As I write this (August 1, 2024), the review embargo has lifted for the 2024 version of the D&D Players Handbook, which will be available to the general public in September. As a result, to no one's surprise, there are ton of reviews out there already for this material (if you want an accessible overview as opposed to a deep-dive, I recommend this one from DNDShorts). I want to talk a bit about the reviews and the culture surrounding those reviews, but first let's talk about the material itself.
I think it makes sense to begin by stating clearly my current relationship to and thoughts about D&D and Wizards of the Coast. The last WotC produced product for 5e that I purchased was Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, published in 2018. I didn't think that product was very good, and so I made a decision to stop buying WotC 5e material and have not gotten back on the train. The short version is that I have found WotC's material 5e as a whole to be either creatively unimaginative (often a rehash of ideas and content from previous eras of D&D), or technically (i.e. from a mechanics point of view) questionable, or both. I cannot say that I have looked at every WotC product since 2018, so if you tell me this or that book was really excellent I am not going to argue with you, but this was my impression of the stuff I had bought before 2018 and I have seen nothing since to really change my position.
Despite not buying WotC stuff for six years, I have run 5e campaigns during this period of time, using a lot of 3rd Party material (usually from Kobold Press). In doing so, I have come to the conclusion that 5e as a rules system is, as the kids would say, "meh." It's not terrible and its not the worst, but it not only has some things I really don't like, but those things are baked deep into the structures of the game, such that it is not really possible to "homebrew" away my issues. More specifically, the more I play 5e the less I like Bounded Accuracy, and Bounded Accuracy is perhaps the central design principle of 5e. In fact, the one thing that definitely would have gotten me excited about the 2024 books was an indication that the designers were planning to really "open up the hood" and change some of the fundamental elements of how 5e works. But the announcement of this project back in 2022 made clear that no such effort was in the offing.
For these reasons, it should come as no surprise that I have not personally laid eyes on the new material. But, based on the coverage and what has been shown so far, nothing has convinced me that there is any reason for me to reconsider my position visa ve WotC's D&D product line. In fact, some of the choices strike me as kinda baffling, bringing increased player facing "crunch" into a culture of play that seems to prioritize the shallowest learning curve and most forgiving player experience. And I can't help but wonder if their playtest process, which necessarily privileges the voices of the most dedicated and engaged players, has given the designers at WotC a skewed understanding of what their player base as a whole really wants. Plus, some of this purported new crunch seems very low effort on the part of the designers--the much touted "crafting system," which merited an entire video from Jeremy Crawford, apparently boils down to "making an item costs half the gold of the purchase price plus a bunch of time," which is not exactly robust or revolutionary.
Finally, I cannot justify buying into the WotC product line (at a very high purchase price and with a set of digital use restrictions not found for any other ttrpg) when there are so many new, interesting, and exciting alternatives out there. Currently on my hard drive or accessible to me in digital form is the Daggerheart beta, the Draw Steel (formerly MCDM RPG) beta, the DC20 beta, the Nimble 5e preview, and the full version of Tales of the Valiant. I think each one of these games is way more interesting and compelling as a ttrpg product than what I am seeing from WotC. Particularly where none of the creators of those games have the baggage that WotC does, about which more in a bit.
So, I've made the decision, at least for now, that I am not going to be getting the new D&D materials. If I found an opportunity to be a player in a game (which, as a Forever DM, would be a true unicorn moment) and the DM insisting on using the 2024 rules, would I refuse to play? No. Would I buy the books? Probably not (since most of it will be, at least we are promised, on Creative Commons), but I am not going to sit here and swear that this will never occur. But I have no plans to do so right now.
But, at the same time, I don't think my position is the objectively correct one. It is simply mine. And I recognize that I am in the minority, and that's OK. It's fine for other people to be really excited about these books, want to dive into them and pull them apart, and then get them to their table. It is also fine to be cautiously optimistic, or to be sort of interested and prepared to strip the new books for parts to add to their existing game, and any position in between those points. Nothing is more lame and unproductive than trying to police other people's fun, especially within the bounds of what is at the end of the day a shared hobby.
Which is why I think the negative backlash directed at the D&D content creators is very stupid and unfair. It is perfectly fine to be excited about those books, and to channel that excitement into making content. That's their job, or at least their hobby--this isn't or shouldn't be, a surprise. Nor is it necessarily a cause to question the integrity or professionalism of the creators themselves.
To that end, let's talk about sponsorships. By definition, anyone who is providing a review of the PHB has received a copy of the book from WotC prior to the release date. Several creators have stated that they received the book under an NDA which prevented them from releasing content prior to the end of the embargo period. This is common in many forms of media criticism--Oscar voters, to take a singular example, receive free screeners of all of the movies up for consideration for a particular year. And the fact that creators agreed to embargo their content for a period of time is, to me, a nothing-burger--video games have review embargo periods routinely. None of this is particularly noteworthy.
