D&D (2024) Kobold Press posts 2024 DMG Hit Piece

[mamba]

No I'd have wanted a review, where the DMG was evaluated on how good it works for it's intended purpose.

which is what? I do not think there is just one purpose for it, hence the discussions on this site about how / whether it is (too) focused on new DMs and whether it should be

 

[Imaro]

which is what? I do not think there is just one purpose for it, hence the discussions on this site about how / whether it is (too) focused on new DMs and whether it should be

The designers have been clear that it was designed first and foremost to accomodate beginning DM's.

Edit: whether one is happy or not about that is a different discussion.

 

[mamba]

The designers have been clear that it was designed first and foremost to accomodate beginning DM's.

well, if that was their intent, then I guess they succeeded. Haven't heard them say that explicitly, but then I have not watched everything they said

 

[Imaro]

well, if that was their intent, then I guess they succeeded. Haven't heard them say that explicitly, but then I have not watched everything they said

Watch the YouTube videos... they're quite informative.

 

[Selas]

Watch the YouTube videos... they're quite informative.

Yep. Both Chris Perkins and James Wyatt were very clear in those videos that the new DMG was primarily meant to onboard new DMs and those that wanted to try their hand at being a DM, but that experienced DMs could also benefit from it.

 

[Oofta]

What was funny about the "review" was that they complained about things like "wasting" pages on Greyhawk. Except they were just using Greyhawk as an example of how to build out a campaign world ... something a brand new DM could find really useful. The pages weren't wasted, they just had a different goal than what their book has. Which that's kind of the thing - these books are targeting different audiences. Make a clear distinction, sell what it is you have to offer, don't call the stuff you don't include because of the divergent goals "filler".

 

[Remathilis]

What was funny about the "review" was that they complained about things like "wasting" pages on Greyhawk. Except they were just using Greyhawk as an example of how to build out a campaign world ... something a brand new DM could find really useful. The pages weren't wasted, they just had a different goal than what their book has. Which that's kind of the thing - these books are targeting different audiences. Make a clear distinction, sell what it is you have to offer, don't call the stuff you don't include because of the divergent goals "filler".

I've not read TotV, but I'm sure they waste no space on Midgard lore or world information.

Right?

 

[Selas]

What was funny about the "review" was that they complained about things like "wasting" pages on Greyhawk. Except they were just using Greyhawk as an example of how to build out a campaign world ... something a brand new DM could find really useful. The pages weren't wasted, they just had a different goal than what their book has. Which that's kind of the thing - these books are targeting different audiences. Make a clear distinction, sell what it is you have to offer, don't call the stuff you don't include because of the divergent goals "filler".

It looks even more petty when you have Chris Perkins specifically say on one of the marketing videos that one of the goals with the inclusion of Greyhawk was a "show...don't tell" approach to build a campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah the "review" was petty, catty and passive aggressive and I read the entire thing.

They should have either reviewed the 2024 DMG or plugged their own product... not tried to do both.

I'd love to hear a similar sentiment from someone who hasn't and isn't planning to purchase the 5.5 DMG, or who has but isn't over the moon about it.

 

[Mistwell]

Huh. This isn't classy. I wish they'd chosen to talk about what was great about their book instead of tearing down somebody else's. It's not a good look.

Barring clear evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume ToV is not seeing the level of sustained interest that they thought it would see and they're upset.

PARTICULARLY since they won't even name the author of this "review" and named one of their employees who didn't write it [Edit: wrote a different version so different from this version she demanded her name be removed from it] and she felt compelled to come out and tell them publicly to take her name off of it. That sort of cowardly stuff stinks of desperation.

Imagine the reaction if this were a WOTC article attacking ToV with Crawford's name on it and Crawford had to call out his own company for wrongly attaching his name to such a hit piece, and then WOTC removed his name and locked the thread with no further comment. Oh, the outrage would be endless.