D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[Dire Bare]

Unfortunately, I don't think that you are making the best case when the examples that you choose are pretty D&D-adjacent. SotWW is arguably the most out there since it reduces the six attributes to four, but a lot of the character options and play procedures are ripped almost direct from D&D.

The MCDM RPG, Shadow of the Weird Wizard and Shadowdark are all within the same genre as D&D, and you could even categorize them as "fantasy heartbreakers" (games like D&D, but different). But they cater to different playstyles and tones. They are different games.

Does @SlyFlourish have to list every non D&D 5E game for some reason? There are a LOT of RPG games out there doing very well, some of them are "D&D-adjacent", some of them are not. They don't do anywhere near the sales and player base that D&D has, of course, but that isn't a requirement for a successful RPG. To know this, you just have to be paying attention to the ENWorld news page.

The World of Darkness RPGs are seeing a resurgence. Savage Worlds is doing well. Heck, GURPS is still putting out new material. Monte Cook's Cypher System games are doing well. This is a great time to be an RPG fan, especially if you are willing to step away from D&D. Heck, this is a great time to be a D&D fan, as there is so much content for the current game.

 

[gamerprinter]

I didn't stop using 5e directly because Hasbro today or due to their recent past. In truth, I stopped using D&D at the end of 3.5 - at the time, I was considering publishing my Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror as a 3x 3PP product. However, because Pathfinder was coming out, and it was in Beta, at the time, and 4e was on hold from release for at least a year at the time. So I began development of Kaidan at the same time as Pathfinder began. I published the entire setting over the next 7 years to include the GM's guide, players guide, 2 class/faction supplements, 3 racial guides, 4 one-shots and 3 full modules. After it, I got the sci-fi itch, and when Starfinder was coming out, since I had been publishing using Pathfinder, it made sense to stick with Paizo. Last year, a couple of my fans convinced that I should create a support product for Spelljammer 5e. So I spent 6 months developing a product. Right about 2/3rds into the project, the OGL fiasco began in December, 2 years ago. That almost talked me into ending development, and not finishing that book. I eventually did finish it and release it. For whatever reason it didn't really sell, and I even did some Facebook advertsing. I've never advertised any of my Pathfinder or Starfinder products and have no problem selling that. I assumed the Spelljammer 5e book would sell the same. It did not. Now it's been about 6 months since release and I haven't made $100 in sales in that time - my PF/SF products would accomplish that in the first week of sales. As a publisher, I think it was a mistake to attempt a product supporting 5e. So that's the reason I'm running from 5e, having nothing to do with home company at all...

Though Hasbro's recent attitudes and activities hasn't helped their cause in my eyes, so combine that with my above reality - I'm done with 5e.

 

[The Scythian]

Evidence of my claim... what claim? I'm describing possible scenarios, not making absolute, definite pronouncements. I'm saying that the best solutions come from looking at problems from all sides, as opposed to getting emotionally attached to one side only and going full on Lord of the Flies 'us vs. them'. Oy...

Alright, you have buried me under a wall of text! I'm waving the white flag. You win? Can we agree to disagree and stop talking about this now?

I'm more than happy to stop talking about this, but I'm also willing to distill my post down to the three questions I asked. You're welcome to address them or not, but I am legitimately curious as to your answers.

1.) You've used loaded language when talking about business owners, suggesting there are things they should do to "actively [be] good people", or to be a "good and ethical person" with respect to preparing for the possibility that another party in a contract will try to renege on that contract. You've been light on specifics. In the context of this thread, the business owners we're talking about are OGL licensees, the contract is the OGL, and the other party is WotC. What specific, concrete steps could licensees have taken, beyond agreeing to the license in good faith and abiding by its terms, to prepare for the possibility that WotC might try to unilaterally dissolve the contract? (Keep in mind that the OGL was close to 20 years old, lawyers had reviewed it and said it seemed sound, a FAQ on WotC's own site explained what licensees could do if WotC ever tried to change the license, and Ryan Dancey has explained the intent of the OGL numerous times over the years.)

2.) In this thread, you've tried to get others to see things from WotC's side, claiming that they somehow ended up party to the OGL without realizing it and came to believe that it hurt them, and you've indicated that it's important for people to understand that. Do you have any evidence for that claim? Who dropped the ball there and didn't realize what the OGL was or that the SRDs for 3e and later 5e were being released under it? The OGL was the cornerstone for WotC's new direction back when they released 3e, and its architect, Ryan Dancey, was both Vice President of Dungeons & Dragons and a tireless advocate for open gaming. I'm sure that 5e was approved by various executives, and I can't imagine that the WotC legal department didn't do a pass on the book, given that it included a license.

You're saying now that you were just describing different scenarios, but that's the only scenario you've really given credence to, and you've indicated that it's important to understanding why WotC wanted to renegotiate the OGL.

3.) In the post I previously responded to, you lectured me, stating that my "pain" was clouding my view of what actually happened. You asked me to consider the motivations of both sides in order to get an accurate view of what took place, and because I don't have an accurate view the "solution" I am "pushing for" is just going to cause problems in the future.

I'd like to know which fact or facts I would see differently if my supposed pain wasn't keeping me from seeing things clearly. Assuming that you convinced me that WotC actually did believe they were saddled with an agreement that was hurting them, how would considering that motivation change my view of the facts of the case? Finally, how is what I've been advocating (which is basically that contracts are good and parties should not attempt to renege on them) going to cause problems?

And now, based on your most recent response, I have one additional question:

4.) You're saying now that all you've been trying to get across is that attempting to see things from both sides leads to better solutions than going all Lord of the Flies. But who in this thread has actually been advocating for going Lord of the Flies? I don't have a problem with the hyperbole (although I'm surprised to see you engage in it), I just don't know who you're referring to.

You can address these questions, or not. No hard feelings if you don't. However, they're important enough to me that I wanted to restate them with a little more clarity. (Sometimes it's tough to tell how long a post is getting in the little edit window.) Well, except for number four, which is obviously new and makes me wonder if we've been involved in two completely different conversations.

 

[TheSword]

Edit: Deleted

 

[TheSword]

I feel @Ulorian - Agent of Chaos ’s pain. I was going to respond on his behalf but to be honest life is too short to get into a point by point argument on topics like these.

The OGL was an extremely beneficent gift to the community. Expanding the creative input of the hobby by giving folks chance to publish their own work and make a living doing it. A great shame that some folks are trying to poison the well by trying to turn 3pp into a pocket of resentment.

That just feels like entitlement to me. If your brother lets you stay in his house rent free, sure be annoyed if he tries to charge you rent later down the line but at least show some gratitude that you’ve got a roof over your head. That said it’s a tiny slice doing that and I suspect the echo chamber is extremely small.

If folks don’t like WotC and don’t buy their products that’s their choice. They can join the other millions of people that play and don’t buy the products. Barely a dimple in that immense mass. I’m sure there’s enough people that do buy them that D&D will survive particularly if their products are as good as last years have been and as good as the playtest seems to indicate 5.25 will be.

 

[TheSword]

I didn't stop using 5e directly because Hasbro today or due to their recent past. In truth, I stopped using D&D at the end of 3.5 - at the time, I was considering publishing my Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror as a 3x 3PP product. However, because Pathfinder was coming out, and it was in Beta, at the time, and 4e was on hold from release for at least a year at the time. So I began development of Kaidan at the same time as Pathfinder began. I published the entire setting over the next 7 years to include the GM's guide, players guide, 2 class/faction supplements, 3 racial guides, 4 one-shots and 3 full modules. After it, I got the sci-fi itch, and when Starfinder was coming out, since I had been publishing using Pathfinder, it made sense to stick with Paizo. Last year, a couple of my fans convinced that I should create a support product for Spelljammer 5e. So I spent 6 months developing a product. Right about 2/3rds into the project, the OGL fiasco began in December, 2 years ago. That almost talked me into ending development, and not finishing that book. I eventually did finish it and release it. For whatever reason it didn't really sell, and I even did some Facebook advertsing. I've never advertised any of my Pathfinder or Starfinder products and have no problem selling that. I assumed the Spelljammer 5e book would sell the same. It did not. Now it's been about 6 months since release and I haven't made $100 in sales in that time - my PF/SF products would accomplish that in the first week of sales. As a publisher, I think it was a mistake to attempt a product supporting 5e. So that's the reason I'm running from 5e, having nothing to do with home company at all...

Though Hasbro's recent attitudes and activities hasn't helped their cause in my eyes, so combine that with my above reality - I'm done with 5e.

Can I be honest. I remember Kaidan for Pathfinder after it was recommended to me and it’s a great setting. But I had no idea that you had released a 5e version.

I did a google search and nothing for Kaidan 5e came up on the first two pages - just Kaidan for pathfinder and OG1

I also did a search on Drive Thru RPG where I’ve bought your products previously and I couldn’t see anything for Kaiden 5e.

I even did a search for ‘Kaidan updated to 5e’ and couldn’t get anything recent.

In my experience (playing for 10 years and buying a lot stuff) Pathfinder has a smaller group of more dedicated followers and a lot less competition for a quality product like yours. 5e on the other hand has a much much bigger market but it’s harder to break through the volume.

Don’t give up. Maybe re-evaluate your marketing strategy and get some tasters out there. Start some threads discussing the setting and why it’s unique. Try and get some 5e reviews out there etc. I think you just need to generate some noise to get on google because right now even if I knew about 5e Kaidan I couldn’t buy it.

 

[mamba]

The OGL was an extremely beneficent gift to the community.

one that also benefited WotC, so not really a typical gift. I don’t want to know what my wife would say if she got a vacuum for christmas

Expanding the creative input of the hobby by giving folks chance to publish their own work and make a living doing it.

sure

A great shame that some folks are trying to poison the well by trying to turn 3pp into a pocket of resentment.

no one is doing that besides WotC with their actions

That just feels like entitlement to me.

you know what feels like entitlement to me? Posting here how great WotC’s gift is when they ‘just’ tried ruining people’s lives by breaking a contract. You can do so because you are not one of those affected

If your brother lets you stay in his house rent free, sure be annoyed if he tries to charge you rent later down the line but at least show some gratitude that you’ve got a roof over your head.

not the same scenario at all. WotC did not release the OGL out of the goodness of their hearts and got nothing in return. It was a calculated business move and it made them the center of the TTRPG universe

That said it’s a tiny slice doing that and I suspect the echo chamber is extremely small.

not so much an echo chamber as most people being unaware or simply not caring, just like you

 

[TheSword]

one that also benefited WotC, so not really a typical gift. I don’t want to know what my wife would say if she got a vacuum for christmas


sure


no one is doing that besides WotC with their actions


you know what feels like entitlement to me? Posting here how great WotC’s gift is when they ‘just’ tried ruining people’s lives by breaking a contract. You can do so because you are not one of those affected


not the same scenario at all. WotC did not release the OGL out of the goodness of their hearts and got nothing in return. It was a calculated business move and it made them the center of the TTRPG universe


not so much an echo chamber as most people being unaware or simply not caring, just like you

I feel @Ulorian - Agent of Chaos ’s pain. I was going to respond on his behalf but to be honest life is too short to get into a point by point argument on topics like these.

Nothing has changed in the last hour. Good luck approaching the game from this perspective. I wish you nothing but prosperity and happiness.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I did say I was done with these wall of text, tit for tat sort of responses, but I do appreciate that you're making an effort to be neutral about this topic. Although reading this latest post of yours, I can see you're still being emotionally clouded by your preconceptions to some degree, but I do see the effort. So thanks for that.

I'm more than happy to stop talking about this, but I'm also willing to distill my post down to the three questions I asked. You're welcome to address them or not, but I am legitimately curious as to your answers.

Excellent!

