D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Ruin Explorer]

Conversely there are real difference between classes in 2014 D&D. A warlock =/= wizard =/= a fighter, etc. I find this fixation about the differences between the classes in 2014 and 1D&D odd as they seem less important / impactful than the differences that exist between the classes just in the 2014 PHB. 5e is not 4e/PF2e people!

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that is how most people approach this issue, and I don't think it's necessarily a useful way of thinking about things.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think anyone is really saying (or doing) that though. I see people saying that it is the only objective measure, but not that it is the one true way to good game design. Nor do I think WotC is only appealing to popularity. If that was the case, they would ask a lot more questions than they do.

That, and there is no one true way to define what good game design is. I do believer that sustained, ongoing popularity and double digit growth for nearly a decade is an indicator that a lot of people consider it at least decent quality. That's not being dismissive of people that don't care for it, it's just the reality that there is no way to please everyone.

D&D is a mass market product. It's primary goal is to achieve mass market popularity. The current version has exceeded all expectations (which, admittedly were quite low), whether or not some individuals don't agree with the decisions they made to achieve that.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Did they? I haven't see WotC call 5E 5E much, so I'm surprised they said that, but I'll take your word for it.

I may be misremembering a bit. I did a quick search and couldn't find what I remembered by here a few items:

From the One D&D announcement video:

"One D&D has three pillars and one is the rule-set which is built on the rules from 5th edition but updated. We’re building upon the rules that have been established, the story telling, and expanding our world and rule system. All the adventures and supplements that have been released in the past ten years will still playable with the new evolution of D&D."

This makes it sound like 1D&D is the umbrella of the rules, digital (DnD Beyond), and Digital Play space (3D VTT). Those 3 are "One D&D." However, the quote also makes it clear that it is building on a foundation of 5e.

Here is Crawford talking about the playtest here:

Crawford says. "Rather than playtesting basically a brand new game bottom to top, instead now it's like 'all right, it's the game we're playing now', but now let's zoom in on this piece of it and think, 'How might we get more fun, more speed, more options here?' And then move on to another piece of the game until all of that coalesces in 2024 in the new books."

Here Crawford talks about it more as being 5e. The playtest is for the game we are playing now, i.e 5e. Sill not the smoking gun I was remembering.

Here is the quote (also from the first announcement linked above) that probably clouded my memory:

"We're no longer in the position where we think of D&D as 'an edition' – it's just D&D."

It is possible I remembered this as saying "...it's just One D&D." When that is not actually what they said. I do believe that is basically the intent of that statement. 2014 and 2024 are just D&D (which is 5e by default).

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that is how most people approach this issue, and I don't think it's necessarily a useful way of thinking about things.

I think it is the only useful way of looking at it.

The playtest classes are just new classes. We have played them right next to the PHB classes and they work just as well as any other class and they work well with the other classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it is the only useful way of looking at it.

The playtest classes are just new classes. We have played them right next to the PHB classes and they work just as well as any other class and they work well with the other classes.

Fair enough I just think a lot of people will be nonplussed.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Fair enough I just think a lot of people will be nonplussed.

I wonder if people would be upset if they gave them different names: warrior instead of fighter, mage instead of wizard, etc. Would people still complain that these are not compatible? That is is a different game? I’m guessing no.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wonder if people would be upset if they gave them different names: warrior instead of fighter, mage instead of wizard, etc. Would people still complain that these are not compatible? That is is a different game? I’m guessing no.

I absolutely agree re: compatible. That's basically what 4E did with Essentials and it worked fine. Different names would mean complaints re: classes went down to virtually nothing, IF those old classes were still available to all in 1D&D - trouble is, after a certain point, they will get harder and harder to access and really only the new classes will be there for new groups (esp. if playing digitally on Beyond).

That said, the big issue is that these aren't meant to be entirely new classes, because for whatever reason, WotC has decided that they want them to be compatible with the subclasses from 5E - i.e. so you can have a 5E subclass on a 1D&D class. Personally I wouldn't have made that decision, but I see why they did. And it is technically workable with a little bending, folding and occasionally mutilating (really only needed for a couple of classes), but it's not a great solution.

