D&D (2024) Lifetime boycott of D&D-branded products?

[BigZebra]

No definitely not.
While I don’t love Hasbro and the higher ups in WotC, I really really like D&D and I have a lot of respect for Perkins and Crawford.
Yes it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth but I’ll still by the new version. But I’ll also buy a PF2 product now and then to support Paizo.

 

[Charlaquin]

You don't think, "Let's cancel D&D forever because of a thing they might do!" is a just little stronger than "I am critical of them"?

More like, “I don’t like this decision WotC made, so I’m not going to buy their products any more unless they reverse it.”

And a little hyperbolic, given the corporate malfeasance that all of us routinely overlook?

How any given person acts in response to one corporation’s practices doesn’t have to affect how they act in response to another corporation’s practices.

This will be an unpopular opinion, but I think we are only in this situation because Hasbro/WotC actually behaved a little better than most corporations by creating and supporting the OGL for two decades. You think Disney would ever do that? So, yeah, the change sucks. If there is a change, that is. I don't like it. But I find it illogical to suddenly act like Hasbro are incredible supervillains for doing what most of us totally ignore from other corporations every day.

Who’s acting like they’re incredible supervillains? They’re making a business decision most of us don’t like, and we’re discussing taking collective action to show them that.

Edit: and if our justification is basically, "yeah, but this affects my hobby that I am deeply invested in," then that is not a great ethical stance, in my opinion.

It doesn’t need to be an ethical stance at all. It certainly can be, but it doesn’t have to. Again, if you don’t care to boycott WotC, that’s fine, you do you. But “other corporations do worse stuff” is a terrible justification for choosing not to do so.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm sure with about 2 minutes of googling I can find an example of a well known Western company who's products (or components) are manufactured with Chinese prison labor. The point stands. The WotC situation is s--tty, but it's not a literal crime against humanity.

Who said it is? Again, just because other corporations do worse stuff is no reason not to choose to buy WotC products.

Regardless, we all get to choose where to focus our outrage.

Exactly. Also, we get to choose whether or not to support companies for reasons other than outrage.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's less "nothing us perfect" and more "this is fairly tame" among all the potential issues to be concerned with in the world, and there are plenty.

Why is that the standard? Can’t a person choose not to support WotC for reasons less lofty than “this is a significant world issue”? Some folks don’t like that the company that makes pretend elf games is making it harder for other people to make pretend elf games. They should be allowed to stop buying that company’s pretend elf games without also having to go completely carbon-free or whatever.

 

[Zardnaar]

Who said it is? Again, just because other corporations do worse stuff is no reason not to choose to buy WotC products.

Exactly. Also, we get to choose whether or not to support companies for reasons other than outrage.

Our money we can choose to give it or not to WotC for any reason whatsoever or none. Even if that reason is really stupid. Eg I don't like the colour of Cox's shoes. Enough people agree you get a better result if not oh well.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm sorry. It was not intended as such, nor did I frame it in personal or aggressive terms. I am expressing what I, personally, find illogical when discussing ethics, an area of knowledge that is grounded in logic. In my opinion, ethical behaviour should strive to be consistent, though I recognize that this is almost impossible to achieve. However, I find the level of outrage over something that is, in the greater scheme of corporate outrages, small potatoes indeed, to be unpersuasive.

The level of outrage is indeed small potatoes. I can guarantee you there are more people who care about labor practices in china than about the OGL. But you’re in a forum dedicated to discussing gaming, not global labor politics.

 

[Clint_L]

More like, “I don’t like this decision WotC made, so I’m not going to buy their products any more unless they reverse it.”

How any given person acts in response to one corporation’s practices doesn’t have to affect how they act in response to another corporation’s practices.

Who’s acting like they’re incredible supervillains? They’re making a business decision most of us don’t like, and we’re discussing taking collective action to show them that.

It doesn’t need to be an ethical stance at all. It certainly can be, but it doesn’t have to. Again, if you don’t care to boycott WotC, that’s fine, you do you. But “other corporations do worse stuff” is a terrible justification for choosing not to do so.

1. Read the thread title again.

2. I agree that it doesn't have to, but it's harder for me to respect a moral stance when it seems predicated more on personal inconvenience than a consistent ethical framework.

3. I was referring to the hyperbolic posts. Of which there are plenty. I'm not huge fan of cancel culture.

4. I don't think it's a terrible justification at all. Consistency and proportionality are hallmarks of most ethical systems. If I am willing to tolerate worse behaviours from other actors, why should I make an exception here? Because this situation affects me personally? That seems kind of ethically entitled, from my perspective.

 

[Charlaquin]

1. Read the thread title again.

Is there something special you think I should be taking away from the title?

2. I agree that it doesn't have to, but it's harder for me to respect a moral stance when it seems predicated more on personal inconvenience than a consistent ethical framework.

That’s fine. Again, this doesn’t even have to be a moral stance, though it certainly could be.

3. I was referring to the hyperbolic posts. Of which there are plenty. I'm not huge fan of cancel culture.

Cancel culture isn’t a thing. Online harassment can seriously affect individual people. This is not a case of that happening.

4. I don't think it's a terrible justification at all. Consistency and proportionality are hallmarks of most ethical systems. If I am willing to tolerate worse behaviours from other actors, why should I make an exception here? Because this situation affects me personally? That seems kind of ethically entitled, from my perspective.

This logic would mean no one who participates in modern society is justified in critiquing anything about society, because there’s always a bigger issue you’re “tolerating.” There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that’s not an excuse never to withhold consumption of a product on ethical grounds. If this issue doesn’t seem worth a boycott for you, that’s perfectly fine, but it may to other people, and that’s also perfectly fine.

 

[R_J_K75]

How about a ‘lifetime boycott’ from purchasing new D&D-branded products?

NO! I will not stop playing D&D, or boycott WotC but to each their own, so have at it. My one suggestion to you is that you may want to change your avatar if you plan on following through with this plan.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

TBH, most attempts at playing non-DnD systems haven't gone well in my home groups. Exalted got a little traction, but Pathfinder 2e didn't, I've tried FATE, and while I like the system, I still find it's not been a smooth experience. So, just packing up and saying no more disbands my TTRPG groups.

So, no I won't be boycotting purely as a matter of principle. That said, I ain't exactly lining up to buy any more 5e products and I don't know if we'll jump to One DnD.

What about A5E?