D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Micah Sweet]

There are plenty of things that I would consider decent quality that I don't personally care for. Take the movie Snowpiercer for example. A lot of people thought it was a great movie, I didn't. I don't go on forums dedicated to the movie and tell people how it was a low quality movie because it's not true. The the acting and effects that supported it were high quality. The fact that the movie just didn't work for me didn't make it low quality, it just means it wasn't the movie for me.

It's fine if you don't care for the game. But every time people assert that D&D 5E is low quality they're also implying that people like me and everyone I play with who enjoy the game are just too stupid or willfully ignorant to know better.

Nothing's perfect and no game is going to work for everyone. I've never said there aren't other quality games out there, even many that simply never became popular. On the other hand saying that just because I, and millions of other people, think 5E is decent quality it's somehow self serving and short sighted is just plain insulting.

I accept that something can be a quality product even if I don't care for it. I simply respect that other people value different things. I don't think respecting other people's preferences, even when I disagree, is all that hard.

By that argument, any claim that something is low quality is inherently insulting, and the more popular that something is, the more insulting the claim. That just seems like a way to quash discussion you don't like.

 

[Clint_L]

And you know this how? Where's your data?

If I'm supposed to come armed with a list of references, surely I can ask for some in return.

You assert your opinion as fact constantly.

WotC has repeatedly discussed the player base (as opposed to DMs) being under-monetized, and raised the importance of creating products that sell to players, not just DMs.

I am sure that there are folks who buy adventures and so on but never DM. But in my opinion, they are likely to be a distinct minority. Surely all of us who are experienced in this game agree with WotC on this point.

 

[Clint_L]

There are plenty of things that I would consider decent quality that I don't personally care for. Take the movie Snowpiercer for example. A lot of people thought it was a great movie, I didn't. I don't go on forums dedicated to the movie and tell people how it was a low quality movie because it's not true. The the acting and effects that supported it were high quality. The fact that the movie just didn't work for me didn't make it low quality, it just means it wasn't the movie for me.

It's fine if you don't care for the game. But every time people assert that D&D 5E is low quality they're also implying that people like me and everyone I play with who enjoy the game are just too stupid or willfully ignorant to know better.

Nothing's perfect and no game is going to work for everyone. I've never said there aren't other quality games out there, even many that simply never became popular. On the other hand saying that just because I, and millions of other people, think 5E is decent quality it's somehow self serving and short sighted is just plain insulting.

I accept that something can be a quality product even if I don't care for it. I simply respect that other people value different things. I don't think respecting other people's preferences, even when I disagree, is all that hard.

There’s a great TED talk called “On Being Wrong,” by Kathryn Schulz. It’s about the importance of always being open to the possibility that we are mistaken. In it, she describes the three stages of reaction to finding out that someone disagrees with us:

1. They are ignorant and don’t have all the facts.
2. Okay, they have the facts but are too stupid to put them together.
3. They have the facts and aren’t stupid, so they must secretly agree with us but are being malevolent.

I think all of us, myself very much included, could do a better job of remembering option 4: maybe they have a valid point, at least from their perspective. Maybe we are wrong.

If a lot of people like a game, they probably aren’t ignorant, stupid, or trolling. It’s probably a good game, from their perspective.

 

[Clint_L]

Getting all the way back to the OP, to me it is pretty obvious what KP is doing: they are insinuating that there is some sort of threat to the 5e that you love, and that they will be the guardians of the real 5e tradition, and particularly of print media for it.

On reflecting further, this is quite an interesting strategy in that it is a sort of an appeal to grognard-types: these new ways are a problem, and we will champion your values. It's an inherently reactionary, conservative strategy. What I find fascinating is that many grognards have often been critical of 5e, yet now 5e becomes the thing that must be preserved. Are we witnessing the birth of the 5e grognard cohort? In which case: welcome! You can collect a button at the door, and refreshments are on the right.

 

[teitan]

I clicked on your link, read the opening paragraph, and then realized this is stupid - I never wanted to discuss fluff vs crunch or meta-plot. This line of discussion was about this comment of yours:

I disagreed with it and you failed to convince me. Then went off on a fluff vs crunch and meta-plot tangent. I don't desire to discuss fluff/crunch/meta-lot so I apologize for playing into that. I also no longer desire to discuss feats and their relevance to selling books with you. I am confident neither of us are correct.

No you dismissed outright, rudely as usual, without looking into further context, projecting your own notions into the argument and then dismissing my own argument entirely after reading a paragraph from a developer during the 3.x era who was the direct reference I was making the entire time. I even directly asked you twice if you were aware of the Silver Munches or were around for it the first time. So you came in with no intention to discuss anything except to tell someone they’re wrong without even looking at the context and admitting you couldn’t even read it, dismissed it and me rudely. Good job. I will henceforth ignore your opinion even if you bring receipts as I brought mine that referenced the bean counters at WOTC.

