D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[Vaalingrade]

This feels like an excuse for those employing others not putting in the work to look after their employees. You know, actively being a good person, instead of complaining after the fact about all the bad people out there.

"Look, I'm sorry that this car driven by this drunk ran you over, but you should prepare for getting hit by a drunk driver instead of wanting something done with the drunk driver."

 

[TheSword]

The rules might essentially be the same, but D&D is a brand, not a set of rules. Thus we have 5+ rule sets all with the same D&D name. You are not buying the D&D brand when you buy Level Up 5e or another “clone” nor are you directly giving any money to Hasbro.

I admit validity to your argument that buying any kind of 5e products might indirectly support Hasbro. I’m just not sure that the harm caused to independent publishers by refusing to buy all things 5e is worth the slight pinprick you might be giving Hasbro.

I certainly don’t think it’s worth it. In fact I think it’s self destructive at worst, good intentioned wishful thinking at best.

I think if you asked most people what Dungeons and Dragons was they would say it was a game. Sure it’s a brand as well, but a game first. Star Wars Monopoly is still Monopoly. Level Up and 1e Pathfinder are still D&D in every way that counts

 

[whimsychris123]

I certainly don’t think it’s worth it. In fact I think it’s self destructive at worst, good intentioned wishful thinking at best.

I think if you asked most people what Dungeons and Dragons was they would say it was a game. Sure it’s a brand as well, but a game first. Star Wars Monopoly is still Monopoly. Level Up and 1e Pathfinder are still D&D in every way that counts

I think we might be on the same page as far as the worth of boycotting all things 5e, but we have a disagreement about how branding works. The analogy you use is fitting. Star Wars Monopoly is still Monopoly because it still has the name “Monopoly.” If Lucasfilms decided to create their own game that was essentially the same game as Monopoly, but called it Star Wars Empire, people might describe it as “like Monopoly,” but would not call it “playing Monopoly.”

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

If Lucasfilms decided to create their own game that was essentially the same game as Monopoly, but called it Star Wars Empire, people might describe it as “like Monopoly,” but would not call it “playing Monopoly.”

When CBSmount put out a mobile game that was essentially Tetra Master with 'Tetra Master' crossed out and 'Star Trek' written in with crayon, you better bet your hind end I called it "Tetra Master with 'Tetra Master' crossed out and 'Star Trek' written in with crayon", loudly and frequently.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Looking through much of this thread, I can see that many people don't understand the point.

The only relevant arguments against the OP are that a) nobody is avoiding buying 5e due to their feelings about Hasbro, and b) supporting any kind of 5e supports the whole ecosystem of 5e, and therefore, supports Hasbro. Both these arguments contradict each other but should still be addressed separately.

There have been enough comments on this thread to show that, yes, people are avoiding all things 5e - Hasbro or otherwise - due to Hasbro's actions. That suggests that the OP does have a relevant argument.

As for the second argument, I see some validity in it. If I buy a 5e adventure to run, even if it is published by Kobold Press, my players are more likely to buy a D&D Player's Handbook or use D&D Beyond. However, refusing to buy anything 5e-related is more likely to hurt those independent publishers of 5e materials, including EN Publishing and Kobold Press, than Hasbro. If someone were upset with WotC/Hasbro about the whole OGL fiasco because the company's actions would hurt independent 5e publishers, why would such a person then take another stance that would also hurt independent 5e publishers?

Level Up 5e is not D&D. Tales of the Valiant is not D&D. Even 5e adventures and settings published by independent publishers are not D&D because players have a plethora of 5e systems to choose from. Supporting independent publishers likely has a negligible effect on Hasbro's bottom line. By refusing to buy all 5e products, regardless of publisher, you are hurting the very people the consumers were trying to protect during the OGL fiasco. Refusing to buy 5e at all was never the goal.

Thank you!

 

[Parmandur]

I admit validity to your argument that buying any kind of 5e products might indirectly support Hasbro. I’m just not sure that the harm caused to independent publishers by refusing to buy all things 5e is worth the slight pinprick you might be giving Hasbro.

Well, sure, Hasbro absolutely be wfits from any use of off-brand D&D: that was precisely Ryan Dancey's plan releasing the OGL I'm the first place, to cement D&D as the number one RPG by encouraging network externalities. Playing Tale of the Valiant or any other D&D variant absolutely serves to improve Hasbro's market position.