It is worth pointing out that the US Federal Trade Commission (which regulates advertising, among other things) takes the position that folks like the D&D creators are obligated to disclose whether they have received promotional copies of products from a publisher like WotC--see their guidance brochure here. I was under the impression that you only had to disclose paid sponsorships, not promotional copies, but I was wrong. So if you come across a PHB reviewer that doesn't say they received a promotional copy, then they screwed up.
For me, though, receiving a free review copy is not at all the same thing as being paid by a company like WotC. If you receive money to make a video, then you are producing an advertisement for the people you received money from. Which is not evil, but it also is not an unbiased source--you will not receive anything negative from someone who is being paid to promote a product. I don't think that same burden of suspicion should apply to people who receive promotional copies. If the job is to review the PHB, then you need to at least read the PHB in order to do your job. It doesn't say anything about what sort of review you are going to get. DNDShorts's review linked above was definitely "mixed," while the other one I watched by the Dungeon Dudes was more positive. I don't those positions say anything about the respective creators other than that's what they happen to believe.
The next thing to talk about is WotC itself, and the question of whether it is good or appropriate to have any relationship with WotC at all. In terms of reasons why one might not want to associate with WotC, I think it is helpful to divide the issues into two buckets. Bucket #1 is the OGL and the viability and legality of third-party creators, and Bucket #2 is everything else.
As for Bucket #1, the heart of the dispute in January of 2023 was that WotC was pushing forward a revision to the OGL that would have made it essentially impossible for all but a very narrow profile of third-party creators to make D&D content. The intent, and I don't think even WotC seriously disputes this anymore, was to make it so that WotC completely controlled the universe of D&D content. The community revolted, and WotC backed down, to the point of releasing the core rules into Creative Commons. Third-party creators who want to make D&D content can do so, at least in the sense that they can produce materials that are compatible with what is in Creative Commons (either the current version or the promised updated version post the release of the 2024 books).
There is a way to read this story and say "WotC tried to do a bad thing, we complained, we won, and so why would be still be mad at WotC?" This point of view has been I think most clearly articulated by The Dungeon Dudes, but it seems like to some extent this is where Mike Shea has landed. And, for what it is worth, I think this is a completely defensible position to take. Looking again at this issue in isolation, it seems perfectly consistent to have been upset with WotC back in January 2023 about the OGL stuff, but then no longer upset. And McLaughlin does make a good point that if the community boycotts because of decision X, the company reverses decision X, and then everyone still boycotts, then there is no reason for the company to ever reverse a decision ever again. And if the objection is "I don't trust WotC not to try something like this in the future," it is also reasonable to say "well, we'll deal with that when it comes down the pike." Right now, everything that was available via the OGL is available via CC; it is not unreasonable to refuse to make a decision now based on a future hypothetical. And I say this as someone who thinks it is more likely than not that WotC will try again to create the digital "walled garden" around D&D. You don't have to trust WotC's intentions for the future to base your decisions on the state of play today.
Bucket #2 includes, but is not limited to, (1) WotC firing a huge chunk of employees around Christmas 2023; (2) WotC removing credits from D&D Beyond for people that it let go in said Christmas 2023 purge; (3) WotC hiring the notorious Pinkertons to harass some random Magic: the Gathering Youtuber; (4) WotC using AI art (for real, not the time that everyone thought they were using AI art); and (5) WotC executives saying anti-consumer things like how important it is to "monetize" D&D players better. Not to mention the things that many people accuse WotC of, but I think are either not a problem or actively good, all of which could be grouped together around the claim that WotC has become "woke," whatever that means. Putting aside the "woke" discourse, it seems pretty clear that WotC is a pretty shitty company, especially to its workers--DNDShorts goes into this in detail here. And I would be lying if this laundry list of malfeasance doesn't buttress my decision not to spend money on WotC products anymore (FWIW, the removing credits from the fired employees thing is the most egregious and unjustifiable of the lot IMO).
At the same time, we are all in relationships with a host of really shitty companies every day. Navigating these relationships is tricky, and requires discernment. And that discernment is going to come out differently for different people in different situations. I am just not willing to throw stones at people who come to a different set of conclusions about the relative gravity of the various WotC issues over the course of the last 2 years. I think it is unfair to suggest that because a Youtuber makes D&D content, they can be assumed to be cheerleaders for WotC CEO Chris Cox or the Pinkertons or firing a bunch of WotC staff. I assume that the majority of the folks who are making D&D content would be thrilled if WotC was no longer the folks in charge of D&D. And I am sympathetic to the Mike Shea line of argument that you shouldn't allow executive douche-bags to ruin the game you enjoy. To paraphrase Michael Bolton from Office Space "why should I change? They're the ones who suck."
So, look. It's fine to not like these new D&D books. I don't really like them, at least based on what I have seen, myself. And I don't really care for the company that makes these books. I think there are better games, made by better companies and better people, that you can spend your money on. But I don't have any problem with the people who disagree and ae excited about these books. Much of the abuse they have gotten in the last few days doesn't help anyone. Cut it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment