D&D 5E Will you continue to give WotC D&D your $$$

Have the microsoft suits at WotC otherwise gone too far?



log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Again I don't see your point.
Free League and Paizo pitch most of their games to virtually the same age group. Furthermore, whether someone prefers one or the other says nothing about the maturity level of the players themselves.

So people aren't supposed to express a preference and explain why a game appeals to them? I really don't see the conflict here, what does it matter if I think Pathfinder looks like a Nintendo game guide?
People are supposed to express their opinions and preferences with civility, respect, and politeness towards others.
 


My first poll; So exciting!

By all means continue to use the books you have, and enjoy what you and your group are doing. Nothing wrong with that.

That being said; Given the current OGL kerfuffle...

... and not a good poll. You only have two extreme options

I voted for yes, because right now I am undecided and tend towards yes, because I don't use 3PP because it usually is not my cup of tea.
I don't need OGL 1.0a and I don't care who goes, as long as OGL 2.0 is still a fair deal.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I disagree with this. I didn't say mature, I said they are pitched at adults as opposed to games pitched at kids.
You certainly seem to insinuate it (emphasis in bold, mine):
Free League make RPGs for adults. The themes, art and writing are designed for adults to do in-depth and morally complex roleplaying. Path Finder and D&D are pitched at 13 year old boys. The art is cartoonish, the morality is black and white and the rules are combat focussed.
I have no desire to return to my childhood or explore childlike experiences. I'm 50 years old. I want complexity and high art, I don't want to live in a state of perpetual arrested development. Why can't I have products pitched at the older gamer. Why do we all have to live in the mass market youth obsessed gaming sphere?
There is a lot of loaded, derogatory language about other game preferences and implications about people with other preferences here. It may not be your intent to insult others, but I hope you can understand how people reading along would certainly get that impression.

Much like South park is pitched at adults and avatar is pitched at kids. Both can enjoy either but they aren't pitched to the same audience.
South Park is rated TV-MA, meaning for mature audiences. Avatar the Last Airbender is rated Y7+, meaning for ages 7 and up. However, the manufacturers' suggested age range for Free League and Paizo's games are virtually the same: i.e., ages 14+ vs. ages 13+, respectfully.

You may believe that Free League does a better job at handling mature content than Pathfinder. That's fine. But it's also true that Free League, Paizo, and WotC all pitch their games to teenagers and older, which we know as per the manufacturer's recommended age ratings for these products much in the same way that the ratings tell us about the suggested age recommendations for South Park and Avatar, respectively.

Wanting adult focussed gaming isn't offending anyone.
I agree that "Wanting adult focused gaming isn't offending anyone." However, making generalized and implied claims about Pathfinder and D&D's audience is. There are innumerate ways to state your preferences without insulting giant swaths of other people.
 
Last edited:



HaroldTheHobbit

Adventurer
Imho trying to age categorize roleplaying games is just silly. It's the people who play the game that decide how the game will play, no matter if it's marketed for 7 year olds or adults.

At my table, no matter what system we are using, most games tend to lean to politics, intrigue, social pillar and heavy roleplaying. We enjoy those themes, probably because we are old farts who all are active in politics and have a perhaps larger than average interest in societal, governmental and interrelational aspects. If 10 year olds played the same games it might choose a different way of playing.

It's true that certain games have more mechanical and thematic support for certain game styles. That doesn't mean that there is only one category of people who will play it or that it will only be played in one style or with one theme.
 


What does Free League do that's so good? I haven't read their stuff--or, honestly, any Pathfinder stuff, so I don't know the differences between them.
Ignoring the 90s discourse flashback for a moment: Free League games have high production values combined with a straightforward, low (e.g. Tales from the Loop) to medium (e.g. Forbidden Lands) crunch system, in which combat is de-emphasized compared to D&D (again varying per concrete game). While they do have a house system (Year Zero engine), they typically customize it quite a bit for the individual title, and they also have a few games with other underlying system (e.g. Symbaroum or The One Ring).
All in all, at least for me, while still recognizable as a Free League game, each of their games feels fresh and their excellent illustrations often draw me into the game immediately.
 


... and not a good poll. You only have two extreme options

I voted for yes, because right now I am undecided and tend towards yes, because I don't use 3PP because it usually is not my cup of tea.
I don't need OGL 1.0a and I don't care who goes, as long as OGL 2.0 is still a fair deal.

I have to say more: the whole thing of either you are with us or against us sentimentality is poisonous.
It does not help make anything better.

Edit: in our special case it is what started the edition war back then. I don't want another edition war.
 
Last edited:


I don't understand this sentence?

See meaning 2.
I don't think it's a 90s discourse at all.
Buddy, you literally word-for-word replicated how the most Comic Book Guy-esque posters and flame warriors of the 1990s used to post. I haven't even seen someone post like that on reddit, even, for maybe 10 years.
Well TBH I probably wouldn't have allowed my children to play something like Symbaroum or Coriolis without supervision. I definitely wouldn't allow my children to play Kult: Divinity Lost at all.
LOL. I think my brother and I bought Kult when I was 13 and he was 11. Vampire: The Masquerade at the same age too.

Somehow we survived.
eMonkey Publishing
You want to expand on that? I sure don't remember, and the internet doesn't seem to remember.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Seems you are rather fragile about your identity and are taking it out on others.
Mod Note:
By now, folks should have learned to not make it personal in these discussions.

You're done in this discussion. Next time, address what was said, not the person who said it.
 

Oofta

Legend
I don't see PF 2e at #1109, where are you seeing that?

This is the link I use for them and I see no rankings anymore for it.

Huh. Maybe I didn't do that right? I searched amazon for pathfinder 2E but didn't realize I had found the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide which has the ranking under product information (it's now 1,138). But ... that may not be the right book because they have just the Pathfinder Core Rulebook which doesn't have that info. Which is odd because other books I look up have it.

I thought about playing PF at one point but ended up not switching after chatting with several people who had played it so I didn't realize how they packaged their books.
 

Oofta

Legend
They want to prevent another pathfinder 1e situation.

I would agree that stopping another PF could be motivation, but that doesn't affect 99% of the 3PP. I also don't see a second PF ever happening. If it mimics D&D, most people will likely ignore it. If it's a TTRPG that uses rules that are different enough from D&D to distinguish it then it won't be covered by the OGL anyway.

The reason we had PF was because in many people's mind 4E wasn't an evolution of D&D, it was a different game with the same label. In contrast, 5E is an evolution of pre-4E D&D. PF 1E was basically D&D 3.75, I don't see any company coming out with D&D 5E clone.

The terrible thing they are doing is revoking OGL 1.0.

Just stating that something is terrible doesn't make it so. My understanding is that anything that's published while the 1.0a will be unaffected. Assuming they can revoke the 1.0a, of course. I don't think OGL 2.0 is inherently terrible based on the reasons in my post.

sounds like you are in agreement with: "Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we."

If they changed course, why are so many still calling them Evil Inc?
 

I also don't see a second PF ever happening
I think this is a bit like "The only company that can kill WoW is Blizzard".

The only people who can kill D&D are WotC.

PF1 would never have taken off if WotC hadn't taken 4E in a specific direction (attempting to make that $50m/pa Hasbro demanded).

So I think there could be another PF, but only WotC does something really wild, beyond the OGL 1.1/2.0/etc. I don't think it's at all likely to happen with 5E in the short term (i.e. next 2-5 years). A more likely scenario (though not probable imho!) would be that, 1D&D increasingly deviates from what most 5E-era players liked, and more towards being a sort of quasi-videogame, with more and more rules boiled down and taken out of DM hands with updates to the rules (5E is a great deal more DM-dependent than 3.XE or 4E, by design!), and more and more content (species, classes, subclass, adventures, etc.) is made "exclusive" for the 3D VTT.

Even if a lot of players are very upset, if whales are buying enough virtual minis, virtual dice, dungeon tiles, and so on, it could easily be that the 3D VTT makes enough money that WotC just wants to keep double-downing on that.

At that point, which is probably at least 5 years away, I'd be unsurprised to see a PF-type situation emerge, in which an awful lot of D&D players flow over to a 5E clone (probably also incorporating any well-regarded changes from 1D&D). If there's a big podcast or TikToker or whatever social media is doing in 5 years where the players play that version and make it look cool, that'll probably factor in.