Re: different game, I dunno if anyone is saying that - I'm saying it's a different edition, for my money. Maybe that's just because I'm super-old, and these changes are similar to 1E to 2E's changes (indeed some are very similar - like splitting classes into groups. But I think people would still say that, because there are, so far, quite a lot of fundamental rules changes, like in how grappling works, or what spell lists are, or the fairly gigantic change of going from having a mix of "known" and "prep" caster to 100% prep casters. That's bigger than anything 1E to 2E did.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Conversely there are real difference between classes in 2014 D&D. A warlock =/= wizard =/= a fighter, etc. I find this fixation about the differences between the classes in 2014 and 1D&D odd as they seem less important / impactful than the differences that exist between the classes just in the 2014 PHB. 5e is not 4e/PF2e people!

I don't see how this is a proper comparison? Sure, classes within editions are different, but that's not really a comparison between the same classes in two different editions (or in this case, editions that are meant to be compatible). The differences between 1D&D and 5E classes matter because if they can be used interchangeably it can create weird interactions where certain classes have notably better versions in one edition versus the other. Look at what we see with the Druid: if you can take the 5E druid versus the 1D&D druid, what reason would you not take the 5E druid given how powerful that version of the Circle of the Moon is?

 

[Parmandur]

That's valid.

However much, perhaps most of this thread isn't on that basis - it's a much harder basis, that being that KP are being somehow "dishonest" or "evil" (dark path indeed - the thread title claims this!) by making a very mild boast. "I don't like this marketing" is an entirely different claim to "This marketing is evil".

I'm going to ask one more time too - where, exactly, did they claim this? I've re-read the statement like four times, and I see that it's vaguely implied, but it seems like all y'all are acting like they actually spell that out, and perhaps I'm somehow missing it (I do have severe ADHD, it's absolutely possible). This all feels a bit Emperor's New Clothes.

It's more the context of the design diaries to the playtest packets in conjunction with the FAQ

 

[mamba]

That said, the big issue is that these aren't meant to be entirely new classes, because for whatever reason, WotC has decided that they want them to be compatible with the subclasses from 5E - i.e. so you can have a 5E subclass on a 1D&D class. Personally I wouldn't have made that decision

Same, I would simply have thrown 5e out and rebuilt it the way I wanted it to be. Still compatible with 5e adventures, but not with subclasses. To me all this does is restrict the design for no good reason

 

[Bolares]

I wonder if people would be upset if they gave them different names: warrior instead of fighter, mage instead of wizard, etc. Would people still complain that these are not compatible? That is is a different game? I’m guessing no.

Isn’t that what they did in essentials?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So who gets to decide what a worthwhile goal is? Because for WOTC, the goal is to sell as much product as they can and to target as broad an audience as they can. They seem to be quite successful at that with 5E, certainly more successful than the last couple of editions.

So it seem comes back to "I don't personally like it so no matter how many people do it's bad."

And from my position, your claim seems to come back to "well right now I just so happen to be getting the game I like, so popularity is the best thing ever." It's an incredibly self-serving standard.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Same, I would simply have thrown 5e out and rebuilt it the way I wanted it to be. Still compatible with 5e adventures, but not with subclasses. To me all this does is restrict the design for no good reason

Ah, but how do you know rhat that is good for the game? Isn't it going to be more popular to let people keep the subclasses they already know??? Why is YOUR way best if this is what WotC decided to do??????

 

[Parmandur]

Ah, but how do you know rhat that is good for the game? Isn't it going to be more popular to let people keep the subclasses they already know??? Why is YOUR way best if this is what WotC decided to do??????

That's why WotC is running playtests, to figure out what is most popular.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's why WotC is running playtests, to figure out what is most popular.

But the poster just said what they would have done without playtesting. That the thing they know WotC is doing is foolish ("for no good reason.") How could they possibly think that if doing the popular thing—meaning, whatever thing they try that gets more votes—is always 100% what is best for the game?

 

[Parmandur]

But the poster just said what they would have done without playtesting. That the thing they know WotC is doing is foolish ("for no good reason.") How could they possibly think that if doing the popular thing—meaning, whatever thing they try that gets more votes—is always 100% what is best for the game?

A game is a group social pleasure activity. Whatever pleases the largest social is automatically what is best for the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry for the typo of missing out 5E, but I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

You seem to have missed what I mean, because I'm definitely not calling you on not saying the term "5e", I'm challenging your point, and especially the premise of that point. I rarely give people crap for how they say a thing, because the point of their statements is all that actually matters, and I find pedantry about as pleasant to experience as being stuck in an MRI machine for over an hour, and tend to think less of folks who habitually use it to talk down to people.