 

[Oofta]

By that argument, any claim that something is low quality is inherently insulting, and the more popular that something is, the more insulting the claim. That just seems like a way to quash discussion you don't like.

I don't think asking people to not be insulting is "quashing" anything. I have no problem with you disliking something I like. Just say so. You don't have to hide behind some imaginary objective standard of quality.

There are only so many objective measurements of quality for a TTRPG:

1. Grammar and spelling. I can't think of any errors in 5E off the top of my head, it's certainly not full of errors. Decent quality? Yep.
2. Rules consistency. There may be some rules I don't care for, but again I can't think of any inconsistencies (there's probably a handful here and there). Thinking back to Gygax's D&D and it's night and day. Decent quality? Check.
3. Rules clarity. There are a few rules that are confusing because of how they decided to implement things, but there are a lot of moving parts. Of course the decision to let the DM fill in the blanks (see below) helps with that. Overall though, it's decent quality.
4. Amount of errata. Far less than the previous two editions. Decent quality.
5. Relatively easy to pick up and play. My sister who never rolled a D20 in her life joined a group my wife runs because my nephews, including her kids, were part of the group. She picked up the game without an issue. Same with other new players I've introduced to the game. Could always be improved of course (especially for DMs) but decent quality.
6. Sustained popularity and growth. The goal of publishing D&D for WOTC is to have a popular product, they've succeeded. The goal of people playing the game is to be entertained and I don't see how we could have continuous growth without it. People have a ton of demands on their free time and the fact that they choose to play this particular game is relevant.

Things missing from that list:

1. Do I personally like the rules? Well, I do, but it doesn't matter.
2. Specific things like "Did they lean too much into DM empowerment?" I don't think so, they tried to lock down the game with 3.x with specific rules and it just led to the illusion of granularity. But this is a preference and judgement call.
3. Balancing multiple styles of play. This is an important quality to me, I like having flexibility to have different themes and styles. Some games would be far to narrowly focused to me for the long term (i.e. Blades in the Dark) or not focused enough (i.e. GURPS). But that's a preference, not a measure of quality.

I'm sure I could come up with a list of things I don't like. But not liking a rule doesn't mean it's a poor quality. You've never been able to justify why you call 5E poor quality other than "I don't like it". You calling it poor quality, as @Clint_L points out above, strongly implies that you are saying we are either too stupid to put the facts together or are simply being malevolent.

P.S. Again, just to be clear, I'm not saying D&D is the best quality game ever. I think it's the best quality D&D we've had based on my criteria, but that's not to say that people can't enjoy other versions of D&D more. There may well be other "better" games out there that simply never gain traction. Lack of popularity doesn't mean poor quality. Sustained popularity and growth when there are other equivalent and available options on the other hand is an indicator of quality.

 

[Maxperson]

HA HA!

Of course the CR system is backwards-compatible.

It won't work in OneD&D, just like it never worked in 5e.

Problem solved.

Finally! A claim of backwards compatibility that I can't argue against!

 

[Maxperson]

I'd say the reason is because they have been collecting raw encounter building data from Beyond for years now, not to mention the constant playtestingnof new Encounyers in Adventure books over a decade.

I don't think it really matters. There are far too many variables with 4 specific classes and subclasses to account for balance, let alone all the classes and subclasses. Party make-up, feat choices, spell choices, stat choices, etc. will all affect how capable a party is. You can't make a monster that accounts for anywhere near all of that in order to challenge them near equally.

 

[dave2008]

No you dismissed outright, rudely as usual, without looking into further context, projecting your own notions into the argument and then dismissing my own argument entirely after reading a paragraph from a developer during the 3.x era who was the direct reference I was making the entire time. I even directly asked you twice if you were aware of the Silver Munches or were around for it the first time. So you came in with no intention to discuss anything except to tell someone they’re wrong without even looking at the context and admitting you couldn’t even read it, dismissed it and me rudely. Good job. I will henceforth ignore your opinion even if you bring receipts as I brought mine that referenced the bean counters at WOTC.

OK, first I want to apologize. I believe I misunderstood something along the way. I also did not intend to be rude and apologize for that. To be clear, when I said: "...this is stupid..." I was referring to myself. As in, i was being stupid for exploring a tangent I didn't want to. Not sure what you interpreted as rude, but that is what jumped to my mind.

Also, I thought the discussion of fluff, crunch, and meta-plot was a tangent not relevant to the discussion on feats. I didn't realize you were providing "receipts" for that discussion. I am sorry I misunderstood.

Regarding Silver Munches, no I was/am unaware about that as I skipped 3e/3.5e, we continued with our homebrew 1e/BECMI hybrid.

I hope that clarified things a bit and again I apologizing for any rude tone, that was not my intent.

 

[dave2008]

To get back on the subject of the OP, I have seen @Marc Radle on here a couple times and I applaud him for wading into these dangerous waters. Has there been any movement by KP to clarify / modify their statement?