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

[mamba]

To me, the problem is that WotC has clearly decided that "core" doesn't mean what it used to mean

the books needed to run the game, that has not changed, the emphasis / focus maybe has

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Come play D&D. The start-up cost is on par with a high end PC.

glares in ham radio

 

[Micah Sweet]

Come play D&D. The start-up cost is on par with a high end PC.

I have and will pay more for a larger book with more stuff in it. Hyperbolic memes are hyperbolic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

the books needed to run the game, that has not changed, the emphasis / focus maybe has

Yeah, that what I'm saying. Changing the emphasis / focus is a big deal, and IMO shouldn't be done within the same edition.

 

[Umbran]

I've already been told by @Umbran that WotC should not be the guide to alternate playstyles and 3pp products...

That is not at all what I said. I am not happy with you misrepresenting my statements.

I said I was not interested in WotC creating separate DMGs that would, in effect, create orothodoxy for each covered playstyle. I think there's enough playstyle variation out there that rigid books would be a disservice to the players.

I did say that a series of articles might be very good. I did suggest 3pp could do such, if WotC did not, but I have no issue with WotC doing articles.

I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about guides to 3pp products. At all. That is a fiction, if perhaps an accidental one. In any event, I said no such thing.

If WotC wants to set up to give folks pointers to 3pp that might serve their needs, that's fine by me.

 

[Distracted DM]

Probably. But are they as good in the other one?

Sorry, are what as good in what other one?

 

[Distracted DM]

The DMG if it included everything everyone wanted.
View attachment 386486

Pretty sure you could add a couple chapters itd still probably be half the thickness of a Pathfinder1e core book.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, that what I'm saying. Changing the emphasis / focus is a big deal, and IMO shouldn't be done within the same edition.

Would it have been better if they called it 6th edition but put out exactly what they are putting out now?

It feels like that would have generated countless complaints across the interwebs that that they didn't do enough changes to call it a 6th edition and that it was awful that they said that most of folks 5e stuff would still work with it.

(In any case, I'm rooting for a "Campaign Masters Guide" that has all kinds of alternate rules and vast details on building detailed campaigns).

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is not at all what I said. I am not happy with you misrepresenting my statements.

I said I was not interested in WotC creating separate DMGs that would, in effect, create orothodoxy for each covered playstyle. I think there's enough playstyle variation out there that rigid books would be a disservice to the players.

I did say that a series of articles might be very good. I did suggest 3pp could do such, if WotC did not, but I have no issue with WotC doing articles.

I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about guides to 3pp products. At all. That is a fiction, if perhaps an accidental one. In any event, I said no such thing.

If WotC wants to set up to give folks pointers to 3pp that might serve their needs, that's fine by me.

Sorry for accepting that. I wasn't actually thinking of what you posted.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would it have been better if they called it 6th edition but put out exactly what they are putting out now?

Yes, it would have been better.