| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, apropos of nothing, there's nothing wrong with liking 5e, nor with liking their latest content. The writers at WotC are not our enemies. They're amazing creators just like those at Paizo, and many are themselves from Paizo originally.
This I agree with wholeheartedly. There's a lot of passionate people creating the different systems, and a lot of good ideas stemming from their work.
Hell, in recent years I've gained an appreciation for 4E, as even though it's my least favourite edition of the game, it has some amazing design innovations within it that deserve respect.
Bashing WotC content has a lot of collateral damage versus simply continuing to support the boycott and criticizing WotC practices.
Criticism of the content produced shouldn't be construed as an attack on the people involved. Indeed, my impression from very early on was that WotC had decided on a business strategy of throttling way back on development/production to roll out only a trickle of books for maximum profit margins, as opposed to 3E and 4E which churned out books to try and maximise revenue.
Or in layman terms: My impression was that 5E has good people, but from the start* suffered from not enough time and money from Wizards/Hasbro to develop and produce the best content.
From first hand experience (as an engineer): You can have the best people in the world. If you don't have the time or budget for them to actually do their jobs, you're going to get something rushed and below their usual quality.
Sometimes the old content is good and we want to play it with the editions we know. Nothing wrong with that,
Planning to start Kingmaker 2e in a few weeks, so...
I'm okay with criticizing 5e content and will continue to do so. If you take issue with it, I'm sure there are many many 5e fan forums to peruse.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, Raynulf, to be clear, I wasn't so much saying you in particular needed to stop criticizing WotC content. Y'all are discussing an interesting and valid criticism, and you aren't being crappy to each other as far as I can see. I was more calling out a particular developing attitude I've noticed of, "oh, we're all mad at WotC, and that means bashing 5e unprompted on off-topic threads is okay now". I really don't like that. I don't want more edition wars.
I especially don't want the incredibly inane kinds of fights where if you dare to even question the vitriol it turns into an "us or them" situation. You know, like, "Oh, you don't like me being needlessly toxic to people who like different adventures from me? Why don't you go take it up with your 5e-playing buddies, then, since you're such good friends?"
Personally, I haven't played 5e in a while and don't really care for it. I get its value, but I dislike its ubiquity. I like to poke fun at it, but not in front of people who favor it, because that's just being unnecessarily confrontational, you know? I see no reason I should need to make the fact that I don't personally like something everyone else's problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t consider the bulk of Ghosts of Saltmarsh to be 5e content, and I see a lot of Yawning Portal isn’t either. I’m not here to cast aspersions on 5e, I don’t personally like it but know people who really enjoy it and that is fine. I do consider WotC as problematic, and not “just for nowsies”. Even should they replace the corporate execs, their history and their current ownership (Ha$bro) makes me unable to have trust in their practices which taints their products. Play 5e if you want, but as I said upthread, giving them money (for merch, books, movies, T.V shows) is perilous for our hobby, and in my opinion, will always be so.
The edition wars have essentially restarted in a slightly different format.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The grognards awaken! The end is nigh!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish it was just grognardiness. This isn't the first time WotC/Hasbro has tried to put others out of business.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, yes, but that's honestly just business. For all that diehard free market proponents love to talk about the merits of competition, the reality is that competitions always have winners. Everyone works towards that monopoly in whatever way they can because it's the most efficient way to make money, and therefore the ultimate goal of any serious competitor. That's miserable for everyone else, ofc, hence anti-trust laws, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still the goal.
Especially for a publicly traded company that's beholden to shareholders who are themselves usually more interested in getting fat returns on their investments than on what the company stands for or its consumers. That's how we end up with the adversarial relationship between the management of Hasbro/WotC and the audience; the shareholders, and by extension upper management, want to separate the audience from as much money as they possibly can, whether the audience wants to part with it or not, in order to boost profit margins. That means killing competition, changing the business model from "ownership" to "rent-seeking," and forcing brand loyalty going forward by quashing 3pp and taking the majority of income on 3pp products by virtue of its licensing rules and larger economic scale.
It's actually a sensible move through that lens. However, to everyone but the corpo suits, it's utterly vile.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm okay with criticizing 5e content and will continue to do so. If you take issue with it, I'm sure there are many many 5e fan forums to peruse.
