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

[TheSword]

That's not what I heard in his description of what happened. So I guess we heard very different accounts.

Re-watch. I checked it again this morning.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because if WotC gave away a lollypop with every book purchased you’d complain they were encouraging diabetes.

My specific issues with WotC's game are, as you stated, well documented. They are welcome to give me free candy.

 

[TiQuinn]

Re-watch. I checked it again this morning.

Which is why Mike indicated that he wouldn't be doing a review like that of their products going forward (due to it being a waste of his time?)

D&D (2024) - D&D Player's Handbook Video Redactions & Takedowns

There's a lot of YouTube videos looking at the brand new Player's Handbook right now, and some of them include the YouTuber in question flipping through the new book on screen. A couple of those video creators have been asked by WotC to redact some of the content of their videos, with one...

www.enworld.org

 

[darjr]

Here’s that first video from @SlyFlourish about it.

 

[darjr]

Jorphdan did get a strike.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because if WotC gave away a lollypop with every book purchased you’d complain they were encouraging diabetes.

What? WotC encourages diabetes?!?!?

BRB have to go re-post this.

 

[TheSword]

Which is why Mike indicated that he wouldn't be doing a review like that of their products going forward (due to it being a waste of his time?)

D&D (2024) - D&D Player's Handbook Video Redactions & Takedowns

There's a lot of YouTube videos looking at the brand new Player's Handbook right now, and some of them include the YouTuber in question flipping through the new book on screen. A couple of those video creators have been asked by WotC to redact some of the content of their videos, with one...

www.enworld.org

Annoyance. Unreasonable expectations?

 

[TiQuinn]

Re-watch. I checked it again this morning.

Re-watched, and what you frame as a "nice request to ask politely" came as the second of two very contradictory statements from the company with a creator relations team (that apparently can't really get their crap together in advance of a major product release) that resulted in a waste of his time and effort, including restatements of rules that had not been previously described or agreed to amidst a number of other creators receiving strikes. Secondly, Mike was pretty PO'd about it to the degree that he's stated here that he's not going to be even bothering with these types of reviews going forward.

So no, not as hunky dory, biz as usual as you present it in your post.

 

[CellarHeroes]

Because if WotC gave away a lollypop with every book purchased you’d complain they were encouraging diabetes.

Is that lollipop made with the same quality as the content in their books? If so, then diabetes would be the least of my concerns.

 

[AlViking]

Considering the way things played out, it was more likely a decision from on-high- not a screw-up. But nope, that's not an ongoing thing.

The thing that's worthy of ongoing condemnation is the planned takeover of a large portion of the ttrpg industry and creators' properties with it.

I don't think it's something to hold against WotC forever, but it is something to keep in mind for some folks (myself included) a couple years later. There have been other events, but the OGL debacle is a biggie.

A screwup that was a conscious decision is still a screwup. I see no reason to care much when the decision was reversed quickly months or even years ago.