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

[mamba]

And, really? You missed the part where I talked about people spreading misinformation?

no, I missed the part where someone said that is not the case…

So do you approve of WotC using the Pinkertons? You sure sound like you do… if not why not and what should they have done instead?

 

[Imaro]

Which I am. That's how you noticed this in the first place.

Sure in your videos I'll give you that but here it's much less clear... especially with a post like the OP of this thread.

 

[SlyFlourish]

In SF’s video linked previously he makes it clear that one of the reasons he made the video was to promote his own Kickstarter.

That's not true. I made the original video in which I walked through the PHB (quite enthusiasticly if you watch it) and it so happened I was going to be running a Kickstarter at the time so that was fortuitous. Then Blur-Gate happened and boy that chapped my ass and yeah, I did do a video about that to explain why I had to deface my own videos and how stupid that was. Then WOTC went back again, saying "sure, you can repost that video up we told you to deface". All of that drama did get a lot of views and my Kickstarter certainly benefitted from that but I absolutely did not go into this intending to use this drama to drive my Kickstarter.

Let's be straight here. This isn't about potential conflicts of interest. This is about not liking the opinions I have on the game you love. That's cool. You don't have to agree with me. I still love D&D – actual D&D – not using that as a term for 5e. There's lots to dig in the two D&D 2024 books we have and I'm eager to dig into the 2024 Monster Manual.

But the dodge of "he's doing it for the clicks" is so tiresome. I hear it all the time aimed at lots of video producers when, the truth could very well be that they (and I) believe what we're saying.

My whole point in this post (which somehow got resurrected) is that you can love D&D and be fine. If you don't love D&D (or Hasbro), you can still enjoy 5e. And if you don't enjoy 5e, there are tons of other RPGs to play. We're all covered here.

 

[Arilyn]

I used to be a big fan of Slyflourish (especially his Shadowdark run of videos) but recently he has, IMO, been leaning more and more into anti-WotC rhetoric (especially after the PHB blur issues). Now I get it, you're trying to make your money but let's be upfront and transparent about that as a content creator, freelancer and publisher.

What? @Sly Flourish has added a ton to the D&D community. He's a huge fan and your statements are insulting and frankly flabergasting. Is he not allowed to criticise WotC at all? He's not allowed to advise people to play the games they love? He's not allowed to work for other companies, unless he tells us over and over that he's doing so?

Do you believe that Mike is bashing D&D because of his honest critiques? That he's decided that making money by said bashing is the way to go? Cause he is not even remotely a click baity channel.

 

[mamba]

I used to be a big fan of Slyflourish (especially his Shadowdark run of videos) but recently he has, IMO, been leaning more and more into anti-WotC rhetoric (especially after the PHB blur issues).

yeah, that is showing your bias more than his. Sly has been pretty consistent. Apparently anyone not constantly praising everything WotC is more than you can handle

 

[mamba]

Because you're not actively pushing for people to drop or stop playing TotV....are you?

or D&D…

 

[Imaro]

or D&D…

Yeah he kind of is.

 

[Imaro]

yeah, that is showing your bias more than his. Sly has been pretty consistent. Apparently anyone not constantly praising everything WotC is more than you can handle

Sooo... you just ascribe motivations wherever you go huh? Got it.

 

[SlyFlourish]

You must be from the future then because you're judging a book that hasn't been released yet. Moreso you're judging its usability without having seen it used in the wild... so yeah stating book A is better than book B without ever having seen Book B... I'd call that disparaging it.

And if not I guess we could call it... uninformed nonsense? Clear bias showing?? Bad review standards...which one would you call it?

I am cofident that the new D&D 2025 Monster Manual will not have:

• Monster knowledge checks
• Actual treasure recommendations (not "treasure: any").
• A monster statistics by CR table
• Encounters at various CRs showing which monsters group with other monsters.
• Potential signs of a monster's presence

I presume, when the book comes out and we both verify this, that you'll come back and say "yep, Mike was right", right?

We both know your veiled attacks against my objectiveness aren't about this. You love D&D and it bothers you when you see criticism of it and the company that makes it. Anyone saying "I like this other book better" is a threat to that for some reason. You didn't claim I was a bought man because of my work for WOTC but should I dare elevate a competing book I worked on (after clearly stating that I worked on it), that's when you call me out for bias.

You can love D&D whatever I have to say about it. As I said, I love it too. You don't have to dig in with perpendicular arguments to try to discredit criticism you don't like.

 

[Imaro]

What? @Sly Flourish has added a ton to the D&D community. He's a huge fan and your statements are insulting and frankly flabergasting. Is he not allowed to criticise WotC at all? He's not allowed to advise people to play the games they love? He's not allowed to work for other companies, unless he tells us over and over that he's doing so?

You seem to be addressing absolutely nothing I've actually stated.

Do you believe that Mike is bashing D&D because of his honest critiques? That he's decided that making money by said bashing is the way to go? Cause he is not even remotely a click baity channel.

Honest critiques like the one made on the 2024 MM in this very thread? The one that isn't out yet? That type of honest critique?