Another perhaps more likely "WotC kills D&D" scenario is if the 3D VTT totally fails to make enough money to justify the vast expense of creating it and continuing to develop it, and Hasbro decides that the smart move is either:

1) Stop making D&D stuff, like let 1D&D continue, but just go to an absolutely minimal level of support, just sort of keep it as placeholder.

Or

2) Vault D&D's IP for a bit so they can bring it back with fanfare in a few years (something were apparently threatening in the pre-4E era).

In that case it would be easy to see a game which developed from 5E/1D&D taking over the role.
If they changed course, why are so many still calling them Evil Inc?
Because they didn't change course on the worst bit. I know you keep saying you don't care about that bit, and that the OGL 2.0 is "fine", but pretty much no-one else agrees, hence they're calling them Evil inc or whatever. I don't think anyone needs to rejustify this to you, either - if you can say "see my earlier post", we can all say "see dozens of our earlier posts" lol.
 

Oofta

Legend
I think this is a bit like "The only company that can kill WoW is Blizzard".

The only people who can kill D&D are WotC.

PF1 would never have taken off if WotC hadn't taken 4E in a specific direction (attempting to make that $50m/pa Hasbro demanded).

So I think there could be another PF, but only WotC does something really wild, beyond the OGL 1.1/2.0/etc. I don't think it's at all likely to happen with 5E in the short term (i.e. next 2-5 years). A more likely scenario (though not probable imho!) would be that, 1D&D increasingly deviates from what most 5E-era players liked, and more towards being a sort of quasi-videogame, with more and more rules boiled down and taken out of DM hands with updates to the rules (5E is a great deal more DM-dependent than 3.XE or 4E, by design!), and more and more content (species, classes, subclass, adventures, etc.) is made "exclusive" for the 3D VTT.

Even if a lot of players are very upset, if whales are buying enough virtual minis, virtual dice, dungeon tiles, and so on, it could easily be that the 3D VTT makes enough money that WotC just wants to keep double-downing on that.

At that point, which is probably at least 5 years away, I'd be unsurprised to see a PF-type situation emerge, in which an awful lot of D&D players flow over to a 5E clone (probably also incorporating any well-regarded changes from 1D&D). If there's a big podcast or TikToker or whatever social media is doing in 5 years where the players play that version and make it look cool, that'll probably factor in.

Another perhaps more likely "WotC kills D&D" scenario is if the 3D VTT totally fails to make enough money to justify the vast expense of creating it and continuing to develop it, and Hasbro decides that the smart move is either:

1) Stop making D&D stuff, like let 1D&D continue, but just go to an absolutely minimal level of support, just sort of keep it as placeholder.

Or

2) Vault D&D's IP for a bit so they can bring it back with fanfare in a few years (something were apparently threatening in the pre-4E era).

In that case it would be easy to see a game which developed from 5E/1D&D taking over the role.
As I said, we had PF because we had 4E.
Because they didn't change course on the worst bit. I know you keep saying you don't care about that bit, and that the OGL 2.0 is "fine", but pretty much no-one else agrees, hence they're calling them Evil inc or whatever. I don't think anyone needs to rejustify this to you, either - if you can say "see my earlier post", we can all say "see dozens of our earlier posts" lol.
Yet people just keep insisting that it's terrible because "it just is". Explain what the threat actually is and why WOTC would shut down the vast majority of 3PP on a whim. Explain why they would start copying everyone's products when they have that option already for most products but have never done so and would gain so little from it.

Repeating "the sky is purple" doesn't make it so.
 

Explain what the threat actually is and why WOTC would shut down the vast majority of 3PP on a whim. Explain why they would start copying everyone's products when they have that option already for most products but have never done so and would gain so little from it.
We already did at huge length. That you didn't bother to read it doesn't mean we need to repeat it for you. No-one else is claiming this. It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to claim no-one has explained to you.
Repeating "the sky is purple" doesn't make it so.
Correct. And claiming people didn't say something because you didn't bother to read it doesn't make it so.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top