D&D (2024) Kobold Press posts 2024 DMG Hit Piece

[Belen]

On what basis do you say that? Kobold Press gets social media pushes from WotC on the regular, WotC sells KP products on their own web page.

I responded to part of this in another post; however, this does not hurt WOTC in the slightest. It is additional advertising. It is not even that negative. A bit salty, perhaps, self-serving, sure, but also helpful. I am lucky that I have 2014 DMG to flesh out all the missing parts o 2024.

A diehard WOTC fan typically only buys official content. This will not sway them.

 

[Oofta]

They could have made their points, and they have some legitimate ones, while toning down the rhetoric a bit. The new DMG is aimed at primarily giving guidance to new DMs. That is not in any way a bad thing! Having a different book with lots of crunch for those that like that kind of thing is also a good thing, these books simply have different target audiences.

They could have made that clear without sounding pissy about it.

 

[Oofta]

I responded to part of this in another post; however, this does not hurt WOTC in the slightest. It is additional advertising. It is not even that negative. A bit salty, perhaps, self-serving, sure, but also helpful. I am lucky that I have 2014 DMG to flesh out all the missing parts o 2024.

A diehard WOTC fan typically only buys official content. This will not sway them.

Meanwhile I have a few KP books, this is makes it less likely I will buy more.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Meanwhile I have a few KP books, this is making it less likely to buy more.

Can you explain why? I don't see how this has anything to do with what they're offering as product.

 

[Belen]

They could have made their points, and they have some legitimate ones, while toning down the rhetoric a bit. The new DMG is aimed at primarily giving guidance to new DMs. That is not in any way a bad thing! Having a different book with lots of crunch for those that like that kind of thing is also a good thing, these books simply have different target audiences.

They could have made that clear without sounding pissy about it.

I agree. It is too salty. I also think a lot of people are salty and on edge right now too.

 

[Morrus]

It does seem quite pointed, and maybe even rude, but I have to ask: are reviews supposed to be positive in general? Because if so, Rotten Tomatoes needs to clean up its act.

It's not a review. It's a marketing piece for their own book.

 

[Oofta]

Can you explain why? I don't see how this has anything to do with what they're offering as product.

You can promote your own product without tearing others down. I'd rather they celebrate a diversity of products and the openness that (after an incredibly stupid stumble) WotC appears to be embracing.

The other aspect is the potential impact on WotC managers who may be a bit clueless in the sense that they will look at this and say "We extend a hand, offer their product on DDB and this is the thanks we get?"

Maybe some of this was meant tongue-in-cheek and not as negative as it sounds. If that's the case they failed. Probably not going to make a huge difference, but even small shifts can have impact.

 

[abirdcall]

They could have made their points, and they have some legitimate ones, while toning down the rhetoric a bit. The new DMG is aimed at primarily giving guidance to new DMs. That is not in any way a bad thing! Having a different book with lots of crunch for those that like that kind of thing is also a good thing, these books simply have different target audiences.

They could have made that clear without sounding pissy about it.

Yeah, like - "Have you checked out the new DMG? It is a great introduction but if you are hungry for something more check out our book too!"

 

[Staffan]

It does seem quite pointed, and maybe even rude, but I have to ask: are reviews supposed to be positive in general? Because if so, Rotten Tomatoes needs to clean up its act.

Well, Rotten Tomatoes is AFAIK a review aggregator – it takes reviews written elsewhere and aggregates them. There's presumably some curation involved in deciding which reviews to showcase, but they still don't write their own reviews.

In addition. Rotten Tomatoes (to my knowledge) is not in the business of producing their own movies or TV shows. Kobold Press, however, is in the business of producing GM guides. There's a pretty big difference between a review saying "Book A sucks" and one saying "Book A sucks, and you should buy my book B instead." In big-business marketing, folks tend not to directly compare their products with those of specific competitors, and instead say things like "lasts up to 40% longer than other leading brands".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, Rotten Tomatoes is AFAIK a review aggregator – it takes reviews written elsewhere and aggregates them. There's presumably some curation involved in deciding which reviews to showcase, but they still don't write their own reviews.

In addition. Rotten Tomatoes (to my knowledge) is not in the business of producing their own movies or TV shows. Kobold Press, however, is in the business of producing GM guides. There's a pretty big difference between a review saying "Book A sucks" and one saying "Book A sucks, and you should buy my book B instead." In big-business marketing, folks tend not to directly compare their products with those of specific competitors, and instead say things like "lasts up to 40% longer than other leading brands".

Then I will go back to the politics and punching up arguments. I fully understand not liking it, but it is a thing underdogs do.