This article’s featured image for third-party D&D publishers is from Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos. This article contains affiliate links that add gold to our coffers.
I don’t usually write opinion pieces about the TTRPG industry and community. This matter has been bothering me for several months. Venting my frustrations, I intend to show others the observed trends and behaviors and relieve my feelings. I won’t be calling out anyone specific because people change. My opinions could be off-base, too. I’ll try to be specific to the practices and arguments bugging me.
My Frustrations with Third-Party D&D Publishers
My frustrations lay with third-party producers of D&D 5e content. Many third-party producers are delightful. I love that the D&D community freely creates and invents its expansions to rulesets they enjoy. However, some third-party creators seem to be producing half-baked content while deflecting criticisms with fallacious arguments. They might seem to be using wisdom, but they only roll well on their persuasion checks. They use truisms that most anybody would generally subscribe to. However, they apply them in ways that I believe are disingenuous deflections. To me, they feel like snake-oil salespeople.
It is outstanding for regular, unpaid people to use these arguments (because they’re true). I take issue with third-party D&D publishers who sell content with these deflections. Content distributors should know what they’re talking about when money is involved. I find that creators often have not committed to the due diligence necessary to distribute helpful content. Their homebrew often does not match or fit the game system.
I’ll point out the arguments that commonly shoot up as a shield to silence critics. These arguments defend house rules and game mechanics sold for cash.
Not all DMs have the acquired knowledge to know what works within the bounds of the game. They’re trusting content creators by giving them money to purchase their content. Using celebrity and reputation to sell poorly considered content to the masses seems exploitative.
Deflective, Fallacious Arguments & Defenses
These arguments can all be valid, but that’s a fact that creators are subverting and exploiting.
Argument #1 “If players abuse the new rule, the DM can simply remove it.”
This argument puts the onus on players not to abuse the mechanic. It’s unspoken but apparent that content creators admit their content is exploitable. This argument shames players for “ruining it” for the content creator.
Creators need to stop blaming players for using content. There is a massive difference between a mechanic being “exploited” or “abused” vs. being used as written. If a mechanic behaves unintentionally, the creator should own up to it. It’s not that the players “abused” the mechanic; the mechanic was given to them to use freely. It just happens that the mechanic doesn’t work well with the system. For example, it’s inappropriate and incorrect to claim a player is “abusing” the Sharpshooter feat by dealing heaps of damage. That’s how Sharpshooter works in the system.
If a creator doesn’t outline what “abuse” of a mechanic looks like, they’re putting the burden on DMs and players who purchase their content to fix it. The creator didn’t thoroughly consider the mechanic’s overall fit in the intended game.
Content Creator: “You can do XYZ with this new game mechanic.”
Player: “Great! I do XYZ.”
Content Creator: “Stop abusing XYZ, please.”
This argument feels like gaslighting. Wizards of the Coast is notorious for this. They use the truism “rulings, not rules” instead of owning up to their helter-skelter system design. “Rulings, not rules” is what WotC says when they put the burden on DMs to make rulings. I don’t appreciate when WotC or third parties deflect criticisms and questions.
Argument #2 “I’ve playtested this with my players, and they like it.”
That’s a manic, inconsistent DM. Some content creators publish dozens of house rules incompatible with one another; they couldn’t possibly playtest them all. There’s no way a group accepts ALL the rules you put forth in your content, primarily that you sell. I would hate playing in a full-time guinea pig group. I don’t buy the tall tale that content creators thoroughly playtest each of their dozens of house rules. When they’re suggesting dozens and dozens of them, I raise an eyebrow. Why are they claiming to have playtested it when they haven’t?
Playtesting isn’t what people think. In reality, “playtesting” often involves having FRIENDS and FANS eyeballing the material. They are not playing the options in long-term campaigns or dozens of one-shots at different tiers of play. They don’t have a mix of new and experienced players, instead focusing on people who will likely give affirming feedback, not constructive criticism. Modern D&D playtesting is marketing, not product development. That’s just the way it is. It’s unlike a video game where you can readily farm player feedback. Even Wizards of the Coast doesn’t seem to run formal playtests for their upcoming material; instead, they rely on digital feedback from Unearthed Arcana releases.
I feel 99% dubious that creators playtest their material. They probably don’t read it twice before publishing. Why can critics take one look at it and magically discover a massive problem with it, but the content creator cannot? It’s because the creator isn’t putting in the due diligence and may lack the expertise to do so.
It’s often unrealistic for playtesting to be as thorough in TTRPGs as it is with video games. I’m not trying to say the TTRPG industry needs to have hundreds of playtesters with real-time data. I make this point so we can temper our expectations for what playtesting actually means in this hobby. That’s a fact that several pro designers have expressed in interviews.
Argument #3 “Every group is different, and there is no wrong way to have fun!”
Let me rephrase this to reflect what they’re actually saying: “I didn’t properly research and write this content. I’m falling back on this truism to protect my authority, expertise, and ego.”
I respect YouTuber XP to Level 3 for critiquing himself. Still, I like that he called out the D&D community for using this “fun” argument to deflect criticism. In his video I linked here, go to 05:47 in the video to see how he used this argument in the past, but now he admits it’s one of the most overused arguments in D&D. He says, “That is the most overused argument in D&D now, and I refuse to make it anymore.”
Additionally, creators who use this argument have produced content that reflects how they wish D&D 5e works, not how it works. They’re not making content that works for the 5e system as it exists. I believe the modular nature of 5e is a strength of the system, and I love altering it to suit my gameplay whims, but I’m not trying to sell my modifications (at least not yet).