I don't mind you criticizing it. I just mind when your critiques don't hold water and your solution to being countered is to try to chase fans of Pathfinder who have been Paizo fans since there was a Paizo away from their forums because they also like 5e.
I'm allowed to like more than one game.
I'm allowed to like Wizards releases and not buy into the idea that just because WotC management is acting against the interests of the community that the game is bad. It's not.
When I look at Yawning Portal or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, I see both nostalgia for adventures that were touchstones for an era: Sunless Citadel, Lost Shrine of Tamochan, Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh - but also a roadmap for converting adventures from first edition, from second edition, from 3rd edition into 5e. As a game master that's enormously helpful - to see how the developers did it rather than guess based on some conversion rules.
That nostalgia is strong for me, but that roadmap helps me more when I'm doing things like converting Ruins of Azlant to 5e for a game I play with my nephews.
I'm not sure at a time when publishers are trying to draw fans in that the best solution is to tell them to go away. Seems counter productive.
I use a lot of paizo material. I use a lot of 3pp material, monte cook's stuff, kobold press, nord games.
And yes, I own almost every 5e wizards release. And almost every 4e wizards release. And almost every 3e wizards release. During 2e I moved to world of darkness, so my collection falters.
But the almost 5 shelves that takes up is balanced by another 4 of 3pp - FASA, Palladium, Green Ronin, Pelgrane Press, World of Darkness, West End Games, Onyx Path, Magpie Press, Goodman Games.
Being a fan of roleplaying games is not a purity test. Don't try to make it one.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even like 5e that much (like I said, I see its value! It's not for me), but I 100% agree with the above post.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't stand 5e, but I don't yuck other peoples' yum. Pretty simple.
It's just like poo-talking other people's orders at restaurants. Do it enough and people stop inviting you out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, yes, but that's honestly just business. For all that diehard free market proponents love to talk about the merits of competition, the reality is that competitions always have winners. Everyone works towards that monopoly in whatever way they can because it's the most efficient way to make money, and therefore the ultimate goal of any serious competitor. That's miserable for everyone else, ofc, hence anti-trust laws, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still the goal.
Especially for a publicly traded company that's beholden to shareholders who are themselves usually more interested in getting fat returns on their investments than on what the company stands for or its consumers. That's how we end up with the adversarial relationship between the management of Hasbro/WotC and the audience; the shareholders, and by extension upper management, want to separate the audience from as much money as they possibly can, whether the audience wants to part with it or not, in order to boost profit margins. That means killing competition, changing the business model from "ownership" to "rent-seeking," and forcing brand loyalty going forward by quashing 3pp and taking the majority of income on 3pp products by virtue of its licensing rules and larger economic scale.
It's actually a sensible move through that lens. However, to everyone but the corpo suits, it's utterly vile.
Not buying this. If it's a vile move its a vile move. You can't have it both ways. The outcry shown...well, everywhere, shows that there is something wrong with your statement. If it was "just business", we wouldn't be here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I can say at this point is the D&D brand is ruined for me forever. I was with PF1E all the way until they released 5E under the OGL. I'm back now to Pathfinder 2E and will never stray again. Pathfinder is what D&D always should have been. I am speaking as somebody who started playing the game 45 years ago with the White Box and has played every edition.
I can never go back to D&D because WotC cannot be trusted with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware this wasn't a response to me directly... and for the most part I'm not even disagreeing, but...
I'm allowed to like Wizards releases and not buy into the idea that just because WotC management is acting against the interests of the community that the game is bad. It's not.
Like all systems, it has its flaws. But ultimately it is popular because it is fun and easy to learn. I find it useful for short games and teaching my 8yo daughter to play, because it is intentionally very lightweight.
I'm not burning my 5E books, I'm just not giving anymore money to WotC until/unless I see a massive course correction from them.... which I sincerely doubt will ever happen... but hey, I'm an optimist.
When I look at Yawning Portal or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, I see both nostalgia for adventures that were touchstones for an era: Sunless Citadel, Lost Shrine of Tamochan, Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh - but also a roadmap for converting adventures from first edition, from second edition, from 3rd edition into 5e.
