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

[PHATsakk43]

Y’all act like this has ever worked out in the industry?

GW is pretty much the only game for war gaming because it bought Citidel and the “official mini” was from a house organ.

WotC isn’t financially dependent upon D&D. Would it like to make more? Sure, but allowing itself to be effectively voiding its IP is probably worth whatever economic impact it would have. Besides, it’s not like WotC isn’t in the card business where even tokens have to be M:tG branded to be valid is completely used to trademark enforcement.

All the games out there that aren’t controlled are not making anything.

 

[MNblockhead]

I didn't see an apology. I saw a "we listened to our fans" and "disappointed" but no "We apologize." Maybe I missed it in their post? Looked like a non-apology apology where they don't even state what they think they did wrong and just state they should do better while claiming they had good intent. Which let's be clear: the author said it didn't represent fairly what they wrote and asked for their name to be removed due to how butchered the "review" was by editing. There isn't good evidence their intent was pure in how the company appears to have intentionally edited it that way.

And before someone says it yes I saw their response to all of this about wanting to uplift the positive and all that. I am saying I didn't see them say they apologize. And yeah, I am treating this exactly like I'd treat WOTC if they issued this kind of backtrack after backlash. I'd expect an actual apology in the supposed apology.

I mean, good enough to me. I don't need an apology, they didn't do anything to me. I was just turned off by it. If they noted that a meaningful number of their current and prospective customers didn't like it, acknowledged that, and took a different marketing approach. Great! I can learn about their products without the negativity.

 

[Mekri]

If I were Kobold I also would not toot my horn like this since TOV is literally a 95% 5e clone.
And more particularly- and oddly- it’s closer to 5e 2024 than 2014.
Both lean even heavier into super powered PCs. Both lean into making 5e a bit more conplex and less modular than 2014.
I was hoping for something more than a reskin.

 

[Retreater]

If I were Kobold I also would not toot my horn like this since TOV is literally a 95% 5e clone.
And more particularly- and oddly- it’s closer to 5e 2024 than 2014.
Both lean even heavier into super powered PCs. Both lean into making 5e a bit more conplex and less modular than 2014.
I was hoping for something more than a reskin.

I mean, one could say the same thing about Pathfinder 1e. I'd argue that every bit of rules design Paizo did add was terrible.
I might go so far to say it's still the case. But at least Paizo 2e is terrible in its own way instead of carbon copying D&D.
Edit: please replace "terrible" with "not to my liking." I should have phrased it that way.

 

[Mekri]

I mean, one could say the same thing about Pathfinder 1e. I'd argue that every bit of rules design Paizo did add was terrible.
I might go so far to say it's still the case. But at least Paizo 2e is terrible in its own way instead of carbon copying D&D.

True, but the difference there is pathfinder was continuing 3.5 when wotc decided to completely change the came with 4.
5e 2024 is an update like 3.5 was. TOV is basically the same thing.
Also, and I may be wrong about this, but I don’t recall Paizo trash talking. They knew the audience would come- it’s why the made what they made.
Kobold is not relying on system hate. They are relying on Company hate.

 

[Belen]

Note that 5e is now in the Creative Commons so that can't happen, but I take your point. To me, it reads oddly when KP sort of claims that their's is the superior 5e product without really acknowledging who made 5e. They've done it several times. It's not necessarily wrong, but feels, to me, kind of rude I guess.

They may not be able to reference WOTC, legally.

I work for a NGO as a contractor right now but I cannot legally state that I work for them. The closest I can come is that I provided services for a particular program.

 

[mamba]

True, but the difference there is pathfinder was continuing 3.5 when wotc decided to completely change the came with 4.

when ToV was being announced WotC was trying to murder the OGL… not quite the same situation, but not too far removed either, the main difference is that WotC did not succeed with it

Kobold is not relying on system hate. They are relying on Company hate.

eh, they could have phrased it better, but ‘our DMG contains more for experienced DMs while WotC’s focuses more on beginners’ is a valid take

 

[Mekri]

when ToV was being announced WotC was trying to murder the OGL… not quite the same situation, but not too far removed either, the main difference is that WotC did not succeed with it


eh, they could have phrased it better, but ‘our DMG contains more for experienced DMs while WotC’s focuses more on beginners’ is a valid take

It very well may be. I have not finished reading through both yet, but neither seems drastically better than the other. Both are inferior to the castle keepers guide for castles and crusades from what I’ve seen so far. But they both work for what they are trying to achieve.
I’m of the mind set that if you have to slander another product to show yours is better, than maybe yours isn’t great. Or you lack faith in it.
Personally I’m sticking with 2014 5e as I don’t like either the 2024 direction or TOVs direction.
I prefer the modularity of 2014.
I also tend to have the same players for each campaign, and they are used to me putting different restrictions and add ins depending on the setting adventure.
My current game is very mythology based, starting in Greco-Roman and Egyptian.
So they get access to more boons and blessings but know random magic items are off the table. If they find anything, it’s an artifact that Will Be Important to the campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It very well may be. I have not finished reading through both yet, but neither seems drastically better than the other. Both are inferior to the castle keepers guide for castles and crusades from what I’ve seen so far. But they both work for what they are trying to achieve.
I’m of the mind set that if you have to slander another product to show yours is better, than maybe yours isn’t great. Or you lack faith in it.
Personally I’m sticking with 2014 5e as I don’t like either the 2024 direction or TOVs direction.
I prefer the modularity of 2014.
I also tend to have the same players for each campaign, and they are used to me putting different restrictions and add ins depending on the setting adventure.
My current game is very mythology based, starting in Greco-Roman and Egyptian.
So they get access to more boons and blessings but know random magic items are off the table. If they find anything, it’s an artifact that Will Be Important to the campaign.

I find Trials and Treasures for Level Up better than either, but both books likely have material I would want to adapt for my own game. Just pick a core that's close to what you want Nd embellish to taste.

 

[Morrus]

They may not be able to reference WOTC, legally.

Of course they can. Just like you did. There's no law that says you can't mention another company. I had a nice McDonalds the other day, and made a call on my iPhone while I was there.