My point is, an updated and revised PHB is still The PHB. The fact that the 2014 core books won't be getting new print runs (barring significant fandom demand, because say what you will about wotc, they listen and change course when enough of the fans yell at them), is not a significant point. The FAQ fails to word it's statements in a way that makes clear that they just mean the 2014 core books, while also implying that future official dnd will be purely digital (and thus, if you don't want to play digitrally and have a monthly subscription, we've got you covered! We're saving DnD!), while further indicating that they see their own game as a continuation of 5e but don't see the 2024 core books as also a coninuation of 5e dnd, all coming together to leave a very bad taste in a lot of mouths, especially because it comes across as a thing we have seen before. Smaller publishers dissing DnD in order to uplift their own game.

Thanks for being a jerk to someone with severe ADHD (as I'm pretty sure you're well aware, given how often I mention it) because they missed something out (in this case catching M-W's use of "incorrect"). Twice now in one post. Super-classy.

This ain't it, chief. As someone with severe ADHD, first of all I've no idea that you also struggle with it, even if I did know that, say, a week ago. Secondly, I'm not being a jerk, I'm telling you t;hat you're being rude and insulting to someone for whom English is a second language because they used a word differently from how you'd prefer. (I'm also compltely unfamiliar with the phrase you keep using of someone missing something out. First time it read like typo-induced gibberish, but contextually I gather that it means they left out a word? Something like that?)

That all said, the effect of a statement exists independent of it's intent, so I will say, I'm sorry for wording my challenge of your statements in such a way as to make you feel that I was making fun of you for behavior that is a symptom of a really painful disorder that I also suffer from. I've spent my entire life ricocheting between being lauded for my creativity and intellect and being made to feel like a moron for forgetting or not paying attention to something, or processing information differently. I get it.

No, as a simple matter of fact, you agreeing with an opinion, doesn't magically make it not an opinion. I'm surprised how many people are struggling hard with this concept.

No one is. Not one person, as far as I can see. You are misinterpreting people's statements, if this is your conclusion.

What else are they criticising it for, then?

I don't see anything that remotely warrants the level of drama and aggression that most of the posts (including yours here) have in the KP statement.\

So you're categorizing any criticism of KP's faq as dishonest as wildly dramatic. Oooookay. I'm gonna go ahead and not take that too seriously. Respectfully.

What people are critising the misleading implications of the FAQ. I have made it very clear repeatedly that I don't think they intended to mislead, but they did. it's a bad way to proceed talking about a product

?????????

They won't be 5E. They'll be 1D&D. By WotC's own description. What are you talking about?

It's fine to argue that KP's also won't be 5E - that makes sense - they won't be. But you can't argue 1D&D isn't 1D&D.

One DND is 5e. See other posts for more on that. The last part I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not arguing that 1dnd isn't 1dnd? I'm saying that it's 5e.

To dig in more, one dnd is more than just the 5e rules, because the term also refers to the vtt and ddb, It's a revision of the 5e rules, updating them to fix pain poiints, address opportunities they see to get people excited about things that haven't excited people before, make the game play faster in places where it can sometimes bog down, and future proof things like spell lists (which I kidna get but like, there are other ways), along with an expansion of the digital tools, and some other stuff.

No, they've said it's compatible with 5E, that's rather different. They've been extremely clear that it'll be compatible - we see from the playtest that it'll be moderately compatible, like 2E to 1E, pretty much - i.e. playable kind of compatibility. And if it's "5E" then frankly, so is Black Flag, so is A5E and so on. They're all about equally compatible so far - actually that's not true - A5E is looking slightly more compatible than either 1D&D or Black Flag.

No, they've explicitly said they don't view it as separate from 5e, that all adventures and supplements will continue to work with the revised rules, and that they've no intention of ever abandoning 5e to rebuild the game from scratch, that they intend to evolve 5e over time as needed, not make a new game. One DnD is 5e.