I was considering adding a section in my earlier post about the two sides to the reprinting coin, and you hit the counterpoint perfectly: Some people will see old gems given a new lease on life as a celebration of history and a chance to share the experiences they treasured with a new crowd.
Others will more cynically see the fact that updating an old adventure to the new system is way faster (and more importantly, cheaper) than developing an original idea, and if sold at the same price point just means bigger profit margins on what is typically not a big earner (adventures).
And both are actually correct. The bigger point of contention is I think "What was the motivation driving its publication?", which I suspect depends on which level of WotC's corporate structure you ask. It's only natural that people - especially now - will be sceptical of WotC's motivations.
As a game master that's enormously helpful - to see how the developers did it rather than guess based on some conversion rules.
That nostalgia is strong for me, but that roadmap helps me more when I'm doing things like converting Ruins of Azlant to 5e for a game I play with my nephews.
My take-away was very different on this one, as when I did a side-by-side comparison between some of adventures in the $65 AUD Ghosts of Saltmarsh and the original, I... didn't see where I was getting the value for money.
My wife & I own the original and hardcover versions of both Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne, and in both cases it wasn't simply a quick update to monster stat blocks, magic items and maybe some skill checks, but both added a significant chunk of extra value to the product: New art, additional content, updated scenes to better build tension/drama, rebalanced encounters where some didn't play out as intended in the original, and so on.
I would make the same comment about the 3.5E Expedition to Castle Ravenloft: It took the old adventure, and not only updated but expanded upon it to give GMs the tools to do something new and even more engaging with their players. The value for money was clear.
But YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't stand 5e, but I don't yuck other peoples' yum. Pretty simple.
It's just like poo-talking other people's orders at restaurants. Do it enough and people stop inviting you out.
No, it's more like saying you dislike Wendy's and your friends keep pressuring you to go there despite the fact it's making you fat, you're spending too much money, and you can't get the taste of cow out of your mouth.
Either way, since it's my car (books, table, GM screen, GMing) I get to pick, and I don't stay up at night worrying about what randos think about me either.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody here has even come close to asking you to play 5e. We have asked you to maybe consider that in the absence of active moderation*, we all have some obligation to do our best not to start fights for no reason or bait other users into those fights. If you aren't interested in 5e, nobody's making you reply to the conversation about 5e.
*I have no idea what's going on, but moderation is next-to absent lately. Stuff's probably happening beyond the scenes, and my thoughts are with whoever's got this thankless job nowadays.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
omg that's so me
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am of the mind that we need dissent on this as we are here because of a horrifically disgusting business practice that should be unilaterally condemned by all through diehard boycott, and while I disagree with Kobold Catgirl's appeal to angels of better nature on this, she has said NOTHING about everyone who disagrees with her being a fascist or anything of the sort.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm all for a boycott! I don't actually, um, buy WotC stuff to begin with, because I don't play 5e or MTG or whatever, but I think boycotting WotC is absolutely the right move right now.
Me: While I haven't played <x>, and don't have an opinion on it, "D&D is just playing the greatest hits" is a legit complaint
I mean, that's not even a criticism of the system of 5E, but just of the how the adventures are written.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm all for a boycott! I don't actually, um, buy WotC stuff to begin with, because I don't play 5e or MTG or whatever, but I think boycotting WotC is absolutely the right move right now.
I've been boycotting WotC since they hired Mike Mearls. It hasn't been a great strain.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from one 4E Player's Handbook purchase I barely remember from ages ago, I think I've been "boycotting" them since they canceled Dragon and Dungeon. X3
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a fan of roleplaying games is not a purity test. Don't try to make it one.
Can we have this again in like, 20 foot tall burning letters please? For the people in the back? :)
I am definitely "boycotting" Wizards right now (in quotes because I already wasn't buying anything from them, just because there was nothing there I wanted), but the occasional tribalism that sometimes rears its head on these forums is icky, and let's avoid it.