1.) You've used loaded language when talking about business owners, suggesting there are things they should do to "actively [be] good people", or to be a "good and ethical person" with respect to preparing for the possibility that another party in a contract will try to renege on that contract. You've been light on specifics. In the context of this thread, the business owners we're talking about are OGL licensees, the contract is the OGL, and the other party is WotC. What specific, concrete steps could licensees have taken, beyond agreeing to the license in good faith and abiding by its terms, to prepare for the possibility that WotC might try to unilaterally dissolve the contract? (Keep in mind that the OGL was close to 20 years old, lawyers had reviewed it and said it seemed sound, a FAQ on WotC's own site explained what licensees could do if WotC ever tried to change the license, and Ryan Dancey has explained the intent of the OGL numerous times over the years.)

Loaded language... that's the first example of a preconception colouring your view of what I said in my opinion. Honestly, I think you should take a step back and stop assuming that I am saying something that is some sort of threat to mankind.

What I said was:

If you are running a business, and employee others, thereby being responsible for their livelihoods, being proactive about protecting them from threats to your business makes you a good person. If, on the other hand, you just ride along and bad things happen because there are:

1. bad things in the world
2. there are people who incidentally have influence on your business who:
   1. maliciously make a decision to influence your business negatively
   2. who make a decision to enhance their business, but did not consider your business in that decision
      1. maliciously
      2. not maliciously

You are, maybe not a bad person, but a morally sloppy and irresponsible person. You did not mean to be bad, but you were lazy. You did not put in effort to protect your employees from outside harms. Those harms were not your employees' fault. Or your fault. Or perhaps the outside party's fault (although they may have been).

Where the fault is yours, as the owner of a business, is in failing to protect your employees from problems you should be solving.

2.) In this thread, you've tried to get others to see things from WotC's side, claiming that they somehow ended up party to the OGL without realizing it and came to believe that it hurt them, and you've indicated that it's important for people to understand that. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

This statement tells me you are completely missing the point of what I am saying. See my point above.

3.) In the post I previously responded to, you lectured me, stating that my "pain" was clouding my view of what actually happened. You asked me to consider the motivations of both sides in order to get an accurate view of what took place, and because I don't have an accurate view the "solution" I am "pushing for" is just going to cause problems in the future.

I'd like to know which fact or facts I would see differently if my supposed pain wasn't keeping me from seeing things clearly. Assuming that you convinced me that WotC actually did believe they were saddled with an agreement that was hurting them, how would considering that motivation change my view of the facts of the case? Finally, how is what I've been advocating (which is basically that contracts are good and parties should not attempt to renege on them) going to cause problems?

Please don't be hurt because you think I 'lectured you'. We're adults. I am not trying to hurt your feelings. We're having a discussion. I am not trying to fight with anyone, or win internet points, or whatever you think it is I am trying to do.

Also, I did not say anything at all about letting the other party in a contract getting away with reneging on that contract. Again, are you sure you're not letting an emotional connection to this topic distort what I am actually saying?

And now, based on your most recent response, I have one additional question:

4.) You're saying now that all you've been trying to get across is that attempting to see things from both sides leads to better solutions than going all Lord of the Flies. But who in this thread has actually been advocating for going Lord of the Flies? I don't have a problem with the hyperbole (although I'm surprised to see you engage in it), I just don't know who you're referring to.

Lord of the Flies... it seems like maybe you do have a problem with the hyperbole! It was a bit hyperbolic, so that's fine.

What I'm expressing here is my frustration with the tribalism I'm seeing in responses to my posts.

You can address these questions, or not. No hard feelings if you don't. However, they're important enough to me that I wanted to restate them with a little more clarity. (Sometimes it's tough to tell how long a post is getting in the little edit window.) Well, except for number four, which is obviously new and makes me wonder if we've been involved in two completely different conversations.

I was up early, so why not answer your questions! Looking forward to your responses to my responses.

 

[Zardnaar]

One can abandon WotC/D&D for any reason they like or no reason. Or even the most ridiculous reason eg I don't like the color of the font on page 93.

Mostly indifferent to 5E fate. It can get bigger, shrink or collapse all the same to me.