D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, I don't have any serious issues with the marketing in and of itself, but it was clearly written with OGL fiasco in mind, and could stand to be rewritten to be more neutral towards WotC and positively focused on their own product.
Whether or not you believe that the antagonism towards WotC is still justified after they backed down, post-fiasco it just comes across as kind of... petty? Like, ultimately, I don't think they would lose anything by rewriting it. But I'm not really their target market, so maybe they have good reason to believe otherwise.

I try and buy other systems. So I'm someone who might be interested in another game.

Here's the thing, though-

If I want to play 5e, I have all the materials. I don't need what KP is selling. And with the CC and basic pdf and all that (not to mention the books will last quite a while) I don't need more.
If I want to play "new 5e," then I'm getting 1D&D- because that's probably going to be the most prevalent in terms of market share and people. Plus, I also run games for local high school kids and I tend to run the game that most people play (D&D).

It's a very weird needle that KP is trying to thread- the desired market is for people that want to continue playing 5e, but don't want to play, you know, actual 5e (because they're going to change it somewhat), and don't want to play the "new" 5e (1D&D). Not to mention that they are excluding anyone who want to play something different!

TBF, since they don't have to move a lot of units, maybe "petty" is a good market for them- the people that want to play a 5e system, but don't want to go with BigHasbro(tm). Of course, the trouble with that niche is that there were a lot of people moving to fill it, or have already filled it.

They have a history of making good products, so I hope they pivot back to telling us why their products are awesome.

 

[Micah Sweet]

again this only works if you already did the leg work and the discussion...

again I am not saying WotC is better, Im saying its an easy "just one"

Fair enough. Obviously not the "just one" I would pick.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I try and buy other systems. So I'm someone who might be interested in another game.

Here's the thing, though-

If I want to play 5e, I have all the materials. I don't need what KP is selling. And with the CC and basic pdf and all that (not to mention the books will last quite a while) I don't need more.
If I want to play "new 5e," then I'm getting 1D&D- because that's probably going to be the most prevalent in terms of market share and people. Plus, I also run games for local high school kids and I tend to run the game that most people play (D&D).

It's a very weird needle that KP is trying to thread- the desired market is for people that want to continue playing 5e, but don't want to play, you know, actual 5e (because they're going to change it somewhat), and don't want to play the "new" 5e (1D&D). Not to mention that they are excluding anyone who want to play something different!

TBF, since they don't have to move a lot of units, maybe "petty" is a good market for them- the people that want to play a 5e system, but don't want to go with BigHasbro(tm). Of course, the trouble with that niche is that there were a lot of people moving to fill it, or have already filled it.

They have a history of making good products, so I hope they pivot back to telling us why their products are awesome.

Yeah, I would say their target market is pretty clearly "people who want to continue playing something like 5E but don't want to continue supporting WotC". I don't know if that's a target market large enough to be sustainable for them (especially, like you said, with the competition in that space), but that's for them to worry about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So maybe this is lost on you and some people who forget that bad business almost killed D&D before WotC bought it, but yeah... we do know which one needs to come first if we want a game that's actually still around, being published and provides products that are cutting edge in technology and whose production values are consistently high. That said there is no inherent dichotomy in designing the best game you can for your market and practicing good business sense. The fact that you don't like D&D 5e means your suggestions of how the massively successful edition should be run are suspect... you're self-admittedly not a fan and you apparently think the business aspect of a business (which all rpg companies and indie developers are) should come second, I wonder how many successful companies would actually agree.

You're wrong. I do like 5e. What I don't like is the direction WotC has taken the 5e game in the last few years, and I like where they plan to take it even less. Plenty of other companies have taken 5e in directions I do like (EN Publushing comes to top of mind). I only care about what WotC does because of the settings they have legal control over and that I have personal interest in,, and because they're so over-sized in the market that the entire community is in danger of assuming that they're all that matters. I can't ignore that.

You are making the incorrect but sadly very common assumption that WotC 5e is all 5e. Absolutely not the case, and I will not allow it to be assumed if I can help it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just seems like it adds up to getting players to be more invested in the game, which seems like a good thing to me.

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.

 

[teitan]

While I disagree with your stance I respect that is your opinion and/or experience.

However, this doesn't make sense to me. How does the change in the prominence of feats (and that is all it is - no functional change) sell more books? I fail to understand this argument.

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.

 

[Reef]

You're wrong. I do like 5e. What I don't like is the direction WotC has taken the 5e game in the last few years, and I like where they plan to take it even less. Plenty of other companies have taken 5e in directions I do like (EN Publushing comes to top of mind). I only care about what WotC does because of the settings they have legal control over and that I have personal interest in,, and because they're so over-sized in the market that the entire community is in danger of assuming that they're all that matters. I can't ignore that.

You are making the incorrect but sadly very common assumption that WotC 5e is all 5e. Absolutely not the case, and I will not allow it to be assumed if I can help it.

So, if your goal is to spread the word of all the good 3pp products, in order to stop the dominion of WOTC 5e, wouldn’t it be more productive to post actual specifics about those products? Start a new thread?

Right now, all I know is that you dislike WOTC 5e (because you tell us constantly). I know nothing about all these other products you think are superior. All those great Psionic books you have? I’d love to hear how you’ve used them in your D&D games.

Anyway, to me, it seems like that would be a better way to avoid “everything is about WOTC” problem you seem to be having.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

I will say I feel we do not have enough feats in 5e, so if this change increases it that would be good.

but I ALSO thought 4e and 3e had too many... so this needle is hard to thread

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Definitely balance should be a consideration. But some people judge material based on whether it's comparable to a champion fighter, and others if it's comparable to a hexblade paladin or a chronurgy wizard. There's really no standard that fits everyone, so you inevitably hear balance complaints about any 3pp product.

Now, you hear the same things around WotC's stuff, but there the reaction is "Well, I'd edit or ban the parts I don't like, but still leave the rest." 3pp will get tossed if there's any aspect that feels even slightly off.

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.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Thanks Ruin Explorer!
In fact, I kind of wish folks would start a new thread to talk about all of these issues and maybe just lock this thread since it's gotten so wildly off topic.

The idea that whatever the majority of respondents to a popularity poll like is automatically what is best for the game is a false equivalency, and unfortunately such a pervasive one that it's proponents cannot even see another way of looking at things.

What is best for the game and best for WOTC or not necessarily the same thing.