And yes, it's me, but frankly I'm horrified by the behaviour of people in this thread, and the level of drama you guys have going. It's bizarre and I don't get it, so I'm a bit weirded out honestly. It's like normally sane people have turned into some sort of pitchfork-y mob for an offence I can't pretend I understand. I'm sorry if that seems rude but I honestly don't get why you're so extremely upset, and why there's so much dramatic language being chucked around, because of like, marketing language from 3PP which makes less than 1% as much money as WotC, probably less than 1% as much money as D&D does for WotC.

As I said to our friendly local KP representative upthread, it may be that I've got all the right people on ignore, but I am not really seeing wildly dramatic comments.

This does explain why you are being particularly condescending and bordering on outright insulting to people, though. If the comments of those I can't see anymore are that bad, fair enough. I've learned that it's best to walk away from stuff that makes me that upset, but I'm hardly doing that perfectly, and I've a posting history that gives me no place expecting anyone else to do so.

They’ve said multiple times that they are done with editions and their de plan is to just keep updating 5e. The most they’ve said (that I’ve seen) is that if they had to compare to an edition it would be 5.5 not anytting new. But the discussion is kind of pointless and people already have their convictions about what OD&D is.

Kyle Brink said when talking to @Alphastream that "it feels more like 3.5 than anything, more a revision of the same game", but that's an off-hand remark in an interview, and it is preceeded by explicit statements that they don't internally view one dnd as separate from 5e in any way.

I mean, WotC have weird attitudes to popularity. With their surveys, they hit a tiny, tiny percentage of their playerbase, and I daresay one that's not actually indicative of the larger playerbase, but the older, male-er, much nerdier side. So on one level, that's ignoring popularity in favour of this small group. On the other hand, they seem, from recent comments, to have brought back the "70% rule" (ugh), which is a popularity contest in its very purest and most mindless form.

There's the wild dramatic take you referenced as your norm upthread!

Hardly mindless. Do you watch the design videos discussing playtest feedback? If not, watch the ones recently, and also as an aside, note that Crawford repeatedly refers to the playtest as an unearthed arcana series, playtesting "the 2024 PHB options", seemingly to drive home that it is not a new game in any sense, but is instead a what would be thought of as a new edition had wotc not borked how people in the community view that word. That is, a revision of the same game.

But I have literally run sessions for a group that included a Tasha's options using PHB Ranger and a UA Ranger with the PHB Hunter subclass because we all agree that the UA hunter sucks, which they basically recognize in the video about the expert classes survey feedback, noting that "people miss the options that the hunter has in the 2014 phb" (paraphrased from memory)

As well, they have repeatedly talked about how diverse the playerbase is, and I see no evidence that the survey respondant skew heavily toward older white men. Perhaps if a few people ask about it on twitter, they'll toss out some details on that front.

That said, the big issue is that these aren't meant to be entirely new classes, because for whatever reason, WotC has decided that they want them to be compatible with the subclasses from 5E - i.e. so you can have a 5E subclass on a 1D&D class.

Well, no, a subclass from 5e printed within the last 9 years will continue to be compatible with the 5e core books and it's classes going forward. Because it's all 5e. You can't like, mix parts of the two versions of the class by RAW, but...I mean of course you can't, just like you can't take the parts you like most from the various reprints of the Bladesinger and make a character from them by RAW. Revisions replace previous versions. That's what a revision is. What a revision isn't, is a separate game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A game is a group social pleasure activity. Whatever pleases the largest social is automatically what is best for the game.

Ah, good, so we'll be moving to Monty Haul games for everyone, then? After all, players outnumber DMs at least* 4 to 1. Who doesn't like getting sweet magical treasures?

* Given the constant DM shortage, I think we can confidently say the rate is no less than this.

 

[Parmandur]

Ah, good, so we'll be moving to Monty Haul games for everyone, then? After all, players outnumber DMs at least* 4 to 1. Who doesn't like getting sweet magical treasures?

* Given the constant DM shortage, I think we can confidently say the rate is no less than this.

Players don't buy books, thstwhy WotC makes the books that they do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So who gets to decide what a worthwhile goal is? Because for WOTC, the goal is to sell as much product as they can and to target as broad an audience as they can. They seem to be quite successful at that with 5E, certainly more successful than the last couple of editions.

So it seem comes back to "I don't personally like it so no matter how many people do it's bad."

Well, "get as many people to buy our IP-branded products as possible" was my supposition of WotC's design goal.