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

[Distracted DM]

Regardless of the ethical stuff they're gotten into (honestly I think the OGL attempt was bad enough to last a while), I'm really just not a fan of the design direction they took 5e in after Xanathar's, largely on the PC side of things. Luckily there are other 3pp out there that can do stuff with 5e, since 5e is what most of my players want to play

 

[TheSword]

“I’m annoyed because of the OGL from 2 years ago and so anything they do since will be given the worst possible interpretation.”

Poor understanding of how corporations work, promotional self interest, the YouTube tendency toward negativity, and an edition update are not a good combination.

Asking nicely for someone to modify a video because they are publishing in readable format whole page spreads of a new product on YouTube is not controversial. Suing them might be, but asking nicely? That is what justifies the -gate suffix now?

I’m called an apologist. Which is a really weird because I’m really just someone who understands how a corporation works, doesn’t have any particular loyalty to the YouTubers (though I watch and enjoy several) and doesn’t think that 3pp are somehow better in principle than the company they symbiotically partner with.

If people stepped back and looked at each item on the list on its own merit and tried to explain to a person outside the hobby, then people would feel pretty silly.

 

[mamba]

Blurgate? Do you just mean the unclear NDAs. That was probably the worst thing, but was still pretty minor.

there were no NDAs

I think it was a distributor that had to cancel orders, but that's just an unlucky thing.

nope, much / all of Asia & Australia had no 2024 products

There were not trying to remove 2014 content from Beyond, but people really could not understand it.

it would have no longer been supported functionally. People understood that very well

Layoffs happen at all companies and have been happening all years.

doesn’t make them a positive

Stance on AI is that it can't be used for art, and most objectionable things. The CEO is interested in it, but it does not look like the WotC staff is.

guess who decides the policy…

Gambling is neither a positive or a negative in my book.

yeah, that tracks, it’s definitely a negative in my book though

Ultimately it does not matter whether you agree or not, saying that there was nothing whatsoever anyone could find issue with has clearly been disproven

 

[mamba]

Asking nicely for someone to modify a video because they are publishing in readable format whole page spreads of a new product on YouTube is not controversial.

they did not ask nicely, and you do not get to decide what is and isn’t controversial for people at large

It clearly was a negative, whether you care about it or not

I’m called an apologist.

I wonder why…

Which is a really weird because I’m really just someone who understands how a corporation works

nope, it isn’t because you understand it, it is because you are ok even with some pretty naughty word behavior

 

[AlViking]

Sorry, a copyright strike against a YouTubers channel is no small thing. Especially to that YouTuber.

I will admit I'm not familiar with the issue but isn't a company entitled to protect their intellectual property if people reveal too much detail? Do you think people should be able to just share entire sections of the books?

 

[mamba]

Seriously? You think that list is major problems? Really?

they do not need to be major problems to disprove

I mean it’s been a couple of years now since they did anything even slightly objectionable

and that was their intent

 

[Kromanjon]

I’m really just someone who understands how a corporation works,

Lots of people understand how corporations work. Not everyone find it acceptable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I will admit I'm not familiar with the issue but isn't a company entitled to protect their intellectual property if people reveal too much detail? Do you think people should be able to just share entire sections of the books?

If they give them the book and don't formally specify how they want it presented, then yes, they shouldn't be taking action against them. They had their chance to control information.

 

[mamba]

I will admit I'm not familiar with the issue but isn't a company entitled to protect their intellectual property if people reveal too much detail?

yes

Do you think people should be able to just share entire sections of the books?

yes

If you send out review copies to YTers with no strings attached (other than a date), then don’t expect them to not show some full pages. Except for one YTer the others did not show more than any TTRPG company other than WotC would have had no issues with.

Even if you agree that the one crossed a line, what exactly do you prevent with this? Don’t you think there are much better quality scans available within a few weeks of the product release?

 

[AlViking]

If they give them the book and don't formally specify how they want it presented, then yes, they shouldn't be taking action against them. They had their chance to control information.

If I purchase a copy of a book and convert it into a pdf to share online that would also be wrong even if it happens all the time The question is not whether they can share some information it's that they can't share entire pages.