D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Alzrius]

Not really: pretty much every one yhst I know of has engaged in ethically compromised practices (like printing in China, for instance, or all the issues wirh squeaky stair steps that plague the industry), but passingly few that are so bad that buying their peodict is a proximate or material cooperation in their evil, so I would consider any RPG purchase to be about morally the same.

Not so much, no. You might have different opinions about different practices, but saying that "it's too murky to make a judgment call" isn't at all accurate; it just says that no one's opinion is valid, and that no comparison is possible, both of which are wrong.

 

[Alzrius]

First it was WOTC setting targets for ROI. I agree with that, I think all companies do the same; bigger companies simply have more leeway and more competing options on where to put their money. It's neither good nor (as was heavily implied in your statements whether intentional or not) bad. Then it shifted to "trust" and OGL which I would consider water under the bridge but apparently you do not.

In any case, unless there's something new I have nothing more to add.

You're leaving out the crucial point that the issue of ROI was initially brought up with regard to the matter of "printing too many crunchy books too fast is unsustainable and unprofitable," specifically in that it was neither of those things, and that the only reason WotC moved away from doing so was due to ROI.

You then chimed in on a tangent, talking about how it's wrong of people to think ill of WotC just for trying to make money. I pointed out at the time that this wasn't what was said, but you kept on that point anyway, and so that's where the conversation went. If you compare two different discussions as though they're one topic, then I suppose it makes sense that you're confused.

 

[Parmandur]

Not so much, no. You might have different opinions about different practices, but saying that "it's too murky to make a judgment call" isn't at all accurate; it just says that no one's opinion is valid, and that no comparison is possible, both of which are wrong.

No, not at all: indeed, I consider my own approach to be a very rigorous system of ethical analysis grounded in a specific moral tradition. It's not at all that "everything is too murky, maaaaan," but that buying a product from WotC, Paizo, Kobold Press, or who have you (with certain rather extreme and fringe exceptions) are no worse than remote and material cooperation with evil. It is quite clear to me that all RPG companies to my knowledge are engaged in condemnable unethical practices: but equally clear that my purchase of said products is not related to those in any serious way.

 

[Oofta]

Not really: pretty much every one yhst I know of has engaged in ethically compromised practices (like printing in China, for instance, or all the issues wirh squeaky stair steps that plague the industry), but passingly few that are so bad that buying their peodict is a proximate or material cooperation in their evil, so I would consider any RPG purchase to be about morally the same.

In addition to things like some of the issues PAIZO has run into we are simply less likely to hear about issues at smaller companies. If someone complains on their social media about bad behavior of management, if it's WOTC it gets echoed widely. Smaller company? probably not even noticed. It's not like there haven't been people that have attempted to do publish objectional materials like NuTSR(?), it's just that it was an issue and then people moved on because the company imploded.

In theory you could judge companies I suppose. Reality is that it's simply not practical. Unless something is particularly egregious, it's a subjective judgement often colored by previous attitudes.

 

[Alzrius]

No, not at all: indeed, I consider my own approach to be a very rigorous system of ethical analysis grounded in a specific moral tradition. It's not at all that "everything is too murky, maaaaan," but that buying a product from WotC, Paizo, Kobold Press, or who have you (with certain rather extreme and fringe exceptions) are no worse than remote and material cooperation with evil. It is quite clear to me that all RPG companies to my knowledge are engaged in condemnable unethical practices: but equally clear that my purchase of said products is not related to those in any serious way.

That's not correct. Your initial point was to disagree with my disagreement that all TTRPG companies existed in some sort of "murky middle," which means that you were defending that point. Hence, it is possible, despite what you said, to compare and contrast those companies on an ethical scale, albeit everyone's scale is going to be different. If you hold that the practices of sourced materials are more salient, that's up to you, whereas someone else might say that it's more to do with the quality of service that they offer to their customers. The point is that there's no trouble making these determinations, rather than saying that there's no way to make any determinations to begin with.

 

[Parmandur]

In addition to things like some of the issues PAIZO has run into we are simply less likely to hear about issues at smaller companies. If someone complains on their social media about bad behavior of management, if it's WOTC it gets echoed widely. Smaller company? probably not even noticed. It's not like there haven't been people that have attempted to do publish objectional materials like NuTSR(?), it's just that it was an issue and then people moved on because the company imploded.

In theory you could judge companies I suppose. Reality is that it's simply not practical. Unless something is particularly egregious, it's a subjective judgement often colored by previous attitudes.

I think it is notninly possible, but actually quite normal to make firm ovjective judgements about, say, printing in China being an evil action...but still buying a product knowing that the purchase is not a proximate, formal participation in that action.

 

[Oofta]

You're leaving out the crucial point that the issue of ROI was initially brought up with regard to the matter of "printing too many crunchy books too fast is unsustainable and unprofitable," specifically in that it was neither of those things, and that the only reason WotC moved away from doing so was due to ROI.

You then chimed in on a tangent, talking about how it's wrong of people to think ill of WotC just for trying to make money. I pointed out at the time that this wasn't what was said, but you kept on that point anyway, and so that's where the conversation went. If you compare two different discussions as though they're one topic, then I suppose it makes sense that you're confused.

Setting an ROI target is something all companies do. They evaluate the amount of investment in production that will net the greatest profits. I don't understand why you heavily imply that it's a bad thing. Some companies do engage in bad behavior hence the examples I gave that I consider bad behavior that would make me reconsider a purchase. Setting an ROI target is not something I would ever consider bad behavior.

 

[Maxperson]

They have to keep the lights on, that requires making a profit.

Knock knock knock

Non-profits are here to talk to you!

Breaking even is after all expenses are paid. Then you hit profit.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not correct. Your initial point was to disagree with my disagreement that all TTRPG companies existed in some sort of "murky middle," which means that you were defending that point. Hence, it is possible, despite what you said, to compare and contrast those companies on an ethical scale, albeit everyone's scale is going to be different. If you hold that the practices of sourced materials are more salient, that's up to you, whereas someone else might say that it's more to do with the quality of service that they offer to their customers. The point is that there's no trouble making these determinations, rather than saying that there's no way to make any determinations to begin with.

The point is that all of them exist in a pretty separated state between their products and actual participation in their evil. Honestly, it would be pretty difficult for them to get tonthst point, no matter how many Pinkertons theybhire (I say hi a Pinkerton at the door every day at work, doesn't mean I am participating in their shady activities).

 

[Dire Bare]

And really, it wouldn't shock Mr if theybwere programming side games like Dragonchess and Three-Dragon Ante, or the Tarrocka deck, or the Deck of Manybthings, right into this thing...

That would be amazing!

I think I've only seen Foundry do that, if I'm remembering correctly, through a partnership with a publisher of a Deck of Many Things . . . maybe Hit Point Press?