D&D General Tools for PCs?

[Zaukrie]

As long as D&D dollars aren’t going to Rowling I’m not going to boycott what is a great, and diverse brand. It feels counterproductive. If the team weren’t diverse and open that might be a different kettle of fish. Particularly given the recent hires. A boycott only targets the wrong people as far as I’m concerned. I’d expect it to be different if they release a D&D Potter starter set of course, and JK gets her cut but I’ll cross that bridge if I come to it.

Totally fair.

 

[djotaku]

Ya. That's the issue for sure.

I think we'll move to paper. Of course, my players need to learn the obscure rules that add little to play then.... Which I get some of you like. I have no interest in knowing how AC is calculated, just tell me what it is!*

* Creates new tangent.....

I forgot to reply to this specifically yesterday - if you search reddit and/or drivethrurpg there are many PDFs out there that do the math for you.

 

[Maxperson]

Well yeah. The point of a boycott is “stop giving them money,” not “your possessions are tainted.”

I would argue that there's a bit of product promotion happening when you use your older products. If I pull out my 5e stuff and play at a convention, people are still seeing me play a WotC product and some might go to a store and buy D&D for the first time, because they thought the game looked interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

As long as D&D dollars aren’t going to Rowling I’m not going to boycott what is a great, and diverse brand. It feels counterproductive. If the team weren’t diverse and open that might be a different kettle of fish. Particularly given the recent hires. A boycott only targets the wrong people as far as I’m concerned. I’d expect it to be different if they release a D&D Potter starter set of course, and JK gets her cut but I’ll cross that bridge if I come to it.

Boycotts target the right people, but generally hit the wrong people. Generally owners/CEOs don't lose anything financially. If the boycott is hurting the bottom line, they cut jobs and hours to make up for it, so it's the innocent people who suffer the consequences of a boycott. And that's when the boycott even works. Often people on the other side of the issue show up in droves and the company makes even more money than before the boycott started.

 

[Umbran]

Also, why exactly are we sealioning in JK Rowling’s defense here…?

Because while actually being an ethical consumer is darned near impossible, individuals are still subjected to personal negative social pressure when they don't back whatever issue has captured the current news cycle.

When one is constantly bombarded with messages that one is a bad person, some pushback is inevitable.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would argue that there's a bit of product promotion happening when you use your older products. If I pull out my 5e stuff and play at a convention, people are still seeing me play a WotC product and some might go to a store and buy D&D for the first time, because they thought the game looked interesting.

That is true, and certainly to disengage with a brand/product/franchise/etc completely is a more effective form of protest than simply not buying it. But, a boycott is about cutting off the money flow, and that’s easier to get more people onboard for if you don’t also demand that they get rid of the things they’ve already spent their money on. More people participating in some capacity is better than fewer people participating in the maximally effective form.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because while actually being an ethical consumer is darned near impossible, individuals are still subjected to personal negative social pressure when they don't back whatever issue has captured the current news cycle.

When one is constantly bombarded with messages that one is a bad person, some pushback is inevitable.

Nobody said anyone was a bad person.

 

[Umbran]

Nobody said anyone was a bad person.

Not explicitly.

Do you want to argue the implication isn't present?

Because, the question about alternate platforms could have been validly asked without any reference to Rowling. The reference, and how the entire thread became much more about Rowling and doing business with her, than platform, sends a message.

And there's no real problem with that. But people will react as if they live in an environment filled with such messages, and nobody should be the least bit surprised when folks get a bit defensive in that context.

 

[Zaukrie]

Because while actually being an ethical consumer is darned near impossible, individuals are still subjected to personal negative social pressure when they don't back whatever issue has captured the current news cycle.

When one is constantly bombarded with messages that one is a bad person, some pushback is inevitable.

Hopefully that isn't aimed at me. I've not implied that at all.

 

[Zaukrie]

Not explicitly.

Do you want to argue the implication isn't present?

Because, the question about alternate platforms could have been validly asked without any reference to Rowling. The reference, and how the entire thread became much more about Rowling and doing business with her, than platform, sends a message.

And there's no real problem with that. But people will react as if they live in an environment filled with such messages, and nobody should be the least bit surprised when folks get a bit defensive in that context.

Seriously. I literally said it was fair others weren't. Of all the posts on this site, and you read this into what I said?