D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

100% agree here. As one of those people that doesn't use player facing 3pp I am leery of wotc product that have been out less then a month.

FOr Tasha;s we had the unearthed arcana play test for some time, and still none of us brought it into a game until we ended one and started the next and even then had some quick discussion back and forth on how or what...

 

[dave2008]

edition... or version all D&D and as such the same game.

they are all D&D so the same game, 2e 3e and 3.5 are all different editions of the game (by any use we used prior to last year when wotc tried to redefine edition) Bo9S is a splat book optional add on to the 3.5 edition.

again the game is D&D... it never changes the edition does, and the optional add ons do.

so D&D (game) 5e (edition) useing all the books (what add and options avalibul)
or D&D (game) 3e (edition) phb only (what add on and options)
or D&D (game) 1d&D (edition) phb plus 1 splat of your choice (what add on and options)
or D&D (game) 2e (edition) darksun modifications plus psionic handbook and barbarian handbook (what add on options)
or D&D (game) 4e (edition) PHB 1 &2 and the swordmage from forgotten realm book only (add on and options)

I disagree with parts of your interpretation / viewpoint. However, I so no point in discussing it so I will leave it at that.

 

[dave2008]

calling pervious editions a different game is WAY to dangerously close to calling them not D&D for me to agree.

All D&D, but different games of D&D. I also consider PF1 and PF2 D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

4e did have excessive amounts of feats (and powers), but not to the degree most folks think.

I think 4e could have streamlined a lot by having some encounter and daily scale instead of having a new option at that level... so at level X I can trade out my make 2 attacks for 2w each for a make 3 attacks for 2w each... or I can have 1 less power at that level and the orginal say if you keep this power at level X it becomes 3 attacks

3e absolutely had an excess of feats, and PF continued that trend.

yup

Two thirds or more of 3e feats could be eliminated without negatively impacting the game at all. The same cannot be said of 4e,

where I could cut 2/3 of the feats from 3e without impacting the game at all I bet I could could combine and cut 20% of the 4e ones and have it only slightly effect the game.

 

[mamba]

I object to them stating as if fact it was, that their game will be closer to 5e, when all current evidence points to it being really similar to OD&D.

where are they stating that? I do not see that in the OP

 

[mamba]

being incorret is not the only definition of dishonest...

in fact it is none of the definitions of dishonest

 

[Imaro]

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.

Why? Why would it have been best for their pocketbooks? I don't think this move benefitted their game or their business... at least according to those who claim WotC and the 3pp are in a symbiotic relationship where one feeds the other. So I'm failing to see this as a Business benefit at the expense of the game... more like it was just a bad decision all around.

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.)

There's those 2 words again... not necessarily... So it could be or it could not be. Also ultimately you seem to be claiming business oriented decisions must be short-term decisions... That's just blatantly false. The growth and health of your business long-term is dependant upon making good business decisions.

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.)

Yep and here's the problem... What we've seen is bad business decisions lead to a company going out of business... thus there is no best for the game because the game is gone. Like I said earlier I think you are equating good business decisions with good short-term decisions and they aren't equivalent.

The only specific you've really given is the OGL fiasco which no one is arguing was a good thing for the game...or the business so that went hand in hand. But to touch on an earlier point of contention... Vaguely stating what's good for the game isn't always what's good for business in relationship to the release of psionics mechanics that would please a small fraction of the player base had no grounding or basis in anything. It's totally un-suported conjecture and that's the problem with the arm-chair quarterbacking of decisions we have no insight into, especially if the company and game are in fact doing great.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Again... profits, growth, name recognition... etc. There are indicators that they are in fact making good decisions. OGL... there are clear indicators that was a bad one because it threatened or decreased those things. So no, we're not playing the same game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

okay, but agreeing back at the begining of the edition to just not do so doesn't fit this at all... again if I want to bring DM side stuff in that's great, if Matt in his game or john in his wants to that's great too. If we want to play a wholey different style of game that is a pitch.

however no one in my groups are going to bring something to the table, because when they DM they don't want EVERYONE to bring something.

We had someone try to open the flood gates, it didn't go well (they were the newset least experienced DM though) but that was still years ago pre covid

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.

yeah that does sound bad. I just think that with some refluffing it would be hard to not be able to play years out of just the PHB... but I do know there ARE things we want to play that wotc doesn't support, and I argue with people all the time because I ask wotc to support those ideas.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

All D&D, but different games of D&D. I also consider PF1 and PF2 D&D.

i can consider all TTRPG D7d if I stretch it... but yeah I see all the editions of D&D and atleast 1e PF to be D&D.