Sent a message about this as a possible story to a news organization (NPR). Perhaps someone will cover it and get the word out if we pester enough folks.Oh, it's getting picked up by a TON of new agencies and magazines already, they just haven't finished/published the stories quite yet. From what I understand Rolling Stone, WIRED, NPR, MSNBC, and a bunch of other outlets have been in touch with individuals connected to the OGL leak as well as creators and publishers so over the next week or two we are likely to see a pretty big wave of media on the topic... but to be quite honest, I don't really expect them to have much of a scoop but rather be serving to help spread the word about what has already been learned/discovered but we might be in for a few surprises given that some of these outlets have resources that can help them get in touch with serious legal professionals who might be able to chime in on how it will/may be received by courts.
NPR has covered D&D before (I'm listening now), so they could potentially end up covering the OGH 1.1/2.0 situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaand the rabbit hole is deeper:
https://youtu.be/_dRhy8XdjC4
Not buying this. If it's a vile move its a vile move. You can't have it both ways. The outcry shown...well, everywhere, shows that there is something wrong with your statement. If it was "just business", we wouldn't be here.I mean, yes, but that's honestly just business. {. . .}
It's actually a sensible move through that lens. However, to everyone but the corpo suits, it's utterly vile.
I think what they meant is that "just business" leads very easily to the utterly vile (and with a strong bias to become that way). Which is what I say even if that isn't what they meant. So it's not a matter of having it both ways, just looking at different sides of the same coin.
Aaaaand the rabbit hole is deeper:
Linkified for your convenience. And now we need to have a movie about some (literally) poor players getting sucked by the AI (Jumanji-style) into a thoroughly dystopian fantasy world, which DOESN'T want to give them a way to solve it (so actually worse than Jumanji), and they have to try to beat it.
If we can't get a movie about this, an AP will do. Starfinder/Pathfinder crossover, anyone? Bonus points if this reveals part of the origin of (although probably not the solution to) The Gap.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They were a pair of official D&D magazines--basically how Paizo cut its teeth on game design back in the beginning.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't wrong. "Just business" is my way of complaining about the nature of a culture (that is to say, corporate and stonk culture) that prioritizes money over people, the planet, and even their own products. "Just business" is itself vile in my book; it's the supplantation of morality and ethics in favor of a Blue-and-Orange philosophy. Instead of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, it's alignment compass is Profit, Loss, Supply, Demand, respectively.
Any system like that will inevitably crush everything for the sake of the Dollar Almighty.
They were a pair of official D&D magazines--basically how Paizo cut its teeth on game design back in the beginning.
Good times, those. Also, thanks for that link. Me forget.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaand the rabbit hole is deeper:
And link’t again because I’m quoting just this.
So if this is true (no homebrew allowed on lowest subscriptions, and highest tier is $30/month for each player, plus A.I. DMs etc) then yes, the rabbit hole got deeper and I’m actually really quite weirded out by it.
The self proclaimed attorney/nerd (nice multiclass!) makes a great point that it will allow WotC to push out subpar content that you won’t be able to modify/homebrew at the low tier and will have to pay for the privilege of modding it.
And A.I. Game Mastering. Sorry to the future A.I. Overlords reading through this…in the future…you got me, I was against you the whole time. I really just wanted a person to play the “people play with each other imagining a fantastic world together game”. Please stop hurting what’s left of me in the future, and I lied when I said I was happy you incinerated my family.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from one 4E Player's Handbook purchase I barely remember from ages ago, I think I've been "boycotting" them since they canceled Dragon and Dungeon. X3Is "Dragon and Dungeon" a thing because I can't find it from google? x'D
Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to say their alignment system (to use your ordering) is:You aren't wrong. "Just business" is my way of complaining about the nature of a culture (that is to say, corporate and stonk culture) that prioritizes money over people, the planet, and even their own products. "Just business" is itself vile in my book; it's the supplantation of morality and ethics in favor of a Blue-and-Orange philosophy. Instead of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, it's alignment compass is Profit, Loss, Supply, Demand, respectively.
Any system like that will inevitably crush everything for the sake of the Dollar Almighty.
- (•)Losers (Good);
(•)Profiteers (Evil And Loving It);
(•)Herdable Sheep(*) (Law)
(•)Speculation (Chaos)
(*)Age of Empires IV reference. Covers both Supply and Demand.