This argument seems to imply that whether or not a house rule succeeds is always based on what a given group likes or prefers. That’s not true, at least not all the time. There are some published house rules that the 5e system will spit out due to being incompatible, and experienced players and DMs can spot those (most of the time). If the system doesn’t jive with a rule, it will crash and burn when a group uses it long enough. Sure, they can adapt, but then they pay for content that is not useful. They had to house rule it anyway!
Own up to Mistakes
If you are opening your pitch with “if you don’t like it, don’t use it,” you probably know deep down that either a) your product won’t function at most tables or b) it’s just awful design. The former is okay if you own up to it. ALL homebrew comes with the caveat of you not needing to use it, so it’s a bit of a red flag to me when you preface a homebrew option with that disclaimer. If the content is free or pay-what-you-want (tip jar) in nature, or even if it’s offered with a full preview before people buy it, I have no qualms.
I recently observed this argument (in different words) used in a video by a YouTuber two weeks before launching a massive Kickstarter. It came across as pre-deflecting criticism by priming their audience to be less critical of their product.
Argument #4 “Modular systems allow for picking and choosing rules. Pick and choose what you want.”
I agree, but throwing in rules without system awareness will lead to problems sooner or later. For example, most rules don’t specify a genre or circumstance. They’re open to all levels of play and all styles!
I’d like to see more house rules and mechanics accompanied by their intended genres or levels. An excellent example of a modular mechanic is a throat cut for heists at level three (shared with me on Discord). The homebrew rule was not for higher levels or all situations. It takes the edge off designers while still helping the niche for which they’re writing.
I once added called-shot and weak-point mechanics so I could emulate in D&D 5e one of my favorite video games, My Horizon Zero Dawn. The campaign involved similar homebrew rules since HZD heavily incentivizes players to aim for specific weak points on its monsters’ bodies. I also wanted the enemies to be dangerous even at level one, so I increased player characters’ starting hitpoints so they wouldn’t die but could still experience the danger. I would never suggest running my rules for that campaign to all players of D&D 5e because they’d easily break the system. Sharing that ruleset would require me to specify the intended genre and style.
What Makes a Good Modular Ruleset?
Speaking of mechanics that reinforce a game style, here are examples from 5e itself. The optional rules for gritty realism are great because they work with the system and signal a type of campaign. A bad example is 5e’s feats since including them or excluding them are purely mechanical choices, and doing so doesn’t clue players into the type of campaign they’re playing.
A modular system isn’t served well by creating options for options’ sake, especially with no meaning attached to those optional rules. I’m not too fond of content that prioritizes quantity over quality. Doing so does not indicate that the designer wanted to create a very versatile system; it’s indicative that they didn’t have a vision and purpose for what their game should be, just that they wanted to sell content.
Failing to Admit Mistakes
I respect creators who make an effort to correct themselves or admit when they made a mistake. As I mentioned, XP to Level 3 earns my respect because he readily admits when he had a bad take on a topic (though he’s an entertainer, so it’s easy to backtrack on his opinions).
I’ve pinned comments about mistakes I made in videos. My articles are easy to update when someone comments about a mistake I’ve made, like if I incorrectly explained a rule.
Another content creator told me there are probably three reasons creators don’t follow up to correct themselves:
- They want to be an authority.
- They don’t correct themselves because they can generate engagement with their error, or enough people won’t notice the mistake.
- Creators don’t respond because they’ve moved on to their next thing (they’re busy).
Regardless of the reason, I respect anyone who can admit their errors.
How to Proactively Establish an Audience
I’ve spoken to several pro designers who all agree on one thing: defining a target audience is critical. Designing a niche rule for the masses isn’t useful. For this reason, I encourage content creators to clearly define the goal and audience they’re designing for. This caveat should be communicated upfront, not in response to criticism as a retroactive consideration. If it must be done retroactively, I believe the creator should communicate that they failed to do so from the start.
Homebrew rules don’t need to be perfect, either. It’s fine to publish a rule that communicates the circumstances it crumbles within. Communicating design limitations empowers DMs who don’t have acquired knowledge to foresee problems.
Wrongfully Claiming Ideas to Be New and Original
There is an obvious gray area here. Original ideas are difficult to come by. Creators should give credit where it’s due.
Acting like ideas are new when lifted from elsewhere, including old editions, other systems, or straight up from other creators. I’ve seen shady stuff where YT comments asked a creator if they saw another system by another creator on the DMs Guild that had a similar concept; the reply was that they didn’t know.
I created a video and article about level drain in 2e D&D and how brutal it was. After explaining what it used to be, I provided ideas for how to bring back that mechanic, making it clear that it wasn’t my invention. The old edition rules are often not well-executed for 5e either. The content was free, too. I love this kind of content that brings something new to inspire DMs without asking for money.
I’ll share the worst example I’ve heard second-hand. A YouTuber reached out to a DMs Guild creator to ask for a free copy of a PDF sold on the DMs Guild so they could review it and consider it. The DMs Guild creator shared the PDF. The YouTuber created similar mechanics for his Patrons, added them to a book, and never credited the original guild creator. An excited YouTube commenter went to the YouTuber’s video and asked if he had seen the DMs Guild content since it was similar and the commenter liked it so much. The YouTuber replied that they had not heard of it but would be eager to check it out.
I was shocked to hear this.
Please stop acting like you’re geniuses who come up with your ideas without inspiration or assistance.
Respect Your Audience
In conclusion, I want content creators to respect their audience and customers. Using the disingenuous arguments I mentioned earlier against people who bought your product in good faith is garbage. Own up to mistakes, put in the due diligence, and release proper products for the people whose trust you’ve earned.
Third-party content needs to be better. It should set the standard for what WotC must produce to earn your dollar. Does content need to be perfect? Of course not, but there is a clear standard that we should all aspire to when selling homebrew.
Let’s be better. Rant over.