 

[Minigiant]

Looking through much of this thread, I can see that many people don't understand the point.

The only relevant arguments against the OP are that a) nobody is avoiding buying 5e due to their feelings about Hasbro, and b) supporting any kind of 5e supports the whole ecosystem of 5e, and therefore, supports Hasbro. Both these arguments contradict each other but should still be addressed separately.

There have been enough comments on this thread to show that, yes, people are avoiding all things 5e - Hasbro or otherwise - due to Hasbro's actions. That suggests that the OP does have a relevant argument.

As for the second argument, I see some validity in it. If I buy a 5e adventure to run, even if it is published by Kobold Press, my players are more likely to buy a D&D Player's Handbook or use D&D Beyond. However, refusing to buy anything 5e-related is more likely to hurt those independent publishers of 5e materials, including EN Publishing and Kobold Press, than Hasbro. If someone were upset with WotC/Hasbro about the whole OGL fiasco because the company's actions would hurt independent 5e publishers, why would such a person then take another stance that would also hurt independent 5e publishers?

Level Up 5e is not D&D. Tales of the Valiant is not D&D. Even 5e adventures and settings published by independent publishers are not D&D because players have a plethora of 5e systems to choose from. Supporting independent publishers likely has a negligible effect on Hasbro's bottom line. By refusing to buy all 5e products, regardless of publisher, you are hurting the very people the consumers were trying to protect during the OGL fiasco. Refusing to buy 5e at all was never the goal.

Excellent point.

It's one thing if all the 3PPs and Independent creators rallied around making a new non-5e-compatible RPG, put mone together for marketing and advertising, and pushed it as the new offshoot off D&D.

But that didn't happen. We have 2-3 "clones" and 5-6 incompatible RPGs none of which big enough or able to spend enough to challenge 5e nor 5.5e So a boycott won't hurt Hasbro as much since their walkback.

 

[Remathilis]

My feeling about this is that they’re called ‘clones’ for a reason. Filing the serial numbers off, and changing 5% of the rules does not stop 3pp being D&D. You can call Paizo’s update of D&D 3e Pathfinder but it’s still D&D for all intents and purposes. Most even market off the fact that are still compatible and were expressly designed for this such as Level Up. Furthermore denying the root D&D that these clones grew would strikes me as fairly egotistical. I don’t believe most 3pp do that.

I mean, Paizo made its name by calling itself "3.75" and intentionally claiming it was the natural extension of D&D 3.5, so you cannot argue that that Paizo itself viewed its game as "Legally Distinct D&D". Kobold Press tried or the same play when the TotV kickstarter started, claiming to “[...] keep that 5th edition ruleset alive" they were both tethering their promise to the idea of being "D&D without the branding".

I actually have mixed feelings about Pathfinder's 2 "De-OGLifying" Remaster. On the one hand, I get why they would want to remove OGL-derived language, but on the other, it feels very weird that the company that prided itself on keeping traditional D&D alive is now itself abandoning much of that legacy. (So much so, I would hesitate to consider PF2R and D&D5e anything but distant cousins rather than the brothers from different mothers they were about a decade ago). But that's a tangent for another time.

 

[Remathilis]

Excellent point.

It's one thing if all the 3PPs and Independent creators rallied around making a new non-5e-compatible RPG, put mone together for marketing and advertising, and pushed it as the new offshoot off D&D.

But that didn't happen. We have 2-3 "clones" and 5-6 incompatible RPGs none of which big enough or able to spend enough to challenge 5e nor 5.5e So a boycott won't hut Hasbro as much since their walkback.

If something like that was to have happened, it would have been a mass 3pp exodus to Pathfinder 2. Paizo was again in a good position to profit from WotC's stumble, but the 5e community mostly splintered into a bunch of in-house 5e clones rather than a clean break to PF2.

 

[Minigiant]

If something like that was to have happened, it would have been a mass 3pp exodus to Pathfinder 2. Paizo was again in a good position to profit from WotC's stumble, but the 5e community mostly splintered into a bunch of in-house 5e clones rather than a clean break to PF2.

Pathfinder 2 is not built to be that game and its community....
...let's say the PF2 community is too hostile to houserules/homebrew for that to work.

It would end up playing into Hasbro's hands.