D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Bolares]

Folks, let me reiterate, and expand on, what I said earlier - I think this is really a case of misreading and/or misunderstand the FAQ.
And I don't mean that to sound negative! I can absolutely see how it could have been misconstrued.

But there really, honestly, was no intent to mislead or be dishonest. As others have said, including me, marketing and messaging is a difficult and nuanced thing, and we hear those folks who feel that the statements being referred to were not as clear as we intended - we honestly do! We are ALWAYS listening, both to our fans, and those with critiques, and we are always striving to be better.

Our point was very simply this:
The current 5E Players Handbook, Monster Manual and DM's Guide will not continue to be in print once the new version, or edition, or whatever it is being called is released. Those 3 books will still be available in stores as long as their current stock remains, but they will be more and more difficult to buy over time, and eventually those hardcovers will be very tough to find

Wizards seems to taking a more digital, subscription-based model. This does NOT mean we were in any way trying to imply they would not sell the new books in print! In fact, there is no indication that they will not still sell the books for the new (edition / version / incarnation, etc.) in physical format, but they are absolutely going more heavily with the digital, subscription-based model

The point of the FAQ is simply to say that the new Project Black Flag books will be produced in beautiful hard cover, as well as PDFs and VTT, and there will be no subscription-based model.

Again, we get that some folks did not get that from what we said, and we acknowledge that we could have said it in a way that made it more clear. Bottom line is this - we are working extremely hard to make something truly great that is firmly routed in the 5E game many of us love, while at the same time improving those aspects we (and many others) feel need to be improved. We hope that many of you love what we do, and having seen what's happening 'behind the curtains" I really think you will! But for those that end up not liking it, or deciding to play a different game, or playing both, or whatever - it's all good! The main thing is play what you want and have fun!

I would just ask that folks maybe consider not continuing to ascribe such nefarious or otherwise disingenuous motives. Kobold Press is made up of an extremely talented and dedicated group of people the LOVE gaming and love 5E, and really the main motivation is to make a game that folks love

Thanks for posting this. As I've said before, I didn't like the message, but don't think KP is being purposedly acting in bad faith here, and I still see the company in a good light.
I'm just curious about the statement that Wotc is going to lean heavilly in a subscription based model. I remember some rumors during the whole OGL debacle, but as far as I recall they were never confirmed. Am I missing something here?

 

[Imaro]

But one can argue--in fact, you just DID argue--that "the business side had no good idea about the business." That seems to be the significantly greater problem there. TSR ran itself into the ground because of faulty business ideas (and a certain amount of active malfeasance, AIUI) completely unrelated to game design.

We can also give an example of the reverse: a company that ruthlessly prioritized business above all else, which profited only in the short term, only to suffer for it long-term. Walmart. They took the stance that absolutely all costs should be reduced as much as possible: everything from demanding lower prices from their vendors (which killed Rubbermaid as an American business; they couldn't afford to sell at the prices Walmart demanded without resorting to overseas labor), to exploitation of transportation workers, to dropping employee compensation and benefits through the floor. And for a while, things were great! They made massive profits and expanded all over the country.

Unfortunately, this absolutely cutthroat attitude, plus their reputation as a terrible place to work, bit them in the butt hard starting about a decade ago. Their employees didn't care about keeping a job everyone knew was a last-ditch "I had to find work somewhere" job, so stores weren't getting cleaned, shelves weren't getting stocked, customers weren't getting prompt and friendly support, etc. Customer satisfaction dropped into the sub-20% range at many stores. And at the broader level, communities revolted against the possibility of Walmart moving into their area; in my own city (not exactly a "big" city, but not a small one either), there was an active campaign to deny Walmart the permits they would need in order to build their shopping centers. It took years of effort, millions of dollars, and they ended up getting only a fraction of what they'd hoped for.

It is just as foolish to prioritize business absolutely exclusively as it is to prioritize product absolutely exclusively. Thus, we are left not with a black and white "well obviously you dump design entirely and do whatever makes money right now" position, but one that requires nuance and careful thought. And, importantly, one that can argue that maybe, just maybe, WotC made the wrong call on a few things--not everything, as I'm sure you'll be eager to assume I'm saying, but on some things--and would have done better with a different arrangement.

