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

[MockingBird]

All those PF2e books sold only for them to turn around and revise it. They get a pass though, or it seems like they do. It'd definitely be torches and pitchforks had that been WotC.

 

[Velderan]

Wasn’t that because people thought it was no longer going to be available and therefore wanted to get it before it went out of print - no doubt so it could be sold at outrageously inflated prices on eBay!

I’m not sure it was because all of a sudden people gave up 5e in disgust.

That's not something I've seen said anywhere in the PF community. There were lots of people in the PF2e subreddit saying they were done with 5e and wanted to switch. Now of those books Paizo sold, we'll never know how many people never even played the game once because WotC reversed course before people even had their PF books in hand and had time to get familiar enough with the rules to run a game. But I never saw a single person say "buy PF2e now because you might not be able to tomorrow".

 

[mamba]

All those PF2e books sold only for them to turn around and revise it. They get a pass though, or it seems like they do. It'd definitely be torches and pitchforks had that been WotC.

well, the pass is that it essentially was forced onto them by WotC, and they would not have it done now otherwise

If WotC had as good an excuse, people would be ok with that too, I mean we have people here defending what WotC did with the OGL…

 

[MockingBird]

well, the pass is that it essentially was forced onto them by WotC, and they would not have it done now otherwise

If WotC had as good an excuse, people would be ok with that too, I mean we have people here defending what WotC did with the OGL…

But did they really need to? Paizo themselves have said PF2e didn't have much of the ogl in it. I'm definitely not trying to debate just curious. I only ever see the very rare occasional post from PF1e fans that are disgruntled.

 

[Umbran]

Of course they saw it as unfair!

I don't think so. In the business world, there's a big difference between a deal that is "unfair", and one that is just not as advantageous as it could be for one of the parties.

The word "unfair" has strong emotional connotations we shouldn't usually associate with larger corporate entities. It is unlikely that anyone felt so strongly about it as to label it "unfair".

They purchased a product, and because they weren't paying attention, the OGL was released.

We are talking about events from nearly a quarter century ago - indeed, while I don't have the most recent demographics, about a third of folks currently playing the game (the 15-24 age bracket) weren't even born when this happened.

However, what you describe here does not match my memory of events or the relationship between Hasbro, WotC, and the property at the time. There was nothing secret about the OGL. It isn't that, "they weren't paying attention, so the OGL was released." My understanding is that Hasbro was, at the time, taking the (actually wise) move of not taking over direct management of WotC business activities.

So, it was less "we are not paying attention," and more "we are specifically allowing you go about business largely independently" - an active choice, rather than neglect.

..., as an owner of a property, they have given away the farm. 'I paid a lot of money for this, but other people can use it for free??!!??'

Again, they bought it for the card games. In effect, they paid a lot for Magic: the Gathering (and, at the time Pokemon). They didn't pay a lot for D&D.

 

[mamba]

But did they really need to? Paizo themselves have said PF2e didn't have much of the ogl in it.

well, ‘need to’ is already a question, in that the OGL was not revoked, so they could keep on using it. This is more a precaution than actually completely unavoidable.

That being said, the trigger still was the OGL drama, and unless you want to find yourself in court if Hasbro ever tried this stunt again, you do have to cut ties with the OGL. So yes, I do consider it a need from a business perspective. Not having much of the OGL in it is still too much

 

[Faolyn]

Wasn’t that because people thought it was no longer going to be available and therefore wanted to get it before it went out of print - no doubt so it could be sold at outrageously inflated prices on eBay!

I’m not sure it was because all of a sudden people gave up 5e in disgust.

Not from what I saw on reddit, and even occasionally here--people were mad at WotC and decided to jump ship to something else. Nobody thought that D&D or the other games were going out of print.

 

[The Scythian]

Mod note:

You were doing great, until you go to this bit, and made it personal.

It is also a bit weird, given that you are opening with how folks don't always assume bad faith, but then you accuse someone of bad faith. That really doesn't do much for your overall argument.

So, maybe next time, take a pass on the personal commentary, hm?

Fair enough. I object to your characterization of my motivation (I didn't assume bad faith, I believed I saw evidence of it), but I take your point. I will watch my language in the future.

However, can I ask where the line is? Would it have been acceptable if I had described the activity of trolling instead of using the word itself? To me, that seems just as personal, but it has been done at least once in this thread, when Ulorian said this to Mamba:

I feel like you are trying to manufacture some anger here instead of trying to understand and discuss what's actually at stake.

This isn't hair splitting, either. Ulorian was clearly accusing Mamba of trolling, but there was no moderator action taken in response to that post, even though he was suggesting that Mamba was acting in bad faith. Was it simply because he didn't use the term "trolling"?

That wasn't the first time. Just two posts above the one I quoted, Ulorian insinuated that Mamba was doing something underhanded by using mild hyperbole to make a point. There are examples earlier in the thread of Ulorian insinuating that opponents are acting in bad faith or accusing them of being irrational, which also seems personal to me.

 

[Faolyn]

I tend to see this as a good thing done for the wrong reasons, if only because I believe that more people should be encourage to try games outside of the D&D 5e sphere or even D&D-adjacent sphere. I think that there are a lot of games that these people would love or potentially be happier playing if they gave those games a shot and the time of day.

Are they really "wrong reasons," though? Is it more or less wrong than ditching D&D because you're tired of faux-Medieval fantasy, or you're just tired of D&Disms like class/level-based systems? I would think that being tired of a company's shenanigans is a perfectly decent reason to not buy from them anymore.

 

[SlyFlourish]

All the people who want non 5e-based RPGs to flourish have a major uphill battle:

I don't think this is the case. There are tons of new cool 5e products coming out and some of them are doing very well financially.