - we see from the playtest that it'll be moderately compatible, like 2E to 1E, pretty much - i.e. playable kind of compatibility. And if it's "5E" then frankly, so is Black Flag, so is A5E and so on. They're all about equally compatible so far - actually that's not true - A5E is looking slightly more compatible than either 1D&D or Black Flag.

I think of all of those as 5e myself.

And yes, it's me, but frankly I'm horrified by the behaviour of people in this thread, and the level of drama you guys have going. It's bizarre and I don't get it, so I'm a bit weirded out honestly. It's like normally sane people have turned into some sort of pitchfork-y mob for an offence I can't pretend I understand. I'm sorry if that seems rude but I honestly don't get why you're so extremely upset, and why there's so much dramatic language being chucked around, because of like, marketing language from 3PP which makes less than 1% as much money as WotC, probably less than 1% as much money as D&D does for WotC.

(Normally I'm the guy with the most dramatic or out-there take, or one of them - so it's particularly weird to be on the other side of that, where I have the least dramatic and most /shrug take on the thing!)

I personally don’t like being lumped into the group and find your statement a bit offensive. I don’t think I have commented much if at all on KP’s statement. But who knows, I jump all over the place in these forums. Hard to keep track of what I’ve said!

I can say with confidence now that I don’t really care about KP’s statement or BF in general.