Being a fan of roleplaying games is not a purity test. Don't try to make it one.Can we have this again in like, 20 foot tall burning letters please? For the people in the back? :)
I am definitely "boycotting" Wizards right now (in quotes because I already wasn't buying anything from them, just because there was nothing there I wanted), but the occasional tribalism that sometimes rears its head on these forums is icky, and let's avoid it.
if it was a simple matter of supporting one company over another, that would be fine.
However, wizards is actively trying to drive not just one but several hundred companies out of business. And as linked above, using...technosorcery, I'm not sure what else to call it- to ensure that even individual players cannot make alterations.
This kind of thing needs to be stopped. Immediately.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC really don't understand what roleplay is, do they?
They really ARE trying to make a computer game without making a computer game.
And it's clear they don't EVEN understand computer games, because making AI that is any good is EXTREMELY difficult and expensive (as anyone who has looked at basically any game of any complexity will find, there are always compalints of "AI is dumb."
Anyone belive WotC are going to spend that kind of money and time, and not slap together something in a half-hearted attempt?
After all, why should they bother to make any kind of effort, since they will be charging through the nose for anyone to do anything other than play in the walled garden. (And this is just what they seem to think they can get away with TO START WITH).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC really don't understand what roleplay is, do they?
They really ARE trying to make a computer game without making a computer game.
And it's clear they don't EVEN understand computer games, because making AI that is any good is EXTREMELY difficult and expensive (as anyone who has looked at basically any game of any complexity will find, there are always compalints of "AI is dumb."
They really cracked the code here, so to speak.
Except they also forgot the part where most recent CRPGs live and die based on whether they have a dedicated mod community to keep them going...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC really don't understand what roleplay is, do they?
They really ARE trying to make a computer game without making a computer game.
When they complained last December (seems like ages ago now, and it was only a month) about D&D being "undermonetized", I'll bet THIS is what they had in mind. Millions of players chained to D&DB, with tiers and microtransactions and "pay to mod" and AI DMs... This is all a system to involuntarily attach their vacuum hoses to our wallets and suck them dry.
When EGG said he never wanted to see a big corporation and/or non-gamers have control over D&D, I doubt he imagined how bad it could really be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC really don't understand what roleplay is, do they?
They really ARE trying to make a computer game without making a computer game.
And it's clear they don't EVEN understand computer games, because making AI that is any good is EXTREMELY difficult and expensive (as anyone who has looked at basically any game of any complexity will find, there are always compalints of "AI is dumb."
They really cracked the code here, so to speak.
Except they also forgot the part where most recent CRPGs live and die based on whether they have a dedicated mod community to keep them going...
AND THEY WANT TO CHARGE FOR MODS.
Which is, ultimately, what homebrew is, is it not? At the end of the day, what is my 3.Aotrs but, functionally, a total conversion mod for 3.5/PF1? Same thing, different label.
And the computer games industry couldn't get THAT to fly. It blew up in their faces sommat rotten.
This AI DMs again, likewise shows a complete misunderstanding.
According to Discourse Miniatures, who apparently has seen one in action these chatbots are functional enough when in a narrowly definied area. I mean, that's not a massive stretch, after all, CRPGs exist and work under the same criterion.
Except that to create those narrowly-defined dungeon crawls... You're going to need to make them. Which is a lot of effort. I mean, you ARE making what is basically a computer game at the end of the day at that point.
Even if WotC is assuming it can steal homebrew modules (which people are potentially paying to put on) to run an AI with, I don't imagine that a module made by Fred Bloggs to run with hs mates once is going to be exhaustively enough prepared or coded etc for an A DM to be able to do that with[1].
Leaving aside that RPGs =/= computer games in the first place and don't serve the same intentions.
What WotC are doing is metaphorically equivalent not to just doing an EA creating the FIFA games (the repetative, grindy microtransaction filled manipulative lootbox hell) but taking over actual FIFA and trying to replace actually going down to the stadium to watch football with playing the games.
(Okay, from my understanding actually going to watch football in the flesh is apparently extremely expensive already - I wouldn't know - but I think my point stands.)