The thing is unless you can prove in some way or point to real evidence that it was the wrong call... what's the point of calling things out as mistakes, at that point it's just your opinion with nothing to indicate it's correctness or back it up against the massive success as the game stands now.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'll ask what determines what is best for the game?

I mean, at the very least, it's obvious that their recent stumble with the OGL was not what was "best for the game," even if it would have been unequivocally best for their pocketbooks if they'd been able to weather the controversy.

Separately, there's my "Walmart screwed itself by cutting costs" argument above, or at least some variation of it. Things that boost sales, lower costs, or otherwise improve things in the short term are not necessarily the same as the things that will produce good results in the long term. In fact, in many cases, one must invest in the business, accepting a short-term reduction of income (the final amount actually "earned" after all expenses, dividends, etc. are factored in) in order to make a long-term growth of profit (the intermediate amount, factoring in all expenses but not payouts like dividends etc.)

Sometimes, it is better to do something that inspires customer goodwill, than it is to do something that will make you a lot of money. See, for example, when a company that runs a subscription-based product (such as a subscription MMO) gives out free game time to customers after an outage or disruption. Naoki Yoshida handed out something like four or five weeks of free game time, the equivalent of leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table, as compensation for server instability in the wake of the Endwalker expansion launch. (TL;DR: COVID + silicon shortage = actually getting servers delayed by almost three years, even with them being willing to pay extra.) Was that good for the company's bottom line? HELL no! Hundreds of millions of dollars of effectively pure profit down the drain! But it was absolutely good for preserving customer goodwill. Yoshi-P has made fostering and preserving customer goodwill a top priority--and it's earned him not only a seat on the board of directors, but the genuine affection of the players.

Sometimes, what is best for the game (almost always a long-term proposition) is not what is best for the company (almost always a short-term proposition.)

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

That's true.

I don't think so. I don't think most people "excoriated" the statement. I think a fairly small proportion of commenters did, but did so loudly and repeatedly. If I missed some stunning and brilliant takedown, I apologise, but what I saw was the same equivocation and whinging repeated over and over, not an actual argument.

Which is literally equivocation.

It's intentionally avoiding the reality of the issue by talking around.

The reality is, WotC are not going to continue to print the PHB/DMG/MM after 2024 in physical form. As @darjr pointed out, realistically, there will still be plenty on the shelves for quite a while, and even after that, used ones will likely be extremely cheap, but pretending WotC are going to keep publishing them, even though would make no sense whatsoever, and they haven't said they would, just because, technically have definitely said they would is absolutely ludicrous behaviour. Amusing precisely the kind of behaviour normally unfairly allocate to lawyers!

"Not provably correct/true" is just absolutely risible, laughable shenanigans and you trying to argue that you're talking "facts" and stuff whilst using lines like that is funny but nothing else. Particularly re: "Which is closer to 5E??!". That will literally forever be opinion. There will be people arguing which was closer, on this very messageboard, 10 or 20 years from now (assuming it's still here or has some future equivalent). You know this. So frankly it's fine for them to imply that theirs will be closer. Is it marketing? Yes it is marketing. Marketing like WotC is engaging very heavily themselves!

Let me make an assertion, and let's see how you react: Even you, @Snarf Zagyg do not actually believe that WotC will continue to print copies of the 5E (rather than 1D&D) PHB/DMG/MM after 2024.

True or false? Don't give me some quantum superposition nonsense lol.

And as I said, really putting a lie to your "FUD" line was that KP are being, frankly, unrealistic about the electronic future of the 5E PHB/DMG/MM. If they really wanted to go FUD, they'd have said those would end too - in fact, based on what happened to Volo/Mordenkainen's on Beyond, that's not unlikely - there is I guess the get-out that KP maybe believe Roll 20 and Fantasy Grounds will continue to have electronic versions? Or the slim but not impossible chance that WotC will turn the OOP 5E stuff into PDFs for DM's Guild (I doubt it, given Volo/Mordenkainen didn't get that).

As for:

I'd Cassandra is probably the closest. But I think it's more like, we all know what's going to happen, and a few people are pretending it won't.

As for "mor-ans", you're obviously putting words into my mouth, which is again, funny at best. Come on dude.

EDIT: LOL the classic move of start an argument, ask for specific answers, then block the person when they give those answers. Like I said, this is high-grade internet right here.

The issue is not whether or not WOTC will continue to print the original 5e core books. The issue is KP calling their future product more 5e than WOTC’s future product.

Both of which will be in Print.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The thing is unless you can prove in some way or point to real evidence that it was the wrong call... what's the point of calling things out as mistakes, at that point it's just your opinion with nothing to indicate it's correctness or back it up against the massive success as the game stands now.

The thing is, unless you can prove in some way or point to real evidence that it was the right call... what's the point of calling things out as correct, at that point it's just your opinion with nothing to indicate its correctness or back it up against their repeated, failed efforts to make psionics.

Two can play the "you have no evidence, this is all supposition and theory" game, Imaro.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I'd love for someone to give me a defintion, outside of what I want, for this mythical "What is best for the game". Even avcoiding sales and revenue and profit... D&D 5e under the guidance of WotC has garnered an unprecedented number of people playing the game and brough more recognition to the game than any other time period with the possible exception of the 80's... so I'll ask what determines what is best for the game?

If I were to take a stab at it: I would say that "what's best for the game" would be whatever helps best realize the creator's vision. I might not like that vision, and creatives are definitely capable of making decisions that don't have a positive impact on their own vision (from personal experience), but any other definition is rife with issue. Having said that, what's best for something as a creative expression and what's best for it as a commercial product are frequently at odds, and I understand a balance needs to be struck.
I don't really enjoy what WotC has done with D&D in so far as a game engine. I've been generally positive towards the fluff they've put out, and the larger variety of voices and cultures in their products is great to see (missteps aside). They may no longer be making the system I want to play, but I can say that I believe they've done a fantastic job at growing D&D as a game and as a brand. Even if I don't really like the system they are making or the company itself.

 

[TwoSix]

maybe, if you are finding your players are not invested this may be the answer, since that is not a problem at our tables (normally) I don't know... my advice to someone asking how to get there players more invested would not have ever been "bring in more books" but you may be right.

My argument is more that if your players bring you ideas and you shoot them down out of "I'm not in the mood to read something and see if it fits in my game" (I'm being deliberately uncharitable, but reviewing something really doesn't seem that hard to me), you'll probably leave them less interested.

One of the tables I play in is "WotC only", and I can feel that I'm somewhat checked out of the game because most of the concepts I'm interested in right now aren't WotC ones. Not enough to be a downer or anything, just not quite getting the vibe I would get otherwise.

 

[TwoSix]

Which still, to me, is a completely unjustified double standard. The one and only difference between the two is that you may have already read the WotC content. But if someone brings Tasha's to a table that hasn't bought it yet, there's literally nothing different between it and 3PP: both have dubious playtesting, and baseline 5e is, shall we say, erratic about power levels.

Oh, absolutely. I was deliberately highlighting how much of a double standard people use.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Folks, let me reiterate, and expand on, what I said earlier - I think this is really a case of misreading and/or misunderstand the FAQ.
And I don't mean that to sound negative! I can absolutely see how it could have been misconstrued.

But there really, honestly, was no intent to mislead or be dishonest. As others have said, including me, marketing and messaging is a difficult and nuanced thing, and we hear those folks who feel that the statements being referred to were not as clear as we intended - we honestly do! We are ALWAYS listening, both to our fans, and those with critiques, and we are always striving to be better.

Thank you- that update is appreciated. Will the FAQ be updated/changed so that people do not misunderstand or misconstrue the FAQ, and so that it concentrates on what KP is doing (making games people love) as opposed to ... something else?

 

[dave2008]

Simple, by removing them as an optional rule it increases the demand for more so people will buy later supplements for more feats. It’s the return of the 3.x/4e grind. Probably on a lesser scale but the bean counters are back to looking at D&D. Were you around for the Silver Munches during 3.0 before the 3.5 announcement and the major shift in approach to D&D supplements that resulted? Bean counters like crunch, not fluff.

That logic seems dubious at best to me. Particularly with the announcement of the forthcoming meta-plot.