[1]I mean, you might be able to do it with my homebrew quests, since I have always tended to write them as if someone else would play them, but I am rather... Unusually preparation heavy. On the flip side, I ain't never going to be putting it into a format that's not a word document and maybe some CAD maps.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the computer games industry couldn't get THAT to fly. It blew up in their faces sommat rotten.
This whole situation could be summed up as a absolutely phenomenal example of "Failed to do the research/failed to learn from history."
It's gross incompetence by whomever is directing things over there. They easily could have looked up what happened the last time something similar was tried.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a thread on rpg.net, there's considerable skepticism as to whether the leak about the $30/month charge and the AI DMs is genuine—while the people who provided that information claimed to have sources, neither specified what their sources were or has proved reliable enough in the past to be fully trusted without evidence of their claims, and some people in the rpg.net thread think the claims in the leak are suspiciously similar to those in a "leak" five months ago that was proved to be a fake.
But if it is genuine, and if Wizards of the Coast genuinely plans to have an AI DM, yeah, that's something I have absolutely zero interest in. I can see an AI being good at running combats, sure, but to me combat is one of the least interesting parts of the game. I much more enjoy creative problem-solving and interaction with NPCs, and those are things that AI would be terrible at. Chatbots have come a very long way since Eliza, but they're still nowhere near good enough to substitute for a real GM. I suspect a game with an AI GM would be heavily focused on combat, and that's exactly the type of game I'm least interested in playing.
There's also the fact that I'm a GM a lot more often than I'm a player, and generally I enjoy GMing more than I enjoy playing. So that makes me even less interested in an AI DM. (Though AI players... hm. ;) ) But even setting that aside, as a player I would not want to play in a campaign with an AI GM. Maybe players who mostly enjoy combat and don't care so much about other aspects of role-playing games might feel differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main change to my 5e game is that players need to check with me before they use anything published this year or later, as I won't have my own copy of it for obvious reasons.
And if the rumors are confirmed about them setting up the next edition so that you need a D&D Beyond account rather than printed books, that will definitely put a stop to any further D&D campaigns without any cajoling on my part.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might interesting playing a dungeon crawl with an AI GM just as a curiosity, but I suspect it would be more like a standard video game RPG at best. Anything outside that is way...
Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) is a thing.
It's been around for a while - to the point where it has issues on newer machines - but is actually pretty fun (and has deviated from it's 3.5E origins significantly by now).
It doesn't feature AI GMs or anything, but the game is presented as adventures where the GM narrates events and voices most characters as you explore Xen'drik (and Cormyr via planar travel), or go through classic modules like Keep on the Borderlands. It's still a computer game, but it remembers its origins.
Noting that while it has a standard staff of people who narrate adventures, they've had a bunch of guest narrators including Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Ed Greenwood, Keith Baker, Travis Willingham, Wil Wheaton, Satine Phoenix and so on. There is something special about going through Delara's Tomb with Gygax himself doing the narration.
It's old, it's clanky, almost every male character except half-elves looks atrocious... but I recommend it anyway.
Speaking of boycotts: does anyone know if buying Baldur's Gate 3 (Larian Studios) or minis from the Icons of the Realm line (WizKids) will be giving some amount of money to WotC? I hope not, but if so I won't be spending money on either of those things from now on. Which I will find sad but necessary.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of boycotts: does anyone know if buying Baldur's Gate 3 (Larian Studios) or minis from the Icons of the Realm line (WizKids) will be giving some amount of money to WotC? I hope not, but if so I won't be spending money on either of those things from now on. Which I will find sad but necessary.
You can safely bet your hat that literally anything that features the trademark dragon & image or otherwise directly references D&D is operating under a paid license and that at the very least the creator paid a hefty sum for the right to do so or are otherwise paying some % to WotC in royalties.
This goes for games, t-shirts, snapback hats, tv shows, candy, pencil cases, and the whole lot. There has been a ton of talk of late of D&D as a "Lifestyle Brand" and despite many people chuckling to themselves about it, the thing is it is already in large part most of the way there. I'd be willing to bet in any area of the continental USA that is reasonably populated (rather than dominated by rural landscapes, empty land, farms, or other industry-used/unusable lands) you can find at least one for sale that has D&D branding ever few square miles and WotC is being compensated for it not only in monetary value but also, more importantly, in "Brand awareness" as well.